GTN (Glyceryl trinitrate) is an alternative name for nitroglycerine (the well-known explosive), used to avoid alarming patients.  Generally it is not a good idea to share medicines especially prescription ones as these have been prescribed for a particular person to deal with their condition taking into account various health factors. GTN is quite a powerful drug and could in the wrong dose,  cause problems.  

 I carry such a spay but never use it, and when I looked at it the spray expired 18 months earlier.

Tell her to carry the spray - why leave it in the car - you never know when it may be needed. Whats the point of having it if its left in the car.

SBH

SBH

Isn't this the prescribing scenario often discussed around FAAW.

"I have a headache"... "here take these" - prescribing

versus

"I have a headache"... "I have some paracetemol in my desk if you want them" - self medication

or

"I have a headache does anybody have any aspirin?" - self diagnosis

Having been administered GTN in A&E I would concur this is not a medicine for sharing

“However there is an employee who also has a heart condition but leaves her spray either in her locker or in her car.”  As several people have pointed out the issue is not whether you should be sharing prescription medicine with someone but why she refuses to carry it with her. Does it spoil the line of her clothes? Is she embarrassed to carry it or does she just expect other people do things for her? This is the sort of thing I’d expect people to carry with them like an inhaler, an EpiPen or insulin.

I once worked with a senior manager who refused to put their own eye drops in; instead they expected the OH adviser (who was a qualified nurse) to do it for them because”That’s what nurses do”   

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Isn't this the prescribing scenario often discussed around FAAW.

"I have a headache"... "here take these" - prescribing

That's not prescribing in the sense of distributing a prescription drug.  It's not illegal to give someone non-prescription drugs you have purchased.  It is illegal to distribute prescription-only drugs unless you have the appropriate authorisations.

Medicines Act 1968 Part III section 58.b. "no person shall administer (otherwise than to himself) any such medical product unless he is an appropriate medical practitioner or a person acting in accordance with the directions of an appropriate practitioner"

Is this your reference? I am struggling with the term "distribute" as this implies some form of transaction which comes under a definition of the offence to supply under The Missuse of Drugs Act 1971

Where is this utopian society where everyone wanders round fully concerned and knowledgable about everyone else (ref also http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t128581-Aspirin)?

In reality:

1) MOST people walk/drive on by with some deliberately altering path to avoid becoming involved

2) Having not become involved you will likely be unaware of the outcome

3) Having not become involved it is unlikely you would be included in any investigation in to cause of death

4) Not being included in the investigation/coroners court you would be unlikely to see the family

You can take solace that some half dozen lives have been improved through presumed organ donation

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Where is this utopian society where everyone wanders round fully concerned and knowledgable about everyone else (ref also http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t128581-Aspirin)?

In reality:

1) MOST people walk/drive on by with some deliberately altering path to avoid becoming involved

2) Having not become involved you will likely be unaware of the outcome

3) Having not become involved it is unlikely you would be included in any investigation in to cause of death

4) Not being included in the investigation/coroners court you would be unlikely to see the family

You can take solace that some half dozen lives have been improved through presumed organ donation

your comments are correctly partly, this instance references someone aware of a condition and is able to help. I do not believe that if 'MOST' as you said knew that their intervention could potentially save a life would, in fact, leave the said person and try not to become involved. Humans, for the most part, have genuine care for them and others around them especially people with a slight medical influence/training. 

Be involved in a collision on a motorway - of the thousands who see, and pass, how many stop?

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Be involved in a collision on a motorway - of the thousands who see, and pass, how many stop?

Off topic, but this is very disingenuous. We are talking about very different things here. Stopping to help on a motorway

1. Puts you and other road users in danger
2. Most people don't have the skills to help, as opposed to giving a spray/aspirin
3. Potentially involves a person seeing a lot of trauma (blood, dead bodies etc.)
4. Isn't immediately obvious how to help
5. You know emergency services will arrive very quickly.

This discussion relates to whether it is ok to treat a person with (what you assume are) obvious symptoms, when you have (what you assume is) an obvious solution? That is a completely different scenario. I, along with many other 1st aiders, have stopped to help casualties outside of the work environment. We don't do this because we are 'special' or against the norm. It is human nature to want to assist if you have the tools/knowledge to do so.

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

This discussion relates to whether it is ok to treat a person with (what you assume are) obvious symptoms, when you have (what you assume is) an obvious solution? 

Getting beyond dangerous assumptions, and back to the question, "is it OK for one colleague to share their prescription medicine with another colleague at work?"

Think we covered it...NO.