September 7, 1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
187 
Cjje ipjrannittttttital |ountaL 
-♦- 
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1872. 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs for review,etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square . TT.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
„ Street, London , W. Envelopes indorsed u Bharm. Journ .” 
DISPENSING AND DRUG-DEALING SURGEONS. 
Not unfrequently out medical contemporaries are 
very much exercised respecting the conduct of those 
whom they are pleased to describe as “prescribing 
druggists.” On such occasions there is a great deal 
of respectable horror expressed at the wickedness 
of the man who, with no more qualifications than 
are necessary to secure him a place on the Register 
of Chemists and Druggists, presumes to supply a 
customer with a bottle of mixture or a box of pills for 
the cure of a passing stomach-ache, or a cold in the 
head. Of course, it would be mere affectation on our 
part to pretend to be ignorant of the fact that such 
a practice is sometimes carried to a point where it 
-encroaches seriously upon the domain of the medical 
;man. But the next time that any of our medical 
friends feel disposed to rush into print anent this 
Question, we would recommend them to discuss the 
subject under two heads, and if they devote the 
first part of the treatise to the fustigation of the 
■“prescribing druggist,” then, in a second part to 
treat with impartial zeal an analogous offender, we 
mean the “ dispensing and drug-dealing surgeon.” 
Towards the satisfactory accomplishment of so 
desirable an object, we call attention to the present 
state of the relations between medical men and 
pharmacists in some of the towns of Scotland, as 
disclosed in a letter to the ‘ Glasgow Herald ’ for 
August 28tli. We are there informed that in Glas¬ 
gow there are two shops for the sale of salts, senna, 
seidlitz powders, etc., kept by medical practitioners 
for every one kept by a chemist and druggist. “ In 
“ Airdrie and Coatbridge, I believe, there is only 
“ one druggist to some eighteen or twenty surgeons 
keeping open shop; in Paisley there are some 
“seven druggists to between twenty and thirty 
“ surgeons’ shops,” and so on. Notwithstanding the 
writer’s statement that “ in England no such tiling 
as an open surgery is known,” we are sorry to say 
that the custom also obtains, and that extensively, 
in this country. In many a district any inclination 
that a chemist and druggist might have to avoid 
poaching on the medical man’s preserves, is severely 
tried by the knowledge that the medical man is his 
closest competitor in his more proper business. 
Now we do not wish to depend upon the tu quoque 
.argument, but it must be evident that if a man is 
unfairly and severely pressed in competition, his 
ethical views will probably be blunted, and he will 
be induced to do that which under more favourable 
circumstances he would not have countenanced. 
This remark applies to both sides of the question; 
and therefore we think it would tend to the eleva¬ 
tion both of the medical man and the chemist 
and druggist if, instead of competing with and 
scolding each other, some neutral ground could be 
found for the rectification of their grievances. 
But what is to be said with respect to the vexata 
qiuestio of dispensing? It is notorious that the 
greater part of the dispensing of medicines in this 
country is done by medical men themselves. But 
how far this is from the proper upholding of the 
dignity of the profession may be estimated from the 
fact, that in this custom Great Britain stands 
almost alone. How frequently it transgresses the 
spirit of the law of this country is shown by a case 
recently before the Sheffield County Court, and 
reported at p. 178 of last week’s issue, where a 
decision of the Judge caused the abandonment of 
numerous claims made for the supply of medicines 
by a gentleman who was a surgeon, but not an 
apothecary. To this legal decision may be added a 
quotation from an “ Abstract of the Principal Laws 
Affecting the Medical Profession,” by R. G. Glenn, 
Esq., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law, which is prefixed 
to the “ Medical Directory ” for 1872.* “ A medical 
“ practitioner, not being a qualified apothecary, is 
“ prohibited from selling, or keeping an open sur- 
“ gery for retailing, dispensing or compounding 
“ poisons, under penalty of £o, unless he was either 
“registered before August lltli, 1869, or has been 
“ registered since that date, after passing an examina- 
“ tion in pharmacy, in order to obtain his diploma 
“ for such registration.” 
Every year that passes weakens jthe old plea that 
the medical man is unable to depend upon his pre¬ 
scriptions being correctly dispensed, in consequence 
of the heterogeneous nature of the body of chemists 
and druggists. The uneducated chemist and drug¬ 
gist is becoming every day more and more a tiling 
of the past. And we believe that if those medical 
men who are able to appreciate how useful and 
intelligent a handmaiden to medicine pharmacy 
may become, would, by example and precept, use their 
influence to obtain for her votaries that fair share 
of the work for which they are specially trained, the 
result would go far towards extinguishing both the 
“prescribing chemist” and the “dispensing and 
“ drug-selling surgeon.” 
We learn from the Times that the University of 
Munich, at its recent 400tli anniversary, conferred 
upon Mr. Simon the honorary diploma of Doctor of 
Medicine, “ propter prseclarissima de sanitate pub- 
lica tuenda atque au genda merita. __ 
* SeePnARM. Journ. [3] ii. 572. 
