143 
CHLORODYNE versus LIQ. CHLOROFORMI CO. 
writer would not have missed the opportunity of questioning and denouncing 
so flagrant a breach of Ethics, whether Pharmaceutical or Social.* 
But, to proceed with my case, which I divide into three stages. 
Stage 1. In the year 1862, taking advantage of a visit to the Exhibition, a 
patient consulted, under my auspices, an eminent London physician, who, among 
other recommendations, advised the use of chlorodyne. For about three months 
I supplied Dr. Collis Browne’s, which was used with the happiest results, and 
was continued till the dose had reached 35 minims, twice a day. 
Stage 2. For reasons into which it is not necessary to enter, I was now in¬ 
duced (having full discretion in the case) to furnish a bottle by another maker, 
in such wise that the patient was quite unaware of any difference. When applied 
to for the next bottle, I inquired how the last had been liked, and the reply was 
to the effect that it was slightly preferred to any which had preceded it; upon 
which I explained what I had done; and for three years afterwards, this second 
preparation was adhered to. 
Stage 3. By this time the dose had been increased to such an extent, that the 
cost of the medicine had become a serious tax, and I was invited to devise some 
means of economizing it. With this view, I determined to prepare the remedy 
myself, upon the basis of a form which had appeared in the Journal, but with 
the omission of the peppermint and capsicum, which were rather objectionable 
to the patient. The effect of this preparation was precisely the same as of that 
taken in the second stage. After an interval of a week or two, I omitted the 
tincture of Indian hemp; the effect remained the same. Then I left out the 
hydrocyanic acid, still with no difference in the result. Having arrived at this 
point, I discarded the treacle, leaviug only the morphia, chloroform, and spirit. 
In this form the patient continues to use the medicine up to the present day ; 
and the dose has remained nearly stationary for the last three or four years. I 
should add, that this patient is of a very susceptible temperament, and keenly 
alive to slight differences in the taste and action of medicines. 
The inference I draw from this case is, that the efficacy of all the various 
chlorodynes, including also their original and prototype, Dr. Collis Browne’s, is 
due almost entirely to morphia, slightly (and only slightly) modified by the 
chloroform; that chlorodyne is only a round-about and disguised mode of ad¬ 
ministering morphia ; and that the same, or very nearly the same effects would 
be produced by the equivalent dose of morphia. And here, I beg to call atten¬ 
tion to the circumstance, that Dr. Browne, in his ingenious but not very gram¬ 
matical f or convincing “ Warning,” nowhere denies this. He contents himself 
with affirming that his chlorodyne “ never contracts the pupil,” leaviug—I 
should rather say desiring —-it to be inferred that, therefore, it does not con¬ 
tain this ingredient. But, methinks, the learned Doctor 1 doth protest too 
much ’ when he says that the effects of his chlorodyne are opposite to those of 
* Ethics, whether Pharmaceutical or Social .—I have heard members of our trade express 
hitter resentment because they were not accepted by society as professional men, i. e. as ‘ gentle¬ 
men.’ But while, as a body, we sanction, or by our silence seem to sanction such sordid doings, 
with what assurance can any of us individually demand such a social status? 
f Not very grammatical. —Ex. gr. the following very remarkable sentence, which contains 
more errors than it has clauses, “ To call two things by the same name, having opposite effects, 
cannot consistently be a sound procedure in therapeutics, still less in logic.” What is meant 
by “the same name, having opposite effects”? That it calls up pleasant associations in the 
mind of one person, and unpleasant in that of another ? Or, perhaps, what the Doctor really 
means to say is, “To call by the same name, two things having opposite effects,” etc. Here, 
again, we are puzzled. Is each of the two things endowed with opposite effects ? or, are the 
effects of the one opposite to those of the other ? If the latter be his meaning, then to call 
them by the same name is a contradiction. But what has ‘ consistency ’ to do with the 
matter ? and how can there be any question whether a contradiction is a “ sound procedure ” ? 
and why is it more allowable in therapeutics than in logic ? These strange ‘ inconsistencies ’ 
puzzle plain people, and shake their faith in the correctness and validity of Dr. Browne’s 
reasoning. 
