288 



THE ALUMNI JOURNAL. 



to publish the results of mental processes 

 intended solely for the benefit of him 

 who seeks, and compensates for, their 

 aid. The patient may be said to own 

 the prescription because he paid for it. 

 The physician owns it because he is its 

 author, and he can prevent its publica- 

 tion, and enjoin its use by or for another 

 than the patient for whom he prescribed 

 it. The apothecary owns it in so far as 

 he has a right to its retention in self- 

 protection against charges of unskillful 

 compounding or use of improper ingre- 

 dients. The prescription itself is functus 

 officio. A physician might print the 

 words: " Not to be repeated " across the 

 face of the prescription and thus raise an 

 implied contract not to use it again. 

 The prescription book is the property of 

 the pharmacist as against all the world, 

 but physician and patient, and he should 

 in all cases insist upon the retention of 

 the original and not of a mere copy. I 

 understand that it has been held in Mas- 

 sachusetts that the sale of prescription 

 books can be restrained, and that they 

 are not subject to sale on execution to 

 satisfy creditors' claims. 



A prescription cannot be used again if 

 the physician forbid it. In New York by 

 the laws of 1887, ch. 636, refilling more 

 than once prescriptions of opium or mor- 

 phine, or preparations of either, in which 

 the dose exceeds ^ grain, except upon 

 the verbal or written order of a physician, 

 is made a misdemeanor. If a patient puts 

 up a prescription as a patent medicine 

 and advertises it in the name of a physi- 

 cian, he might be liable to an action for 

 libel. 



Clark vs. Freeman, n Beav.112. 



If a physician prescribes an overdose 

 of a poisonous drug, and the druggist 

 noticing that fact calls on the physician 

 who directs him, notwithstanding, to 

 dispense it, and the patient sustains 

 bodily injury, or dies in consequence of 



the drug, both physician and druggist 

 would be liable, though the latter is a 

 lesser degree. The law does not compel 

 a druggist to fill every prescription pre- 

 sented any more than is a physician com- 

 pelled to treat every one who comes to 

 him. If, then, a druggist, despite his 

 conviction as a professional man, of its 

 dangerous character, compound such a 

 prescription, he, too, assumes a share in 

 the risk and must abide by the conse- 

 quences. His remedjr is to refuse to fill 

 it. It is his duty to be upon his guard 

 against errors and he compounds them at 

 his peril. 



In Massachusetts a joint action was 

 sustained against physician and druggist 

 because of an erroneous prescription 

 written by the one and filled by the 

 other. 2 Hilliard on Sorts p. 297 note a. 

 As Judge F. C. Brewster, said in Com- 

 monwealth vs. Bauer, Phila- , Oyer and 

 Terminer, April 1869, "if the exercise of 

 reasonable care would have warned him 

 that he was preparing something which 

 would inevitable kill, it would be crimi- 

 nal for him to go on." But the negli- 

 gence of the druggist must be established 

 affirmatively. Mere inference will not 

 suffice. The circumstances of each case 

 must, however, be consulted. No uni- 

 versal rule can be formulated. But neg- 

 ligence has been declared to be the om- 

 mission to do something which a reason- 

 able man, guided by those considerations 

 which ordinarily regulate the conduct of 

 human affairs would do, or the doing of 

 something which a reasonable and pru- 

 dent man would not do. 



A druggist is often called upon to act 

 quasi in the capacity of a physician. He 

 runs the risks of prosecution if he does 

 so. In later days such cases have be- 

 come fewer, and the frequent prosecu- 

 tions of the County Medical Societies 

 have had beneficial results. On the 



