I don't think I've ever witnessed a professor fail harder than Papa Joe failed this morning. The kicker is after all the debate and hand-wringing we've had in this class over "how subjective the law is" and "how open to interpretation it is" and all this that and the other. The reality appears to be they don't get it.
And I hate to be that blunt, and I hate to be an ass (whereas usually I derive great pleasure from such activities) -- but there doesn't seem to be much debate to be had here. The law is as follows:
"No pharmacy, pharmacist, or agent thereof shall accept for reuse or resale a prescription drug. This administrative regulation shall not apply to sealed/unopened unit dose, unit of use or tamper resistant drug."
Real open to interpretation isn't it? Sorry Papa Joe -- you're wrong. Uncle Pete was right. Now gimme all two of those points.
I AM THE LAW!
Oh and the KASPER question? Yeah, apparently the correct answer is that we can take the guy's driver's license number right? Too bad thats not what the law says. 902 KAR 55:110 Section 5 point 2: If a patient is an adult who does not have a Social Security number, the patient’s driver’s license number shall be disclosed.
Guy in the question had a SSN, just "forgot it at home," i.e. he has one. And it bear's repeating:
I AM THE LAW!
How classic is it that he chastised us for not reading the regs that Bouvy sent us and then didn't bother reading the second half of the one he put on the projector?
Awesome:
No comments:
Post a Comment