My brothers suicide

[justalayman]

Subsections D and G look fairly close to me.

I'm not saying that it's a clear case of practicing without a license. But more importantly, I'm not saying that it's not.

D: counseling them in their treatment

in a really long stretch, maybe but I think the more accepted definition of the section would not be a basis for arguing they were practicing pharmacy. As I suggested earlier, I guess if I told somebody drinking X ounces of strychnine would be lethal, I would be guilty of practicing pharmacy too. It is quite a stretch to suggest telling somebody how much of any specific drug could be lethal into practicing pharmacy.


(G) Advising an individual and the health care professionals treating an individual with regard to the individual's drug therapy;

again, a really long stretch to make telling a person how much of a drug is lethal and calling that their "drug therapy"


but I guess that makes every mom in the state guilty of practicing pharmacy when counseling and especially recommending medications to their own children.

You seem to be making the connection merely because they are pharm students (not licensed pharmacists or even graduated from pharm school). Would you feel the same if a laymen was the person recommending to the brother what a lethal dosage would be?






as always, a poster is free to speak with an attorney. Personally, in this situation, I do not see practicing pharmacy as an issue. I see this more as an aggrieved person trying to find an answer to why their brother did what he did. They want somebody to be held accountable for his actions as they likely refuse to accept he made the decision to do what he did but somehow had to be coerced into acting. Not unusual for a close associate of a person who commits suicide.

 

[Adam G]

[/quote]

Not to offend you but there is no similarity between the two situations. Not even close.

Well thanks for clearing that up for us. That's the kind of see no evil response that I was talking about.

As I suggested earlier, I guess if I told somebody drinking X ounces of strychnine would be lethal, I would be guilty of practicing pharmacy too.

Or if I lost my license and still gave out legal advice.

Or if I was a layman on a message board giving out legal advice.

Just sayin.

It is quite a stretch to suggest telling somebody how much of any specific drug could be lethal into practicing pharmacy.

What if you told somebody how draft a will? Or get out of a speeding ticket?

Here's the statute in question:

(28) “Practice of pharmacy” means:

(a) The interpretation and evaluation of prescription orders;

(b) The compounding, dispensing and labeling of drugs and devices, except labeling by a manufacturer, packer or distributor of nonprescription drugs and commercially packaged legend drugs and devices;

(c) The prescribing and administering of vaccines and immunizations pursuant to ORS 689.645;

(d) The administering of drugs and devices to the extent permitted under ORS 689.655;

(e) The participation in drug selection and drug utilization reviews;

(f) The proper and safe storage of drugs and devices and the maintenance of proper records therefor ;

(g) The responsibility for advising, where necessary or where regulated, of therapeutic values, content, hazards and use of drugs and devices;

(h) The monitoring of therapeutic response or adverse effect to drug therapy; and

( i ) The offering or performing of those acts, services, operations or transactions necessary in the conduct, operation, management and control of pharmacy.

ORS 689.005 Definitions (Oregon Revised Statutes (2011 Edition)) (Emphasis added)


Spin this around. Pretend you're a lawyer, which apparently most of this board does in every post. Would you advise this student that giving out advice on how to use certain drugs that you know will ensure somebody's death would be perfectly acceptable and there's no risk on the student's part? That'd be completely absurd and you'd be an awful lawyer.

 

[justalayman]

Adam G;3053120]Well thanks for clearing that up for us. That's the kind of see no evil response that I was talking about.

Ok, let me expand on that.

It's like me hanging out on a medical forum and telling people if they have cancer, you know?

first, cancer is a factual situation. There is no opinion. You either have it or you don't. The law is based on opinion. Those vary greatly based on the education, research, and myriad other means used in coming to that opinion of the entity expressing the opinion. Whether the opinion expressed is of any value is of any importance is determined by what capacity that person is acting. A lawyers opinion is not worth a lot other than they have been through the educational process to be able to learn how to attempt to come to a proper opinion. Now, a judges opinion, whether they have had that same schooling or not is much more important, simply because they are in the position that allows their opinion to be enforced.

Now, with cancer, a person cannot describe a symptom and the end result being a diagnosis of cancer without further testing. It is, at best, a guess. With the law, the opinion expressed by any given party may be 100% correct, without it being a guess.

To diagnose cancer with certainty, the cells of the suspected tissue must be viewed in order to determine if it is cancer. I cannot see how you can do that on an internet forum. You can research a legal issue and, of course, given only the information provided which may or may not be complete, come to an accurate conclusion on an internet forum.

So, the similarities between a med forum and a legal forum get down to realizing they are both forums. The opinion or suggestion given is only as good as the person giving it and the information provided. When you can diagnose a person with cancer over the internet, I think you can quit your day job. When you can give a reasonably accurate opinion in a legal matter over the internet, you are just like many other people and need to keep working your day job. You can tell a person they have cancer but obviously you do not have enough information to even venture a guess that is dependable. Not so with a legal issue.

What if you told somebody how draft a will?

that would depend on exactly what I told somebody. Depending on that, it may or may not be considered to be legal advice.

Or get out of a speeding ticket?

same thing.

Here's the statute in question:

(28) “Practice of pharmacy” means:

(g) The responsibility for advising, where necessary or where regulated, of therapeutic values, content, hazards and use of drugs and devices;

again, that makes every parent in Oregon a criminal because they told their kids taking too much of a drug can be dangerous. You are stretching the statute to cover something it was not intended to.

( i ) The offering or performing of those acts, services, operations or transactions necessary in the conduct, operation, management and control of pharmacy.

First, as written, that makes no sense. You do not operate "pharmacy". You can operate "A" pharmacy but you cannot operate pharmacy. I suspect the word "a" is missing. If so, it obviously does not apply since the person was not operating a pharmacy in any stretch of the imagination. If you leave the word "a" out of the sentence and accept they are referring to pharmacy as a synonym for the products dealt with in a pharmacy, again, this makes every parent a criminal. I seriously doubt that was the intent of the statute.

Spin this around. Pretend you're a lawyer, which apparently most of this board does in every post.

Nope. In fact I state the opposite in every post.

Would you advise this student that giving out advice on how to use certain drugs that you know will ensure somebody's death would be perfectly acceptable and there's no risk on the student's part?

It has nothing to do whether they told a person how to commit suicide. Your expressed concern is whether they broke the law concerning the licensing required to act in the capacity of a pharmacist. I don't see anything that would suggest they did. Whether there is any culpability on the part of the student for giving the information on how to commit suicide is a totally different issue and in that issue, I still do not see any such culpability based on the information given.

That'd be completely absurd and you'd be an awful lawyer.

well, I'm not a lawyer so it is a moot point.


btw: do you realize Oregon is one of only 3 states that have legal physician assisted suicide? It is apparent Oregon does accept that in certain circumstances, it is proper for a medical professional to not only allow a person to commit suicide, but to actually prescribe the drugs required to do it. Then, a pharmacist has to fill the prescription and will obviously be aware of the purpose of the drugs. I guess that kind of slaps your argument in the face since providing drugs with the express intent of terminating the patients life is an allowed act. Obviously that doesn't apply in this situation but it defeats your arguments.

http://public.health.oregon.gov/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Pages/ors.aspx