A novel challenge presents itself when the law requires a pharmacist be on site to perform their required duties, such as destroying unused medications, however a skilled nursing facility is not allowing them to enter the property due to a pandemic. Current laws regarding drug destruction are unclear and vastly differ among the states. At times, there is even conflict between skilled nursing facility laws and regulations with pharmacy laws and regulations. This legal analysis reveals that the states are divided into 4 general groupings. 1) Where a pharmacist is physically required on site to destroy medications, 2) a pharmacist is not needed on site to destroy medications, 3) a pharmacist is likely not needed on site to destroy medications; however, the terms “witness” and “presence” are not defined and 4) it is unknown based on the states laws whether a pharmacist is required on site to destroy medications. States would benefit from amending their laws and regulations to explicitly allow pharmacists to either destroy medications themselves when onsite or delegate the drug destruction to a trusted, responsible member of the healthcare field so long as the pharmacist is able to virtually witness said destruction.

当法律要求药剂师在现场履行其所需职责（例如销毁未使用的药物）时，一个新的挑战就出现了，但是由于大流行，熟练的护理机构不允许他们进入该物业。目前关于药物销毁的法律尚不清楚，各州之间也存在很大差异。有时，专业护理机构法律法规与药房法律法规之间甚至存在冲突。该法律分析表明，各州分为 4 个一般分组。1) 如果现场需要药剂师来销毁药物，2) 现场不需要药剂师来销毁药物，3) 现场可能不需要药剂师来销毁药物；然而，“证人”和“在场”这两个词没有定义，4) 根据国家法律，是否需要药剂师在现场销毁药物是未知的。各国将受益于修改其法律和法规，明确允许药剂师在现场自行销毁药物，或将药物销毁委托给医疗保健领域可信赖、负责任的成员，只要药剂师能够虚拟见证所述销毁。