•January 11, IS. 3.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
519 
(Lbc J^anMcetttrral |ounmI. 
-0.-- 
SATURDAY, JANUARY 11, 1873. 
Communications for this Journal, and books 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 Bkeji- 
iudge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, IV. Envelopes indorsed u Fharm. Jou-rn 
DISPENSING CHARGES. 
The exigencies which, have to he satisfied by the 
■editors of our daily evening papers may often be 
accepted as an excuse for their dealing with subjects 
they know little or nothing of, or treating those sub¬ 
jects in a claptrap and sensational manner. The 
idlers and gossips of the clubs must be provided 
with material for chatter; and if the events of the 
day do not afford anything of sufficient novelty and 
interest, the contributors’ ingenuity must be taxed to 
invent something. It is probably under the in¬ 
fluence of some such conditions that the Globe has 
lately produced an article entitled “ The Charge for 
Drugs,” in which it is sought to maintain the opinion 
that the pharmacist’s charge for medicine is very 
frequently so excessive, that not only are the gene- 
ral public made the victims of imposition, but at the 
same time the kindness of medical men in pre¬ 
scribing gratuitously for the poor is often rendered 
abortive. 
With the object of demonstrating that this is the 
case, the writer of the article referred to carried out 
what he terms the experiment of presenting a very 
simple prescription to a number of unsuspecting (sic) 
dispensers and ascertaining the price to be charged 
for the medicine both in the ordinary course of bu¬ 
siness and likewise in the event of its being required 
by an invalid in very poor circumstances. 
To judge from the localities mentioned in the 
article, several of the leading pharmacists of the 
metropolis were in this way put to the test. At the 
same time the experiment was extended to White¬ 
chapel and Bethnal Green, while as a crucial de¬ 
monstration, we suppose, recourse was also had to 
The stores of a Co-operative Society. 
The result, as might naturally be expected ac- 
• cording to the most ordinary common sense view of 
the case, was that, on comparing the prices charged 
for the medicine at different establishments, there 
proved to be a very considerable range of variation. 
This fact, however, the Editor of the Globe seems to 
regard in the light of a great discovery, forthwith 
proceeding to moralize upon it with the air of a 
public benefactor, and to declare that, judging by 
the simple comparison of one druggist with another, 
.there is justification for asserting that, while there 
may be houses from which the best of drugs are 
dispensed at a fair profit, there is, at least,'a lament¬ 
able proportion of those whose charges are alto¬ 
gether unreasonable. 
The ostensible object of this inquiry had reference 
to the numerous applications to our hospitals by the 
“ decent poor ” for medicine, and it was taken in 
hand by the Globe to show that they could not do 
otherwise than thus avail themselves of opportunities 
of procuring medicine gratuitously so long as pre¬ 
sent charges prevail; in short, that it is simply im¬ 
possible for them to obtain necessary medicine else¬ 
where than at the hospitals. 
This conclusion is perhaps perfectly reasonable 
and well-founded; we may also add that there does 
not seem to be any impropriety in the practice to 
which it points; but the case is different as regards 
the assertion previously referred to, and the doubt 
raised by the writer in the Globe as to whether there 
are any druggists content with what ought to be 
regarded as a fair profit. 
In considering this part of the writer’s opinions we 
will, in the first place, point out the glaring fallacy 
there is in regarding the observed variation of 
charge as being either wonderful or indicative of 
unfair dealing. The range of variation is no doubt 
wide—from 8d. to Is. 0(7, 2s., 2s. 2 d. 2s. 0(7., and 3s., 
but it is absurd to argue from that, while the condi¬ 
tions of the business carried on at the various 
establishments are totally ignored. Some of those 
referred to in the Globe were evidently situated in 
the most fashionable localities, while others were 
presumably establishments where dispensing pre¬ 
scriptions constituted the chief business, and where 
consequently an expensive staff of skilled assistants 
is kept. Others again, to judge from some of the 
localities named, were not subject to the charges 
appertaining to either of these conditions, being- 
adapted to the modest requirements of a ready- 
money trade in small quantities of drugs and pre¬ 
parations,—dispensing being a thing almost un¬ 
known. Upon what ground, therefore, a comparison 
is made between these different cases for the purpose 
of showing that the higher charges are unreasonable 
it is difficult to see, and it is still more difficult to 
perceive wdiy the lowest charge of all, made at a 
shop of the character last mentioned, should be taken 
as the measure of reasonableness in the charges 
made at Bondj Street or St. James’s. Unless it be 
for the purpose of making the argument fit the 
foregone conclusion, we confess our inability to see 
any such ground. 
Moreover, what kind of bearing have the charges 
of Bond Street and similar localities on the possi¬ 
bility of medicine being obtained by needy persons. 
If we desired to learn how far the price of pea- 
jackets was within the means of navvies, we should 
scarcely go to Boole or Buckmaster for the. in¬ 
formation ! 
