Logic has little to do with the law.
You said it all right there...
Prescriptions are between a doctor and a patient. A school nurse is required to have written permission from the parent to administer said medication. The parent can choose to personally medicate the child, medicate the child outside of school hours, or have the nurse do it for them with written permission.
She didn't have to administer it... the principal could have simply returned what was his, and legally prescribed by his physician. If you say they are looking at it from a liability perspective, I would think there is more liability for the prescribing physician than the school employee. What's the worst that could happen by giving a child a prescription inhaler with his name and doctor's name on it? He breathes again? It's not like they were loose hydrocodone pills in a ibuprofen bottle. Plus, you and I both know schools keep a running file on students and that this medical condition was noted, probably multiple times throughout his file. In an emergency, call the 911... call the parents... call the doctor... call the pharmacist. Watching him choke out does not seem like a valid medical response.
I know and understand that part of the problem is that parents are so litigation-happy these days and will sue for anything. Part of mitigating that is making a decision of lesser evils. Will the parent be more pissed if their kid is dead or given a prescription which he is legally prescribed? I'd choose the latter.
Edit: This post was edited by the redundancy department of redundancy.
Edited by road2freedom, 26 May 2012 - 09:50 AM.