Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:10:42.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There a Pharmacist-Patient Privilege?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

David B. Brushwood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Under a variety of circumstances, courts of law have attempted to compel pharmacists to publicly disclose confidential information contained within the pharmacists’ prescription drug records. The disclosure of patient medication records maintained by a pharmacist has been sought in a civil action against a drug manufacturer, a child custody proceeding, a civil action against a physician, and criminal prosecutions of a pharmacist and a physician A request for production of clearly confidential information places the pharmacist in a dilemma. The Code of Ethics of the American Pharmaceutical Association allows for the unauthorized release of a pharmacist's professional records only where it is required in the best interests of the patient or demanded by the law. Therefore, pharmacists have sought judicial clarification of the circumstances under which the law demands the release of information contained within confidential patient medication records.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 63 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Rudnick v Superior Court of Kern County, 114 Cal. Rptr. 603 (Cal. 1974).Google Scholar
Green v Superior Court, 33 Cal. Rptr. 604 (Cal. App. 1963).Google Scholar
Springer v Greer, 341 So.2d 212 (Fla. App. 1977).Google Scholar
State v Mark, 597 P.2d 406 (Wash. App. 1979).Google Scholar
State v Best, 233 S.E.2d 544 (N.C. 1977).Google Scholar
Myers, M.J. Ethics, , in Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences (Osol, A., ed.) (Mack Publishing Co., Easton, Pa.) (1980).Google Scholar
See generally 97 C.J.S. Witnesses §252.Google Scholar
Wigmore, Evidence, §§2290, 2380, 2395 (McNaughton rev. 1961).Google Scholar
Vacco, P.J., The Physician-Patient Privilege: Should The Pharmacist Be excluded? Journal of Legal Medicine 2(3): 399, 401 (1981).Google Scholar
Brown v. Hannibal and St. Joseph R.R. Co., 66 Mo. 588, 597 (1877).Google Scholar
Deutschmann v Third Ave. R. Co., 84 N.Y.S. 887 (N.Y. App. 1903).Google Scholar
Id. at 894.Google Scholar
In re Miner's Will, 133 N.Y.S.2d 27, 28 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. Kings County 1954).Google Scholar
Hine, H.B., Pharmacists and the Physician-Patient Privilege (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society For Pharmacy Law) (April 27, 1981) at 12.Google Scholar
Green, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id. at 604.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 605.Google Scholar
Id. at 607.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Rudnick, , supra note 1, at 609.Google Scholar
Id. at 608; Cal. Evid. Code §912(d) (West 1984).Google Scholar
Rudnick, , supra note 1, at 6090–10.Google Scholar
Id. at 609.Google Scholar
State v Mark, supra note 4, at 407.Google Scholar
Id. at 407–08; Wash. Rev. Code §18.64.245 (1978).Google Scholar
State v Mark, supra note 4, at 408.Google Scholar
Annot., 10 A.L.R.4th 552, 557 (1981).Google Scholar
Note, Prescriptions as an Extension of the Doctor-Patient Relationship, Cleveland State Law Review 22(3): 549, 559 (1973).Google Scholar
Kessler v Troum, 392 A.2d 662, 662 (N.J. Super. 1978).Google Scholar
Id. at 664.Google Scholar
Id. at 665.Google Scholar
Simonsmeier, L.M., Invasion of Privacy, Rx Ipsa Loquitur 10(10): 1 (October 1983).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
National association of Boards of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Laws 1982–1983 (NABP, Chicago, Ill.) (1982) at 24.Google Scholar
Id. at 25.Google Scholar
Greenfield, A. Hirsch, H.L., Pharmacist Liability in Tort, Medical Trial Technique Quarterly 29: 434, 447 (1983).Google Scholar
Brushwood, D.B., The Informed Intermediary Doctrine and The Pharmacist's Duty to Warn, Journal of Legal Medicine 4(3): 349, 351–52 (1983).Google ScholarPubMed
Patterson Drug Co. v. Kingery, 305 F. Supp. 821, 824 (W.D. Va. 1969).Google Scholar
Supermarkets General Corp. v. Sills, 225 A.2d 728, 735 (N.J. App. 1966).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. §249.13(7)(iv) (1982).Google Scholar
See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
Roe v. Ingraham, 403 F. Supp. 931, 938 (S.D.N.Y. 1975), reversed sub nom. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977).Google Scholar
Roe v. Ingraham, supra note 44, at 937.Google Scholar
429 U.S. 589, 603–04 (1977).Google Scholar
Id. at 602.Google Scholar
Id. at 605–06.Google Scholar
Springer v. Greer, supra note 3, at 213.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 213–14.Google Scholar
In re “B”, 394 A.2d 419, 426 (Pa. 1978).Google Scholar
In re June 1979 Allegheny County Investigating Grand Jury, 415 A.2d 73, 77–78 (Pa. 1980).Google Scholar