THE ALUMNI JOURNAL 37 



monopoly, whose selling agents are in London, are controlled by the 

 latter, and also the exact amount they may get. In other words, ti:e 

 amount of celluloid any celluloid maker can make depends upon the 

 amount of influence he can bring to bear upon the selling agents of 

 camphor to favor him at the expense of his competitors. 



The only synthetic camphor so far commercially on the market is 

 that produced by Schering, in Germany, and of this quite a quantity 

 comes to this country. It sells at about the same price as the natural 

 camphor. The British Camphor Company of London is operating the 

 Behal process with success, but they have not yet had time to develop 

 their plant to the same extent as has Schering, as he has been at it for 

 several years. 



It is a question of a few years only when there will be produced as 

 much artificial camphor as there is natural now consumed, for the 

 output is only limited by the amount of turpentine available, and with 

 any kind of forestry regulation by the United States government or, 

 better, the state governments, Georgia, Florida, South and North 

 Carolina, can be practically made greater rather than less. — Ph. Era. 



AN ENGLISH VIEW OF THE RIGHT TO A PRESCRIPTION. 



A patient in England brought his child for advice to a medical prac- 

 titioner in dispensing practice, and after a few weeks treatment the 

 practitioner took the child to a consultant at the request of the father. 

 No prescription was written at the consultation, and only a slight addi- 

 tion suggested to the previous treatment. Two months afterward the 

 father asked for a copy of the prescription, for which the practitioner 

 demanded a fee ; this the father refused to pay, and contended that he 

 had the right to have a copy without payment. The following ques- 

 tions were submitted to the British Medical Journal: (i) Was the 

 doctor within his rights in demanding a fee? (2) If a prescription had 

 been given at the consultation, would the doctor still be within his 

 rights, two months having elapsed? (3) To whom does a prescription 

 given at a consultation belong? We think, says the British Medical 

 Journal, it will make it clearer if in our reply we alter the order in 

 which these questions have been put to us: (3) A prescription given 

 or sent by a consultant to the practitioner in charge belongs to the 

 patient; (i) the practitioner would not be justified in demanding a fee 

 for the prescription, or for a copy of it; (2) as in the present case no 

 prescription existed, the request should have been met by a statement 

 to that efifect, but by ofifering to give a copy of the prescription on the 

 payment of a fee the position is weakened, and the practitioner is in 

 this dilemma : that, if there is a prescription agreed to at the consulta- 

 tion, the patient, or the patient's father, has a right to a copy; and if 

 no such prescription exists, there can be no question of giving a copy 

 on the payment of a fee. — American Druggist. 



