Another consideration is that the pharmacist is an employee of a company. If the company has that item in their stock, that would mean it's a personal decision of the pharmacist to not sell it. If the pharmacist sold something illegally, the company would be liable, and in this instance it was legal for her to buy it and the company is also liable in this case. Seems like the company needs to clarify their position, and either fire this pharmacist or stop carrying that product. Take a stand either way and live by the consequences (profits).
Another consideration is that the pharmacist is an employee of a company. If the company has that item in their stock, that would mean it's a personal decision of the pharmacist to not sell it. If the pharmacist sold something illegally, the company would be liable, and in this instance it was legal for her to buy it and the company is also liable in this case. Seems like the company needs to clarify their position, and either fire this pharmacist or stop carrying that product. Take a stand either way and live by the consequences (profits).
Another consideration is that the pharmacist is an employee of a company. If the company has that item in their stock, that would mean it's a personal decision of the pharmacist to not sell it. If the pharmacist sold something illegally, the company would be liable, and in this instance it was legal for her to buy it and the company is also liable in this case. Seems like the company needs to clarify their position, and either fire this pharmacist or stop carrying that product. Take a stand either way and live by the consequences (profits).