308 
LEEDS CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
cure more dangerous diseases, and perhaps wasting the patient’s time by giving him in¬ 
efficient remedies, when time to him was a matter of life and death. 
He (the lecturer) believed that all these one-sided opinions had something right and 
something wrong in them. How much of each might perhaps be ascertained if we could 
answer two questions, which ought always to be kept distinct:—1st. How much counter¬ 
prescribing could a druggist do, according to law ? and 2nd, how much ought he to do 
as a question of right and conscience ? 
(1.) Provided a man called himself a druggist, and not a medical practitioner, the law, 
irrespective of the Apothecaries Act of 1815, allowed him to do almost any amount of 
prescribing he liked, either in-doors or out-of-doors. But he (Mr. Thompson) contended 
that the law was not to be regarded merely as to what it directly prevented . The law 
held a druggist accountable for the consequences of medical practice to a much greater 
degree than a legally-qualified surgeon was. For whereas a surgeon was supposed by 
the law to be competent as far as regarded knowledge for the exercise of his profession, 
a druggist, as such, was supposed to be incompetent. The one was answerable for wilful 
neglect only, the other for ignorance also. Thus, though the law did little or nothing 
directly to prevent counter-practice, it might do much towards this end indirectly , by 
making every one ignorant of the science of medicine, and of the structure of the human 
body, responsible for the evil consequences of his ignorance. 
(2.) As to the question, how much of counter-practice ought a druggist to do, in an 
ethical sense ? Perhaps in ninety-nine cases in a hundred it would be best to answer,— 
“ Send the patient to a doctor.” One thing the druggist must not do, he must not pre¬ 
scribe for a case ignorantly; that is, whenever he uses powerful drugs, or takes up the 
time of a patient by recommending those of a milder character, he ought to be conscious 
that he has as much knowledge of the case before him as an educated medical practitioner 
is likely to possess. He should act as he would do if a W'atch were brought to him that 
would not keep time. He would confess his ignorance of its structure—he would not 
pull it in pieces, lest he should not be able to put it together again; and, in general, he 
would return it to its owner with a recommendation to send it to a watchmaker. But 
supposing that the only fault of the watch was that it went too slow, the druggist might 
know enough about a watch to be aware how to move the regulator to one side or the 
other. In this simple case he might do as well as the best watchmaker. Whether, 
therefore, he sent the watch away, or remedied its defect, he would act up to the real 
knowledge he possessed, and no further. So he ought to do in the practice of physic, if 
he be required to act at all. Division of labour, however, was generally found to be best 
for all parties concerned. 
3. The Pharmaceutical Society. —As regarded the position of this Society towards the 
chemists of Britain, the lecturer thought that it was right and proper that one Society, 
having its head-quarters in London, should have the confidence of all respectable drug¬ 
gists, who should be induced, in some way or other, to unite themselves with it. 
The Pharmaceutical Society, he thought, as being the first in the field, as having already 
been chartered and recognized by the Legislature, and as having done some good work 
towards the elevation, and in defence of the trade, had pre-eminent claims to hold the 
position indicated. It was evident, however, that some changes must be effected be¬ 
fore the Pharmaceutical Society could be considered to represent the whole body of 
druggists. Without attempting to exhaust the subject, he would suggest that the 
examination should be greatly modified. Let there be two kinds of examination : 
one, intended to distinguish those who had made considerable progress in the sciences 
upon which the business was based; the other, meant to point out to the public all who 
were qualified to conduct their business with safety and respectability. One examina¬ 
tion would be rather more severe than the present Major,—the other much milder than 
the present Minor. If the fees were sufficiently low, as they might be if the number of 
members were proportionally increased, and the public could understand that the 
holders of the Society’s certificate were alone to be trusted with the responsible duty of 
compounding prescriptions, much might be done towards setting up the Pharmaceutical 
Society as the head of the business of a chemist and druggist in England, and some 
progress would be made towards giving to well-qualified druggists the only monopoly 
they were likely to get in this country. 
Having thus disposed of some questions but remotely connected with Materia Medica, 
the lecturer proceeded to approach more nearly the subject in hand. He stated that 
