660 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
be anything more than a seriously played 
farce, got up for the benefit of the actors, 
and the mystification of the beholders. They 
may possibly deduce another inference from 
this over-eagerness to make money all 
round, obviously in defiance of conscience 
and consistency; they may not unreasonably 
conclude that the pharmaceutist who hum¬ 
bugs one customer vjith his consent, may 
humbug the rest for his own profit, and that 
he who knowingly sells innocent sugar¬ 
plums for deadly aconite, may not scruple 
to supply cheap powdered slate for costly 
scammony; and it is not surprising if phy¬ 
sicians or patients in search of reliable allo¬ 
pathic remedies prefer to seek them where 
these handy-dandy pranks are not perform¬ 
ed. Such instances, I think I know. 
This leads me naturally to a subject of 
secondary importance, upon which never¬ 
theless I would take the opportunity of 
making a few remarks, viz. the preferences 
which medical men exhibit for certain phar¬ 
macies to the prejudice of others. No doubt 
we have all experienced this at times, and 
have probably exaggerated its influence and 
misjudged its motives. To a certain extent, 
and within proper limits, such preferences 
are not only right, but they ought to prove 
encouraging. It would be very dishearten¬ 
ing to zealous pharmaceutists if they could 
not hope that conspicuous merit would se¬ 
cure for them the confidence of the profes¬ 
sion and of the public. It wnuld be the 
rankest socialism to begrudge these fruits of 
meritorious labour; the same path is open 
to us all, and the reward never yet met any 
at the outset of his career. So long, there¬ 
fore, as preference is based upon this ground 
it is beyond challenge; it may even be the 
duty of the physician, who certainly is bound, 
not, less than an advocate, to make his 
client’s welfare superior to all other con¬ 
siderations: and those who suffer must 
bide their time, while they lay the founda¬ 
tions of similar confidence. But unfortu¬ 
nately there have been such things as alli¬ 
ances between medical men and pharma¬ 
ceutists altogether outside of these laudable 
motives; alliances not formed for the pro¬ 
tection of the patient who relies implicitly 
upon his doctor’s suggestions, but for self¬ 
ish considerations of mutual profit. Such 
alliances are not only unprofessional and 
dishonourable in the professional man, they 
are equally dishonourable in the pharma¬ 
ceutist; and it is clear, therefore, that in¬ 
stead of railing at the profession for their 
share in these discreditable arrangements, 
we have it in our own power to put an end 
to them by setting up and obeying a purer 
code of pharmaceutical ethics, which would 
teach us that such combinations are unfair. 
We are all ready enough to condemn these 
thiugs when they operate against us, per¬ 
haps a little prone to invent them when 
they have no existence. Such clamour 
amounts to nothing but self-condemnation, 
unless we are equally resolved not to benefit 
by them. It is of no use to stigmatize 
them as unbecoming a professional man 
and a gentleman, unless, we are determined 
to repudiate them as pharmaceutists resolved 
to act and feel as gentlemen. 
Your obedient servant, 
Richard W. Giles. 
Sir,—Now that the Council’s proposed 
Regulations for the keeping and dispensing 
certain poisons are open for full discussion, 
trial, and criticism, I should like to add my 
iota of opinion and suggestion to the common 
fund. I feel assured that unless the Council 
is disposed to allow a much wider liberty than 
the adoption of either of the proposed regula¬ 
tions, such, for instance, as the combination of 
the three, it will meet with generally, if the 
majority is to rule, successful opposition. The 
following ideas have been suggested to me 
by this circumstance. Soon after the new 
Pharmacy Act became law, in consequence 
of the inconvenience felt amongst chemists 
generally, at having to label “Paregoric 
elixir” and “syrup of poppies,” poison, 
Messrs. Silverlock and Co. (I believe it 
was that firm) issued a small, neat label, 
having a black ground, red border, and red 
letters, bearing the following inscription :— 
“ In conformity with the Sale of Poisons 
Act 1868, this preparation must be labelled 
poison, but its composition remains un¬ 
altered.” This label being especially in¬ 
tended for opium preparations, I have 
adopted the plan of placing one of these 
labels on every bottle containing a prepara¬ 
tion of morphia or opium. Apart from the 
fact of this label being originally intended for 
opium, there are among the tests for this 
drug and its alkaloid certain reactions which 
indicate the colour to be a very happy one. 
This label then, meeting the eye, associates 
the mind with opium, and nothing else. 
Might not, with very great advantage, a 
label with a green ground, and white letters 
be brought out, which should be placed on 
arsenic, and all its preparations? The 
scientific mind (and all chemists are culti¬ 
vating that now) naturally associates arsenic 
with green. For prussic acid, I think, no¬ 
thing more is necessary than what I believe 
is generally adopted. Large bottles sent out 
by wholesale druggists are very characteris¬ 
tically covered with blue paper, and the 
smaller bottles used in dispensing I believe 
are always blue, tied over and inverted. 
However, for it and all cyanides we might 
have a blue label. Cyanogen and blue natu¬ 
rally go together. In my own opinion were 
the suggestion I have thrown out adopted, 
and I think there would be no inconvenience 
