Walgreens v. HIV

Food, recipes, fashion, sport, education, exercise, sexuality, travel.
Post Reply
User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Walgreens v. HIV

Post by RayThom »

It's hard to believe that such discrimination still exists. And all over a simple flu shot.

No wonder they're closing so many of their stores.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND WALGREEN COMPANY UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: DJ# 202-46-178
https://www.ada.gov/walgreens_sa.html
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18297
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Walgreens v. HIV

Post by BoSoxGal »

The nature of flu vaccine administration makes it almost entirely without risk to the provider to give a shot to an HIV positive person - it’s an intramuscular injection and done properly won’t involve blood at all. HIV positive patients can’t use the live attenuated nasal spray flu vaccine.

This provider must have been a total idiot, I can’t imagine it was any kind of company policy and the findings don’t seem to indicate so.

The joys of respondeat superior.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: Walgreens v. HIV

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Without knowing any more than the decision posted by Ray, do we know that this was discriminatory? As in - I'm not giving you a flu shot because you're a bad person. Flu prophylaxis is either the dead virus - the shot - or the live virus which is usually administered by a nasal spray. That would be lethal to someone with a compromised immune system. Shots are OK.

I'm not defending Walgreens but I'm wondering if it's more of a case of confusion on the part of the pharmacist who should know better, rather than a discriminatory act.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Walgreens v. HIV

Post by Scooter »

"Didn't want to" and "didn't believe they could" is a distinction without a difference from perspective of a person seeking health care; they are being unjustifiably denied necessary care in either case.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Walgreens v. HIV

Post by Jarlaxle »

They're closing stores because Rite Aid bought a bunch of the locations. The Walgreens closing are usually very close to a Rite Aid. (They usually keep the larger or newer store open.)

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11264
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Walgreens v. HIV

Post by Crackpot »

Not always there are very few Rite Aids around me when a Walgreens closed the pharmacy directed patients to the CVS 2 miles away even though there was a Rite Aid one mile away and another Wallgreens literally right across the street from the CVS
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Walgreens v. HIV

Post by RayThom »

Walgreens has been financially strapped since blindly investing in the failed Theranos blood test devices. They were making plans to set up blood testing stations in all their major stores before they realized they were duped out of a reported $150M. However, inside sources claim the investment failure was over $250M.

I still feel they are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Walgreens v. HIV

Post by Big RR »

they deserve it for investing in that scheme.

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11264
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Walgreens v. HIV

Post by Crackpot »

Why? Do you feel the same for the victims of Bernie Madoff? If Theranos would urge been half what it claimed it could be it would have been a terrific investment.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Walgreens v. HIV

Post by Big RR »

Sure CP, and if Walgreens had done even a rudimentary investigation of the validity of theranos and its claims, they could have avoided the investment and teaming up with charlatans. Unlike the victims of Madoff, who wer usualy ordinary investors, they clearly had the funds and expertise to do a due diligence, and as far as I can see they let themselves be taken advantage of.

I have been involved in biotech for years and can tell you that there are many charlatans who exist only to separate investors from their money, and cannot tell you the number of times we walked away from deals during due diligence, even times when someone highly placed in my company was promoting it. There are a lot of charlatans in biotech, some who start out that way and others who end up that way when the research goes bad.

So I won't give Walgreens a pass here, nor will I say Theranos is anything but an investment scheme which utilized fraud and misrepresentation to separate people from their money, while clothing it in a hip image which the press ate up (especially Holmes trying to exhibit silicon valley idiosyncrasies because it plyed well at the time). It's amazing how stupid even large compamnies can be.

FWIW, I was once involved in a situation where one of the inventors of a company I worked for falsified his results and was treated very positively by the academic community; it was complicated because some of it was funded by federal grants. We investigated, immediately took efforts to retract the claims made, worked with the granting agency on refunding the monies advanced, and cooperated with an investigation. It wasn't easyto do, but I have little patience with companies that compound lies by more lies, nor with big companies and agencies doing crappy jobs in policing them to give them more clout in the investment community.

Post Reply