s 
PHARMACEUTICAL MEETING, EDINBURGH. 315 
is to see the Pharmaceutical Chemist placed in such a position that there can be no 
reasonable doubt of his fitness for his responsible duties. And when I say this, you 
must not misunderstand me, by supposing that I am blind to the merits and proficiency 
of very many representatives of your profession; far from that, your calling is adorned 
bv many illustrious names, and all that can be desired in addition is, that the very name 
of Pharmaceutical Chemist shall become a sufficient guarantee for the intelligence and 
respectability of every recipient of the title. 
In a previous address, which I delivered to the Society, you will find the following 
passage : “ The Pharmaceutist is the physician's best friend. There is nothing antago¬ 
nistic between them. The old suit of Dispensing Physician v. Prescribing Druggist has 
worn itself out. The apothecary, in whom the two functions were united, has fallen 
into the past, and the general practitioner, sprung from the ashes of the former, has 
virtually conceded the rights and privileges together with the labour and anxiety of 
pharmacy, to the scientific and practical Pharmaceutical Chemist.” I was then, of 
course, speaking to the rule, and did not doubt that it had many exceptions; but as I 
am now inviting your attention to^e relationship existing between the physician and 
the pharmaceutist, perhaps you will kindly bear with me whilst I endeavour, very 
briefly, to point out the line of distinction between their several functions. It is the dutv 
and privilege of the Pharmaceutical Chemist to prepare and supply the medicines pre¬ 
scribed by the physician, and I am quite of opinion that he ought to be protected in 
these. The medical practitioner has enough to do in studying the nature and treatment 
of his cases, without the additional labour of dispensing medicines; but that is not the 
only point from which to look at the subject, for it is also true that the busy medical 
practitioner is unfit for the duties of a dispenser, in so much as he has not the requisite 
leisure to bestow in order to keep himself abreast of advancing pharmacy. What he is 
chiefly concerned with is the therapeutical properties of those drugs which he looks to 
the Pharmaceutical Chemist to place in his hands; and if to the latter falls all the labour 
and anxiety of producing medicines in their purest and most eligible form, to him also 
should be conceded the commerce by which alone he can be adequately remunerated. 
I am not for a moment supposing that the medical practitioner is destitute of pharma¬ 
ceutical knowledge; that would be to say that he could not write a prescription, and 
would render him unfit for his duties as a physician; but he must necessarily look to 
the Pharmaceutist for that acquaintance with the daily improvements in the art of phar¬ 
macy which he has not the opportunity of prosecuting for himself. There is now, I 
think, a very general feeling that all medical practitioners should be remunerated by 
fees paid in consideration of their professional attendance, and not by a profit upon 
drugs; and it is of the utmost importance to the patient that the judgment of his ad¬ 
viser should in no way be biased by a prospect of gain in proportion to the amount of 
medicine swallowed. For the same reason all private arrangements whereby a medical 
practitioner receives from the Pharmaceutist recommended by him a percentage upon 
the value of medicines supplied in accordance with his prescriptions, are highly objec¬ 
tionable. To the pharmaceutist, therefore, as a rule, the prescription in its commercial 
aspect should entirely be left; but, and this it is important to bear in mind, there are 
circumstances in which it is imperative upon the medical practitioner to supply the 
means of carrying out his own instructions. This is especially the case in country dis¬ 
tricts, where there is not occupation sufficient to support a respectable Pharmaceutical 
Chemist. In all attempts at legislation, therefore, it behoves the Pharmaceutical 
Society to be tender of the privileges of the medical profession ; for although it may be 
desirable in large towns that the dispensing of prescriptions should be conceded to the 
Pharmaceutist, yet not even there should there be any legislative interference with the 
complete freedom of<|he medical practitioner. 
~ Then, on the other hand, the functions of the medical practitioner are not to be 
usurped by the Pharmaceutist, and it is no part of the duty of the latter to advise the 
patient. He is prohibited, in the first place by the spirit of the law, and in the second 
by his own incapacity. The letter of the law r is, that any person pretending that he is 
a legally qualified medical practitioner who is not such, renders himself liable to a heavy 
penalty; and the spirit of the law is, that none but legally qualified medical practi¬ 
tioners shall give advice for the treatment of disease. But even if he were disposed to 
evade the law, the Pharmaceutist is incapable of treating disease; he is qualified neither 
by scientific nor practical education to elicit from the patient that information which 
Y 2 
