The media have discovered pharmacy as a profession to criticize. A decade ago, it was rare to have any criticism of the pharmacy profession in the media, but newspapers, magazines, and television shows are now filled with horror stories of “Danger and the Drugstore” and “Death by Prescription.” In these stories, sad tales are told of patients who were dispensed incorrect medications and suffered terrible adverse effects as a consequence. Some pharmacists have met this criticism with a “kill the messenger” response, refusing to believe that there could be any truth to it. However, most in pharmacy are willing to confess that problems exist with quality in order processing and that the stories ring true at least to a certain degree. In this case, the court reviewed a claim by a pharmacy that publicity regarding pharmacy errors, during a trial for malpractice caused by an alleged pharmacy error, was prejudicial and led to a verdict against the pharmacy. As you read this case, ask yourself what the public’s general impression of pharmacy tends to be and how that general impression may be altered by media coverage of pharmacy error. 

How can the pharmacy profession best respond to such media coverage of pharmacy error? 

Is there validity to the claim that media coverage may bias a jury? 

To what sort of bias is a pharmacist subjected anyway, even if there is no negative media coverage, if the evidence shows that an error occurred?