Cacciatore G G
Department of Clinical Sciences and Administration, University of Houston College of Pharmacy, Tex, USA.
J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 1996 Nov;NS36(11):651-4.
Arbor Drugs, Inc., advertised that its computer could detect dangerous drug interactions. A pharmacist failed to warn a patient accordingly and the patient suffered a stroke as a result of an interaction between tranylcypromine and a decongestant. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that this failure to warn was actionable under the theories of negligence and fraud as well as under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The court's basic message is that pharmacies may be held legally responsible for preventing harm when they represent themselves as being capable of doing so.
阿伯制药公司宣称其计算机能够检测出危险的药物相互作用。一名药剂师未据此警告一名患者，该患者因反苯环丙胺和解充血药之间的相互作用而中风。密歇根上诉法院认为，这种未作警告的行为根据过失、欺诈理论以及《密歇根消费者保护法》是可诉的。法院的基本观点是，当药店宣称自己有能力预防伤害时，它们可能会被追究法律责任。
