244 
THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACY. 
If the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain had nothing further to show 
for its year’s work than the ventilation of the matters enumerated it would have 
done good service, and it is most gratifying to note that some substantial pro- 
gress had been made with both of them. 
NEW SOUTH WALES PHARMACISTS AND THE MEDICAL 
PRACTITIONERS’ BILL. 
The Medical Practitioners’ Bill, recently introduced into the Assembly of New 
South Wales by Dr. Tarrant, appears to have, rightly or wrongly, created 
a good deal of uneasiness to pharmacists in that colony, and our friends across 
the border are, accordingly, to be congratulated on having their fears set at 
rest by the introduction of a clause expressly protecting them from the operation 
of any of its provisions, which might otherwise have been taken advantage of 
to harass and annoy them. It would be a mistake to refer to this result as 
being in any way a “ victory,” for, so far as we can see, there was no intention 
on the part of Dr. Tarrant to circumscribe any of the recognised or prescrip- 
tive rights of pharmacists, the bill simply providing, to use his own words, that 
“unregistered medical men should not assume titles which they had no right to 
assume,” and preventing them from “giving evidence as skilled witnesses in 
courts of law, and from suing for services rendered.” In thus confining the 
scope of the bill, Dr. Tarrant has closely followed the lines of legislation in 
Great Britain, where Parliament has repeatedly refused to grant a monopoly in 
the treatment of disease to medical men, and where, indeed, a Royal 
Commission reported a few years ago that “ we consider it undesirable 
to attempt to prevent unregistered persons from practicing, but we think 
they should be prevented from representing themselves as being registered, 
or from assuming titles which would lead the public to believe that 
they are regular medical men.” In view of these facts, we are not a 
little surprised to find our esteemed contemporary, the Australasian Medical 
Gazette , writing, in its June number, of the New South Wales chemists and 
druggists as being exercised in their minds as to possible interference with their 
gains by “ illegitimate medical practice although, indeed, we must admit that 
the ill-advised proposal to introduce a clause entitling them “to come in and 
register as apothecaries under this Act, and practice as hitherto,” goes far to excuse 
a good many hard words that are hurled at pharmacists in general in the article 
quoted from. In prescribing for slight ailments on which they may be consulted 
by their customers, to whom the fees charged by the medical faculty would 
frequently be a very serious matter, pharmacists are subserving a most useful 
public function ; they do not entice the public by any false pretences to consult 
them ; and should any pharmacist be found taking upon himself the respon- 
sibility of dealing with cases demanding the skill and training of a qualified 
practitioner, no section of the community would more sternly reprobate his 
action than that formed by the members of his own profession. In 
face of these facts we think the Gazette will find it somewhat difficult to 
justify the use of the word “ illegitimate ” to a practice which is certainly not 
illegal, and which has been sanctioned by custom, not only in the colonies, but in 
the mother country. It may possibly refer with triumph to a contemporary 
trade journal, which gravely informs its readers that “ when any pharmacist, 
unqualified as regards medicine or surgery, professes to make up a mixture 
for croup, or liver complaint, or a lotion for skin disease, or prescribes for 
kidney disorders, he exceeds his duty altogether, and renders himself 
