Hooks v. McLaughlin Case

Hooks v. McLaughlin Case

Introduction

The profession of healthcare is trusted for their qualification, competency level and caring attitude for treatment of curing of the patient. Gone are the days when medical practitioners were known for their power and autonomous decisions with regards to patient without involving them but now their professional authority and freedom is being challenged by different common laws and viewpoints. The main reason behind this challenge is the empowerment of patients with regard to making decisions in relation to their treatment and medication. Patients have the right to know everything with respect to their medical condition or disease so that they can participate more actively in the decision making process. Basic ethics and guidelines are present to drive allied health professional in the right direction but increased no. of negligence cases calls for more vigilant attitude.

Discussion

The case of McLaughlin V. Hooks SuperX Pharmacy is basically a Case Law which refers to a common law of negligence that is developed by the courts through their written decision (Bopp & Smith, 2011). It is related to the Supreme Court of Indiana in the year 1994 in which the pharmacist was blamed for filling up the prescription irresponsibly when he knew that the user or the client McLaughlin was using the drugs at a faster rate and in much larger quantities than required. There were two pharmacists involved in this case who were held responsible for their acts. According to this case the pharmacist were accused of committing a breach of their duty and not acting alert towards McLaughlin's situation and he should have known that the customer was using the drugs more frequently and it may pose serious threats to his health (Smith, 2012).

The Supreme Court of Indiana after hearing both the sides decided that it is the basic duty of pharmacist to take care and not refill prescription of drug that is addictive at faster rate that prescribed or required since he had the background information on the patient. It is their affirmative duty to no provide them with such drugs when he can notice that customer's rate of consuming drugs is abnormally high and points towards addiction. The consumer drug in this case was propxyphene which was basically prescribe to McLaughlin for his back injury but also has addictive properties when consume in large quantity and frequency (American Journal of Law and Medicine, 1994).

In the ...