BMJ

The Pharmacy BillAuthor(s): George WebsterSource: Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal (1844-1852), Vol. 16, No. 9 (Apr. 28, 1852), pp.225-226Published by: BMJStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25493379 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 12:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

BMJ is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Provincial Medical and SurgicalJournal (1844-1852).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.152 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:30:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PHARMACY BILL. 225

sympathy;?which listens to the voice of real distress I

and promptly relieves;?which reinstates the pecuniary I

beggar to his lost position in society, and which restores j to him the means of again providing for his family ; and

which enables the widow to support her helpless orphans. Allow me, therefore, Mr. Editor, to press the claims

of this Institution upon the notice of your readers, and

to ask each individually if he has done what he could in

support of this purely Christian fund.

I have no jealousy towards the local provident funds,? I have no jealousy towards the British Medical Fund,?

. I have no jealousy towards the Medical Benevolent

College: I envy them not their successes?I support them all; but I must say that no one, nor all combined, can ever supply the place of the Medical Benevolent

Fund.

It has been asserted by a correspondent in your last

journal, that we ignore the existence of the local funds; but this is a mistake, we have known and acknowledged their value to a far greater extent than Dr. Soulby, who

appears not to be aware of the existence of several. But

we have always contended, and we still assert, that these

funds relieve their members only,?that their members

are entitled to relief,?that as such they are truly

provident funds, and not benevolent, except in the limited

sense attached to all other mutual insurance societies.

It is often suggested to me, that it is a pity there

should be so many funds with allied objects, and that

it would be better to have one comprehensive fund, and

combine all the objects by one machinery. But, as I

have already stated, all the funds combined cannot

supply the place of the Medical Benevolent Fund; and

there can be no amalgamation, because the principle

upon which we proceed is dissimilar. Ours is truly

charitable, all others are partly provident. It is quite

true, that if the other funds choose to make over their

resources to our fund, we could dispense them ; and as

the far older and long-tried society, we have a claim

which more modern institutions have not. But this

project they will never adopt, and it is obvious that we

dare not give up our funds and our principle at the

same time, and hand over to others the distribution of

the means which have been intrusted to us. It has

been suggested to me. that all these objects might be

combined, though not amalgamated, and that by a

compulsory payment from every individual employed in

the profession. I will not say what I think of such a

compulsory provision, except that it is not charity, and

to ask " Who will bell the cat ?"

And now, Mr. Editor, let me seriously inquire of

each one of your readers,?Have you yet cast in your mite to the treasury of the Benevolent Fund ? Have

you done what you could to relieve professional dis

tress ; or have you been determined to ignore its

existence, except in a shape in which it may be provided

against ? Have you listened to that feeble cry of the

helpless orphan, or have you determined to pass it by, with a cold reference to the fact, that the father might have provided for the day of distress and destitution ?

Have you lefc it to the rich and prosperous (the few) to

make up for that which can only be thoroughly accom

plished by the combination of the many ? Have you

forgotten the aged widows, who now depend upon our

fund for their only sustenance: or have you "

remlm

bered to forget" their wants; and because you do not see those wants, have you persuaded yourself that there are none such in existence ?

And Mr. Editor, let me most earnestly entreat your readers' attention to the facts of the case, and let them not listen to the arts of evading a charitable subscription ; let them not be as the priest and the Levite which passed by on the other side ; but let them emulate the good Samaritan, who proved himself to be the neighbour of the wretched and the miserable, by relieving their dis tress ;?let me earnestly beseech them to listen to the voice of conscience, and to that still small word of affectionate interest which proceeds from the heart;? let them in this instance listen to their feelings, and

what the heart prompts let the hand execute directly;? and then may the tired head rest upon its pillow at

night with the soothing reflection of having done what it could for others as well as for himself, and of having executed one grand Christian duty, for ths "greatestof these is charity."

1 remain, Mr. Editor, yours faithfully, W. NEWNHAM, Treasurer.

P.S. There are a few persons in arrear with their

subscriptions. I trust the present appeal will remind them of their debt, and of the necessity for payment.

THE PHARMACY BILL.

To the Editor of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal.

Sir,?I am anxious to call the attention of the provin cial general practitioners to the "

Pharmacy Bill" of Mr.

Jacob Bell, which has been silently but surely passing

through the House of Commons. It has hitherto met

with little or no opposition, the Medical Times being the only journal which has made any stand against it. I think the Lancet and your journal* have each noticed

it with a rather laudatory leading article, which I re

gretted to see, because I feel assured that without con

siderable modifications and safeguards to prevent chemists and druggists from acting as medical practi

tioners, the Pharmacy Bill will prove highly injurious to the public and to surgeons in general practice. I

have just addressed a letter to the editor of the Lancet

on the subject, which, as containing my sentiments more

at length, you will much oblige me by inserting in the

next number of your journal. I would only further remark that there is no time to

lose. Evidence is about to be given against the bill in

its present state before the Select Committee, but

should the necessary alterations not be made, I would

recommend that the measure be opposed in toto. This

might be effectually done by even a single practitioner in every parliamentary district signing a petition against the measure and entrusting it to his own member for

presentation. In the meantime I beg the serious attention of all

general practitioners to the bill, and to its probable effects on their prospects. I can quite understand why

This is a mistake, no such article hating appealed in this journal.? Ed. Jock*.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.152 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:30:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

226 TREATMENT OF THE INSANE.

the Colleges, who have so frequently neglected or

opposed the interests of the general practitioner, are

supporting the bill! The suicidal conduct of the

Society of Apothecaries, who I understand are not

opposing the measure, and are thus betraying the

interests of their Licentiates, I confess I do not com

prehend. I am, Sir, in haste, yours faithfully,

GEORGE WEBSTER.

April 21, 1852.

To the Editor of the Lancet.

Sir,?I am much surprised at the apathy which

seems to pervade the ranks of the general practitioners, both in London and the provincial towns, respecting the

" Pharmacy Bill." That measure has been read a

second time in the House of Commons, and is now in

Committee, and if not strenuously opposed, has every

prospect of passing both Houses of Parliament, and

becoming the law of the .land. You, Sir, are a member

of the Select Committee now sitting on the Bill, and I

cannot help thinking that you are either deceived as to

its probable effects, or that you are not as usual sensi

tively alive to the interests of the public and of sur

geons in general practice. I am strongly of opinion that should the Pharmacy

Bill pass into a law, it will most injuriously affect the

public, and seriously interfere with the legal practitioners of medicine. No man knows better than you do the

frightful extent to which chemists assume the functions

of medical men, and the fearful consequences which

result from " counter practice," and even domiciliary visits. The present bill gives full power to the Pharma

ceutical Society (already incorporated under a Royal

Charter) to regulate with all the machinery of a Royal

College the affairs and government of the chemists and

druggists of England and Wales; and not contented with this, they wish to assume the same power over the chemists of Scotland. They contend not only for

registration, and full power to make such bye-laws as

they may think proper, without any control, but also for the sole regulation of the education and examination of all their future members.

And what is to be the course of their examination ?

Why?in the classics, \n dispensing and prescriptions, in botany, in chemistry, in materia medica, in pharmacy, and in toxicology, which last word may include almost

anything pertaining to the practice of medicine. I am

rather surprised indeed that midwifery was not also

included, which some chemists now boldly assume

the right of practising.

Now, Sir, I ask my medical brethren, and I ask you, whether, with these considerable fragments of a medical

education, the future race of chemists will not, on the

strength of their examinations, and a showy diploma placed in their windows, most egregiously deceive themselves as to their amount of medical knowlege, and also sadly deceive the public into a belief that they are perfectly qualified to treat and cure diseases ? My firm conviction is, that by the passing of the Pharmacy Bill,

" counter practice "

and the treatment of diseases

by chemists, which now obtain to such an extent, will be increased at least ten-fold; and I look upon the measure as being fraught with great danger to the

public, and with great injury to medical men. Even the present race of chemists will, I presume, be entitled under the Act to another flaring diploma, and will con sider themselves as better qualified by such a licence to

pursue their present dangerous career. I do not for a moment mean to charge the more

respectable houses in London and in the larger towns with resorting to such dangerous practices; and I am

convinced that Mr. Jacob Bell, and you, Sir, and others, may believe that this bill is calculated to prevent rather than promote the evils of which I complain. I regret that after much consideration of the subject I cannot entertain this view; and I know that many of my

medical friends fully agree with me in the opinion which I have thus expressed.

It will naturally be asked what remedy I propose ?

Let me say at once that I would not object to the

education of chemists under proper regulations. /

simply object to their assumptio?i of functions for which

they are not educated. They may dispense the pre

scriptions of physicians and surgeons, and they may vend all the usual medicines ad libitum, except the

strong poisons, such as arsenic (already guarded),

prussic acid, oxalic acid, opium and its preparations,

chloroform, Sec., which ought to have been included in

the arsenic bill. I would not prevent their doing any

thing which belongs legitimately to the trade or business

of a chemist, but I would propose that a clause should

be introduced into the bill, making it penal for a chemist

to prescribe for, or treat diseases, or to act in any way as a legally qualified medical practitioner. I would

restrict the chemists of this country as the pharmaciens of France and other parts of the Continent are restricted, and I would despise the maudlin nonsense respecting " the liberty of the subject in this free country," and

would consider that as salutary and requisite which

should evidently prevent the destruction of life or health.

If Mr. Jacob Bell should object to such a clause, I

would call on you, Sir, and on my medical brethren to

I oppose the Pharmacy Bill by every means within their

reach.

There are other objections to the Bill, such as its

inappropriateness pending a general measure of Medidal

Reform. I object also to the creation of a new Corpo ration with Parliamentary powers, when, in fact, the

chemists ought to be joined to the Society of Apothe caries, whose present functions (which they are seriously

neglecting if they assent to the Pharmacy Bill) must

soon necessarily cease. But your space and my time are both exhausted.

I remain, Sir,

Yours faithfully,

GEO. WEBSTER, M.D.

Dulwich, April 21, 1852.

TREATMENT OF THE INSANE. .

To the Editor of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal.

Sir,?I have the honour of acknowledging and

thanRing you for the insertion of my letter of the 25th ' of February in ycur journal of the 17th inst., and

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.152 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:30:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions