659 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
Communications for this Journal, and hooks for review , should he addressed 
to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square, as early in the month as possible, and 
in no case later than the 20 th of the month, if intended for 'publication in the 
next number. 
Sir,—The expectation of improved status 
■which appears to have possessed pharma¬ 
ceutists for some time, and to have received 
fresh impulse from recent legislation, is one 
with which I am not disposed to quarrel. 
It may be, that the anticipations are some¬ 
times extravagant, and that they err in 
looking outside for that which can only come 
from within ; but this misapprehension time 
will correct, and meanwhile the aspiration 
can scarcely fail to exert an elevating influ¬ 
ence, even if there be a little inversion in its 
estimate of cause and effect. But wffiile we 
look hopefully forward we cannot afford to 
neglect the present, nor to permit practices 
without reprehension, which are calculated 
to lower us as a body, and to stultify our 
claims to professional consideration. Such 
claims must ever be of a qualified degree. 
Pharmacy can never be other than a trade or 
business. Buying and selling, and even the 
manipulation of drugs, is not a profession, 
and it would be vain, in every sense of the 
word, for us to exalt our own importance to 
the extent of expecting professional rank or 
professional remuneration for the discharge 
of such duties. But, on the other hand, 
there is attached even to these trading 
operations a degree of responsibility which 
lifts them out of the category of ordinary 
trades, and there are naturally associated 
with the practice of pharmacy many func¬ 
tions strictly professional and demanding 
professional qualifications. In so far as w r e 
approach to this higher standard individu¬ 
ally and collectively shall we be entitled to 
higher consideration, but it must depend 
upon the manner in which we fulfil our 
vocation w r hat our status shall be. 
It is not surprising, when we consider the 
debased position of pharmacy hitherto, that 
its ethical obligations have been insuffi¬ 
ciently acknowledged; we have been and 
still are prone to regard them from the 
trade point of view, hence the existence of 
certain unfortunate practices which have too 
long escaped censure, until it is to be feared 
that they have reached to a formidable ex¬ 
tent amongst us. I refer to the reprehen¬ 
sible practice of selling homoeopathic medi¬ 
cines, as a department of pharmacy. If we 
look at this practice from a professional 
point of view, we shall instinctively feel how 
unbecoming it is, and shall be driven to 
acknowledge that it cannot be fitting for 
pharmaceutists who aspire towards profes¬ 
sional status. 
Suppose a physician advising upon a 
patient’s case. His diagnosis is made, the 
malady is ascertained, the treatment is ob¬ 
vious. He commences by advising such 
remedies as his experience has shown to be 
appropriate, when the patient interposes 
and requests to be treated upon homoeopa¬ 
thic principles (so called). Is there any 
question as to what a professional man ought 
to do in such circumstances ? If he says, 
“ I disbelieve entirely in what you call ho¬ 
moeopathic principles, and cannot consent 
to trifle wflth your malady by prescribing 
that which science, reason, and common 
sense tell me can have no possible influ¬ 
ence”—he might, perhaps, lose his patient, 
but he would not forfeit his respect, and 
what is more to the purpose, he would not 
sacrifice his own. But suppose him to say, 
“ I do not recommend homoeopathy. I even 
believe that it is a gross deception, but if 
you are resolved to be treated upon that 
system, my best services shall still be yours.” 
We should scarcely think that we charac¬ 
terized *his conduct with sufficient energy 
if we called it “ unprofessional,” lluta- 
tis mutandis, the parable applies to our¬ 
selves. The physician and the pharma¬ 
ceutist have different claims to professional 
status, but whatever they may amount to in 
either case, they are equally forfeited by 
such abnegation of principle. It destroys 
our pretensions to be anything better than 
hucksters, ready to sell whatever may find a 
profitable market, including our consciences 
in the miscellaneous catalogue. It is never¬ 
theless a fact which we must not affect to 
ignore, that many pharmaceutists of re¬ 
spectable standing have yielded (for lack of 
a little moral courage it must be) to this de¬ 
moralizing traffic, and have thereby brought 
scandal upon their craft. In all kindness 
and earnestness I would implore them to 
take a more just view of then- duties and of 
their interests. So long as homoeopathy 
stood alone, there was nothing to fear from 
it, beyond a temporary fashion. Like all 
other things, it must ultimately stand or 
fall by its merits, for fashions do not last 
long, and we can easily estimate its pro¬ 
spects of permanence upon that score. But 
when we proclaim ourselves ready to traf¬ 
fic in truth or error with equal alacrity, 
provided only that we put money in our 
purse, we cannot make the shams real, but 
we do give such an air of unreality to the 
whole, that the world may well doubt if it 
