Mr. Ralph Christofferson
February 14, 2000
Page 2
person "administer[s] any drug or medicine for the use of another." Minn. Stat. § 147.081, subd.
2 (1998). The Nursing Board notes that the term "drug or medicine" is not defined in the MPA
and therefore presumes that it includes both prescription and non-prescription medications.
Accordingly, the Nursing Board concludes that providing non-prescription medications to
another person is a "medical function" that must be delegated to a nurse by a physician. This
office disagrees with the Nursing Board's legal analysis, at least as it applies to situations such as
the one raised by your question.
The Board's position would lead to the conclusion that any parent who gives a child a
1
Tylenol tablet, an antibiotic ointment, or even cough medicine,
would be engaged in the
unauthorized practice of medicine and therefore would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Minn.
Stat. § 147.081, subd. 2 (1998). Similarly, under the Nursing Board's interpretation, any caregiver
or person responsible for the well being of a child, elderly parent, or anybody else would need a
physician's order before providing any over-the-counter medications to that person. This
interpretation would mean that millions of Minnesotans have engaged in an unauthorized
practice of medicine if they have entered a drug store and bought over-the-counter medicines for
use by a family member.
It is well settled under Minnesota law that statutes are to be construed to avoid a result
2
that is "absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable." Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1).
Indeed, our
laws must be construed in a "sensible" fashion. See Thoresen v. Schmahl, 24 N.W.2d 273, 277
(Minn. 1946). As indicated above, the conclusion that, for example, a parent cannot administer
a non-prescription medication to his or her child, absent a physician's order, leads to an absurd
and nonsensical result. Construing the MPA to require a physician's order for the administration
of non-prescription medications in that and similar situations clearly produces the type of result
that must be avoided in interpreting state laws.
Equally absurd and nonsensical is the proposition that a parent cannot request other
persons temporarily responsible for the care of their children to provide the requested non-
prescription medications. Examples of people that parents may entrust with the care of their
1
Under Minnesota law, a parent, guardian, or caretaker "who willfully deprives a child of necessary food, clothing,
shelter, health care, or supervision" is guilty of "neglect or endangerment." Minn. Stat. § 609.378, subd. 1 (1998).
See also Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2(c) (1998) (providing that parents, guardians, and other caregivers must
"supply a child with necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care when reasonably able to do so").
2
See Wegener v. Commissioner of Revenue, 505 N.W.2d 612, 617 (Minn. 1993) (stating that the courts are
"obliged to reject a construction that leads to absurd results" and "it is necessary to look to the purpose for
which the statute was enacted"); see also Guderian v. Olmsted County, 595 N.W.2d 540, 542 (Minn. Ct. App.
1999) (stating that when faced with an "absurd result, courts must look beyond a statute's literal meaning to
ascertain and fulfill the legislature's intent").