CORRESPONDENCE. 
661 
in its being so, it appears impossible, without 
the most culpable carelessness, to substitute 
either of these three poisons, or their pre¬ 
parations, for each other, or for any other 
poison. If t a mistake occurred, it would do 
so by the substitution of a wrong prepara¬ 
tion of the substance intended. 
Now if, with a mere glance of the eye, the 
dispenser or retailer, without reading the 
label, can see that he is dealing with arsenic, 
opium, or cyanides,—I say if such unavoid¬ 
able knowledge as this is not sufficient to 
make him careful enough to be sure that he 
takes the right preparation—he is most in¬ 
excusably guilty of grossest negligence, and 
deserving of its penalty. 
If these few remarks which I have humbly 
offered meet with a moderate amount of ap¬ 
proval, I shall feel they have not been made 
in vain. 
Yours truly, 
John Ingham. 
Upper Tooting, March. 16, 1870. 
Dear Sir,—Permit me to call the atten¬ 
tion of pharmacists to clause 3 of the 
Amended Pharmacy Act. 
“ Nothing contained in section seventeen 
of the said recited Act shall apply to any 
medicine supplied by a legally qualified me¬ 
dical practitioner to his patient, or dispensed 
by any person registered under the said Act, 
provided such medicine be distinctly labelled 
with the name and address of the seller, and 
the ingredients thereof be entered with the 
name of the person to whom it is sold or 
delivered in a book to be kept by the seller 
for that purpose.” 
Is not a medical practitioner bound to 
register in a book, and label with his name 
and address, any medicine dispensed contain¬ 
ing poison ? If I am correct, is it not de¬ 
sirable, by an official communication, to in¬ 
timate this to the members of the medical 
profession ? 
In many instances, prescriptions and me¬ 
dicines are dispensed by them, not only to 
their own patients but to customers sent to 
their surgeries by other medical practi¬ 
tioners; and I am of opinion that by the 
clause referred to, the same legal require¬ 
ments apply to apothecaries as to phar¬ 
macists. 
I am, yours respectfully, 
W. J. Halliday. 
Manchester, March 18, 1870. 
Prescriptions and Dispensers. 
Sir,—Having been for some thirty years 
or more conversant with the arts and mys¬ 
teries in the business of a chemist and drug¬ 
gist, I must, at the eleventh hour, express 
my surprise and disgust at the careless and 
reprehensible way in wffiich some medical 
men will order certain preparations; for let 
us make use of the very best means possible, 
it is quite impossible to prevent accidents 
happening. I shall be very glad if some of 
my pharmaceutical friends will give me their 
opinion in the next Journal, as to how they 
should have proceeded in the following case: 
—A short time since the following prescrip¬ 
tion, from a medical man, was brought me 
to dispense by a respectable customer, and 
who told me, that “ a friend of his had given 
identical copies of it to several others for 
the same complaint,”—toothache:— 
It. Ext. Cannab. Ind. 3i 
Ext. Cicutoe gr. x 
Ext. Cinchon. gij 
Ext. Opii 3’j 
Aqua, Alcohol, and Syrup q. s. ft. 3j. 
Ten drops to be taken three times a day. 
Now ten drops of this solution will con¬ 
tain grains opium and I 3 gr. cannab. 
ind.; this repeated three times a day, will be 
more than equivalent to 10 grams pure 
opium. 
Another case of gross carelessness on the 
part of a medical man. Not a great wdiile 
since, a professional man, possessing the 
important titles of “ M.D.,” “ B. A.,” and 
“ F.C.S.,” prescribed for a delicate female, 
as an emetic, ^ oz. sulphate of zinc instead of 
l drachm, and would not be convinced by 
argument that he was wrong, until he re¬ 
ferred to his books, but then admitted I teas 
right. I do think that the old proverb of 
“wffiat’s sauce for the goose,” etc. should 
apply and be inflicted in such cases; and I 
would reasonably ask why it is, that although 
we as dispensers and chemists (who, as a 
rule, are as well educated as these medicals) 
should be subject to prosecution, and they, 
however gross their mistakes, are let off scot- 
free ? It is very satisfactory to learn, by an 
analysis of Mr. Burrell’s in this month’s 
Journal, that out of 301 fatal eases of poison¬ 
ing during the last ten years, only 26 are 
traceable to vendors of medicines. I have 
been much amused, too, at the absurd prac¬ 
tice of some chemists attaching the poison- 
label to \ oz. or 1 oz. bottle of paregoric ; 
this unnecessary practice must tend to cur¬ 
tail the sale of a useful preparation among 
all classes of society, and for their informa¬ 
tion I would refer them to a letter from the 
Medical Department of Privy Council to the 
Secretary, vide ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal,’ 
April, 1869, clearly showing that such prac¬ 
tice is unnecessary. 
I am, Sir, yours very truly, 
George Manby. 
Southampton, March Ylth. 
Sir,—Would you kindly allow me to insert 
these few remarks in the columns of your 
valuable Journal ? Firstly, upon the under¬ 
charging of medicines. A prescription, a 
copy of which I enclose, viz.:— 
