Since drugs are different, I get the caution about sharing them with students for whom they were not prescribed; and the fact that prescribed drugs may not be appropriate for others who may not have been diagnosed with the malady the prescribed drugs are intended treat. The medicine in inhalers can cause heart palpitations and other issues.

That said, this girl did not share Ritalin or Vicodin with another student for the purpose of getting high. She shared an inhaler with a student who was struggling to breathe.

She should be lectured about the dangers of making amateur diagnoses in a middle school gymnasium and sharing medications and sent back to class.

Sending a 13-year-old girl to spend 30 days with hardcore drug addicts, pushers, and thugs (no pun intended) is excessive. How much will her education be set back by that?

Time for the parents of these girls to pull them out of public school. And maybe all parents of asthmatic children should do the same. Obviously the school administrators would rather see your child die than break one of their precious rules.

The fact that an asthma attack can be seriously life threatening far outweighs the teeny tiny minuscule risk that a sufferer who takes a couple puffs from someone else's inhaler will experience any noteworthy side effect. Since both girls have asthma it's very likely they are both quite familiar with that most common medication used to treat it - the one that almost all people with asthma have (albuterol)

What the girls are being punished for is the ignorance of the school officials who probably don't have asthma. Because if one of those school officials did have serious asthma he or she would probably also have an inhaler exactly like the ones those two girls have, would be familiar with the benefits of using it versus the serious risks of not using it during an asthma attack, and would consider the actions of the two girls to be very reasonable under the circumstances.

The parents of the girl who had the asthma attack said, "We just want her back in school, that simple."

What the f**k!! They should get their precious daughter the hell out of there.

The fact that an asthma attack can be seriously life threatening far outweighs the teeny tiny minuscule risk that a sufferer who takes a couple puffs from someone else's inhaler will experience any noteworthy side effect. ~ Posted by: Ken R at January 15, 2016 12:06 PM

Depending upon what other drugs the girl might be on or what other health issues she has, the risks may be more than teeny tiny miniscule.

However, I agree with you that if the girl suffering from the asthma attack is already on Albuterol, the risks involved in her using someone else's inhaler are almost non-existent.

And sharing her inhaler, as I stated before, was not done for an off label purpose. It was done to save the other girl's life. Unbeknownst to many, an asthma attack can be fatal; the disease has a US death toll in the thousands every year.

Would they send this girl to alternative school for performing CPR (assuming she was trained in how and when to do so)?

"Sending a 13-year-old girl to spend 30 days with hardcore drug addicts, pushers, and thugs (no pun intended) is excessive. How much will her education be set back by that?"

Why so negative Conan? Think of all the ways her education has been enhanced. She now has all the contacts she needs to peddle narcotics and other fine less than legal products to the honor roll. The school is helping her learn about entrepreneurship and business management. ;-)

Google: girl almost dies asthma attack school nurse

You will see multiple, different cases where children 7-17 were not allowed to use their inhaler to stop an asthma attack. Some became unconscious and some died.

Some Reasons: No school nurse on duty, the inhaler did not have the studen't name on it, or the inhaler was ok but there was flawed or no paperwork to allow its use.

Consider the nature of bureaucracy.

A teacher, school nurse, principal, or head of the school system is a state bureaucrat. He/She lives a life of rules. He has spent his working-life learning those rules, and that learning was hard for him; he has trouble learning. The rules are simple, specific, numerous, and sometimes contradictory. A large part of his salary is in a deferred pension which can be cancelled for not following the rules. This is the best job he will ever have. He won't be fired for following a rule, any rule, no matter how disastrous the outcome. The excuse "I was only following orders" is absolute in a bureaucracy. Thinking, whatever that is, is not rewarded and can get you fired.

Bureucracies are notorious for not doing anything unless there is a predefined procedure. When in doubt, do without or do nothing. They won't even call the parents unless the proper paperwork has been filled out.

So, teachers and bureaucrats will allow you to die before they will break a rule, as they understand the rule. People come and go, but understand that his job may be at stake.

In the Veteran's Administration hospitals, people are allowed to die rather than get a poor performance rating for delivering slow or inadequate service.

Google: school officials prevent applying sunblock

All over the US, children suffer sometimes extreme sunburn because officials will not allow one student to touch another, or a teacher to touch a student for applying sunblock. State officials occasionally change this policy when outrage breaks out. Children get at least one bad sunburn before the incredulous parents realize that there is an unannounced maze of permissions which must be satisfied. Absent those permissions, teachers and officials put students into the sun for hours on field trips. Sunburn is just not their problem.

This is the government which is supposed to administer medical care to everyone, according to the rules. And, the government cannot be effectively sued, because they are the good guys, doing their best for a better world.

There's an ed blog--Joanne Jacobs, linking and thinking--where this sort of thing comes up from time to time.
The consensus from mostly educators is that you have to be particularly stupid to be a public school administrator. In fact, somehow you got stupider as you attained the position, since, to get there, you had to be able to, say, tie your own shoes.
But it appears that a goodly touch of sadism is a requirement as well.
And power-tripping over those whose position means you're invulnerable.

As one who has asthma, it annoys me to no end that many folks think it is just some sort of quirky behavior; you know, the kind of behavior that some TV sitcom finds cute and funny to make the annoying character even more annoying. As if it is somehow or other a chosen, but harmless and funny, quirk.

To all who have commented here noting what a life-threatening condition it is, I want to say thank you!

And, those teachers, nurses, and school administrators that are stupid to endanger a student's life - well, there are just no words to explain how they can put their own fear of lawsuits before someone's life.

That young girl who willing shared it certainly knows what it is like to not be able to breath because your chest feels like an elephant is sitting on it. It is one of the worst feelings around; nothing else matters if you cannot breath.

At my daughter's elementary school, a 6 year old went through a classmate's backpack and found an EpiPen. The 2nd student had peanut allergies and as her father was a doctor, he had prescribed this for his daughter to use in an emergency.

Student 1 injected herself with the stolen EpiPen.

Do you consider this kind of incident a problem?

What kind of clear and enforceable policy would you implement to deal with it?

@John Smith: not sure why you're asking, it's so basic, why is a policy needed (oh yeah, bureaucracy)?

Sidebar: I've been in or adjacent to Manufacturing my whole life / career, and have observed that people often think that (outcome) is just going to magically manifest without the existence of a system specifically designed to yield (or prevent) that outcome. Sometimes it really is that simple, like making things (food, cars) that people want; but not always. IMHO the biggest barrier to sustained excellence in and from organizations is the variation in priorities and values of its human clients and actors.

Back on topic: Theft. Endangering a schoolmate. Pick one. I believe a typical 6 year old is capable of understanding why this story is a potential tragedy, although I wouldn't expect many of them to figure it out on their own.

Responses in order of importance, most to least: Ensuring the epipen owner's safety. Ensuring public safety. Educating the thief on the consequences of their actions. Education the students why this was a non-starter. Shielding the thief, his or her parents, and, if this gets divisive, advocates from unpleasant consequences. Protecting the school leadership from consequences.

Well, since the other kid was going through someone else's things (wrong) and then stole the EpiPen (wrong), it's that kid's fault if they got sick or died. Let them suffer. They are plenty old enough to know better. It's not like the EpiPen owner injected that kid with it for fun. They had it in their bag in the event they suffered a life-threatening reaction. They didn't cause the problem. The thieving brat did.

I'd rather allow the students to carry their own medications than risk serious complications or death to them by having it locked up somewhere to prevent idiots from getting into it.

John Smith: "What kind of clear and enforceable policy would you implement to deal with it?"

That's a good question. There's probably no single, concrete answer that would be adequate for all situations.

For EpiPens, I would start by having the policy "Keep out of reach of children" printed on the label (Oh, wait a minute, that's already been done). Then I wouldn't allow anyone who couldn't accomplish that policy to have possession of one.

There could be a lot of variables affecting how and to what extent that policy is implemented and enforced:

The age, maturity and judgment of the child, the severity of his allergy, the environment he spends his time in, the activities he engages in, the maturity and judgment of the children and adults around him... all would have to be considered.

It would definitely require an adult level of common sense and judgment, such as that displayed by the two girls in the scenario with the inhaler.

Where I work, we currently have one kid with an allergy to peanuts and two with allergies to tree nuts. The three kids with the allergies have the maturity and judgment to manage their own EpiPens; unfortunately some of the other kids on the unit don't have very good judgment. We keep their EpiPens in a place that's not accessible to the kids, but easily accessible to the adults responsible for their well being and safety.

In a situation where one kid injected herself with another kid's EpiPen, probably the greatest danger would be that the the EpiPen is no longer available for the kid with the allergy.

I don't see why a school with a couple hundred kids wouldn't keep a couple of EpiPens on hand just in case a kid who doesn't have one has a serious allergic reaction. Most schools will trust their staff to use an automated external defibrillator when it's needed, but they can't trust them with an EpiPen?

Uh, by the way, that pen likely cost about $180. The thief got what he got and should have to pay reimbursement. And I don't blame the allergic kid or think they should be held under lock and key. If you have a severe life-threatening allergy to peanuts and some other kid gets peanut butter on you on the playground, how are you gonna get to that epipen in time? I'm saying the fault lies in the thief.

BunnyGirl: "Well, since the other kid was going through someone else's things (wrong) and then stole the EpiPen (wrong), it's that kid's fault if they got sick or died."

The two kids were only six years old. Some hallmarks of that age group are poor judgment and impulsiveness. You wouldn't allow a six-year-old to keep possession of her own EpiPen at school because she might lose it, break it, misplace it, or another six-year-old might make it unavailable to her when she needs it. Life saving medications and devices should be under the control of the adults who are responsible for the care and safety of the kid.

It's very unlikely that an EpiPen would harm the kid who injected herself with it, unless she stuck it in her eye or something. But not having it available could be fatal for the kid who needs it. That's why responsible adults should have control of it.

John Smith @ 2:17;

The only problem I see is theft of a classmate's property.

And, yep, gooseegg has it right - reimburse the cost of the EpiPen. Those things aren't cheap.

As for the kid who stole the device and injected herself; well, most likely she just felt her heart racing and broke out in a sweat. Unless she has a heart problem it shouldn't do much, if any, harm. Her body's reaction might very well have scared the living shit out of her; but, good, maybe that will teach her to keep her hands off other people's belongings.

And if, by chance, serious harm (or even death) happen to the little thief; well, call me cold-hearted, but tough, the little thief shouldn't have taken it in the first place.

Ken R @1:17: "That's why responsible adults should have control of it."

And, therein lies the problem - too many teachers, school nurses, and administrators are NOT being responsible. When the kid needs to use his/her asthma inhaler or an EpiPen seconds count.

To wait for a "responsible" adult to decide what to do, then go down the hall, unlock a cabinet (assuming they don't waste time looking for the key), then come back to the kid (who may very well have passed out by this time) and, finally, try to determine how to use the device/medicine could take minutes. Again, seconds count and the "responsible" adults took a couple of minutes too long - if they act properly at all. Missing paperwork could cause the adult to do nothing due to fear of lawsuits.

And the kid could be dead due to the fear to act by "responsible" adults.

No, I think, even at that young age, the life-saving medicine/device should be in the hands of the responsible child. Now, if a parent decides that their own child isn't responsible enough then, by all means, have the parent meet with the adults in charge of the kid for most of the day and explain the situation to them. The parent should be responsible for educating the adults about how to care for their child if the child cannot take care of him/herself.

Although not exactly the same; there was a kid in my elementary school - from 1st grade to 8th - who was diabetic. He learned from that young age what he could eat and what he couldn't. His mother used to pack his lunch and he knew never to share or swap food items. She even made special diabetic cookies for him; I'm guessing so that he wouldn't feel left out by not having a sweet snack like the other kids have.

So, yea, some kids are responsible and some are not. Let's not punish or endanger those who are responsible because of the ones who aren't. Making a blanket policy to cover every child the same is about the same mentality as those stupid "zero tolerance" policies.

charles: "No, I think, even at that young age, the life-saving medicine/device should be in the hands of the responsible child."

Recipe for disaster right there.

Consider the example of the responsible 13-year-old honor students with asthma in the story above. One girl didn't have her inhaler with her when she needed it; fortunately someone else was able to make one available to her.

It's unlikely that your amazingly responsible child, while engaged in the typical activities of children, will have the live-saving medicine/device with him when he needs it...
...especially if it's a warm, sunny spring day and he's wearing shorts, a t-shirt and tennis shoes, and is on his way to play soccer or baseball...
...especially if the device could be damaged or lost during the activities, or if having it with him might hinder his participation...

...in which cases the remarkably responsible child will probably leave the device in a safe, responsible place - where hopefully the multitude of other ordinary, typically not-so-responsible, mischievous children in his life will leave it alone and not mess with it.

In an emergency, the remarkably responsible child's life will depend on the adults present being able to find out what safe, responsible place he left the medicine/device in, get it for him, and administer it, in the likely event that he's too distressed or disoriented to administer it to himself.

This is often the way it plays out with responsible adults too. I have occasionally administered epinephrine to adults and juveniles who had their EpiPens with them but were in too much distress to use them, or left them somewhere because the activity they were engaged in prevented them from carrying it. I've many times assisted people having asthma attacks with using their inhalers or nebulizers. And I've often assisted diabetics having a hypoglycemic crisis who were too disoriented to even take a few bites of a cookie without help.

Children at risk for life threatening medical emergencies really need responsible adults to help them protect and manage the life-saving medicines/devices they need. If no such responsible adults are present at the school where a child goes, then he may be less at risk having his medicine/device handed over to him. But a school where the adults are less responsible and have poorer judgment than the children is an unsafe place for children to be, especially if they have potentially life threatening medical conditions.

Ken R: "Recipe for disaster right there."

No, Ken, the recipe for disaster is when folks try to force a blanket policy onto everyone.

Absolutely, there are both adults and children who are NOT responsible.

But, why should those who are responsible be held back or have their own well-being endangered because someone else is an idiot?

It's unlikely that your amazingly responsible child, while engaged in the typical activities of children, will have the live-saving medicine/device with him when he needs it... ~ Posted by: Ken R at January 18, 2016 8:25 AM

If he's ever had an asthma attack, he'll have it with him.

Besides, there's no reason the parent can't give one inhaler to the school office personnel and one to the child. It's the restriction of not letting the child carry one that is the recipe for disaster.

charles: "But, why should those who are responsible be held back or have their own well-being endangered because someone else is an idiot?"

They shouldn't. But idiots are a fact of life. You're surrounded by them. And children in school are surrounded by them.

Consider the responsible 6-year-old with a peanut allergy in John Smith's post above. Having her EpiPen in her possession meant it was also accessible to the idiots around her. When one of them stole it, it was no longer available to her. What a disaster it would have been if she didn't find out it was missing until she needed it.

I guess I don't consider it very responsible for the little girl's father to have her keep the medicine her life depends on in her possession when doing so had such a high risk for it being lost, stolen or damaged.

Conan the Grammarian: "If he's ever had an asthma attack, he'll have it with him."

It very often doesn't work out that way in real life. Consider the girl in the story above who had a life threatening asthma attack and didn't have her inhaler with her. They're kids. Common characteristics are immaturity, poor judgment, lack of insight, impulsiveness, absentmindedness, carelessness, distractibility. Lucky for her the other girl had one to lend her.

In seven years as an EMT and 20 years as a registered nurse I can't even count the number of times I've aided someone having an asthma attack who didn't have an inhaler with them. Lucky for them I had one available.

"Besides, there's no reason the parent can't give one inhaler to the school office personnel and one to the child."

Good idea. I think kids who have serious asthma attacks should carry an inhaler with them. And the adults supervising them should frequently remind them to carry it. Inhalers are inexpensive, small enough to easily carry in a pocket, easy to use, and not too easily damaged. And I think the school should have a few inhalers on hand just in case a kid has an asthma attack and doesn't have one because he lost it, had it stolen, broke it, used it up, has chintzy parents, or whatever.

Just for perspective: about 12 people die from allergic reactions to food each year in the U.S. About 50 die from insect stings and bites. A few hundred die from allergic reactions to medications. About 3,600 die from asthma.