amiary 25, 1873. ] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
587 
SATURDAY, JANUARY 25, 1873. 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review,etc., 
ehould be addressed to Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and -Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
H.IDGE, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square , W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street , London, W. Envelopes indorsed u Fharm. Journ .” 
THE “ CHARGE FOR DRUGS.” 
t 
It is not surprising that the sensational lucubra¬ 
tions of the Globe on the Price of Drugs should 
exercise a sort of infectious influence on the 
general press, but we must confess our astonishment 
at finding this the case with a journal so generally 
well informed and judicial as the Medical Times and 
Gazette, which, in the number for last week, not 
only adopted and reiterated the unfounded asser¬ 
tion as to extortionate charges by druggists, but also 
accused us of affirming it to be “ only just and right ” 
that decent poor people should be driven to hos¬ 
pitals for medicine as well as advice. This is so 
■contrary to what was said on the subject, that if we 
were mischievously disposed it might be called mis¬ 
representation. And if the druggists’ charges for 
dispensing were proved to be exorbitant, it might, 
perhaps, be worth while for a medical journal to 
'inquire how far the prescriber is partieeps cri- 
minis in the manner pointed to in the evidence of a 
physician in a case reported at page 595. The other 
comments of our contemporary are, to say the least, 
illiberal, and we trust it is not a general idea of those 
who write prescriptions, that so little skill as the 
amount now required by law is sufficient for per¬ 
forming the onerous work of dispensing them. If 
that were the case in practice, the extermination “ in 
a regular way” suggested by Punch might be more 
general, and not always confined to surplus re¬ 
tailers and their families. 
As regards the Globe, we did hope that the appear¬ 
ance last Friday week of a quotation from the Phar¬ 
macy Act for the purpose of showing that it did not 
involve annihilation of all those who had been in the 
business before the Act passed, might be regarded as 
an indication that the labours of that “ mountain” 
were at an end. But the estimation of chemists and 
druggists by the relics of the past was not enough 
for the Globe inquirer, and last Tuesday we were 
favoured with a scolding for meeting “ criticism ” 
with virulent abuse, etc., etc. However we need not 
follow this writer further, since he has become 
bewildered, no doubt inextricably, by the notion 
that the use of brains in dispensing is worth more 
than the material operated with. We dare not hope 
to help him and can only deplore his sad disability. 
We have received from a correspondent a printed 
slip with the heading, “ Measure for Measure,” and 
we think that the reproduction of its contents may at 
least serve the purpose of illustrating the mischief 
that may be done by a bad example. The source 
of inspiration will, no doubt, be sufficiently apparent 
“ A contemporary of ours has lately been taking a 
practical method of determining the scale of doctors’ 
fees, and has arrived at the conclusion that no Medicos 
are satisfied with a fair professional profit, and that the 
charges of most are so exorbitant as to render it useless 
for any moderately poor person to think of getting advice 
outside of a hospital. 
“ The course pursued in the inquiry was to seek advice 
in the treatment of simple catarrh, or cold in the head, 
req uir ing neither great attention nor elaborate surgical 
skill. The estimated value of such advice according to 
competent authority is, including pen, paper, and time, 
five pence —an estimate that probably errs on the side of 
excess. 
“The case was taken and laid before a number of 
medical men from Billingsgate to Brook Street, and a 
reduction of fees was asked for, and in almost every in¬ 
stance obtained, on the score of the poverty of the sick 
person. Nevertheless, the fees actually varied from 
2s. Gd. to 23s. Gd. (including 2s. 6 d. for medicine). 
“The medicine prescribed would, according to the direc¬ 
tions, last only one-third of a week, and as one other 
consultation only would be given for the original fee, it 
would thus entail on the patient a weekly charge ranging 
from 7s. 6<7. to 49s. Gd. Our contemporary justly remarks 
that even the first would, in many cases, be prohibitory, 
and the patient driven to a druggist or hospital. 
“ We regret that the test was not carried a step further, 
and that means were not taken to test the charges of the 
elite of the profession. 
“ It is possible under the circumstances no advance 
might have been made, and that a sort of average might 
have been struck by charging the rich extra, to pay for 
the poor. We, however, know of long illnesses which 
have been almost ruinous to patients in respectable but 
not affluent circumstances. 
“ Zealous for the interests of ‘ Enlightenment and 
Popkins,’ we pushed our investigations somewhat beyond 
the limits observed by our contemporary and peeped 
through the surgery window and into the drawing-rooms. 
There the mystery was solved. 
“The fact is medical men are gone mad, and there 
are far more of them than the wants of the public 
require, and they think themselves entitled to all the 
luxuries and enjoyments of life. Their wives, glorious 
in satins and real sables, and resplendent in jewellery, 
ride and drive the best horses, give the best dinners, 
have the best opera boxes, and take the best physic, 
while their children have nightly juvenile parties, with. 
Conjurors, Punch and Judy, and the Magic Lantern, and 
other extravagant amusements; they eat the choicest 
bonbons, and jingle the most costly rattles. 
“ The pretensions of the class are becoming a nuisance 
that it is high time to put down.” 
This is all very well as a “ squib,” but the re¬ 
lations between medical prescribers and pharmacists 
deserve and require to be treated in a more serious 
mood, though it is evident that if disparagement is 
to be the rule, it is as applicable in one case as in 
the other. 
The contemptuous tone in which the Lancet speaks 
of chemists indicates a jealousy of their rising im¬ 
portance unworthy a journal claiming to represent 
a class generally characterized by gentlemanly feel¬ 
ing. The vulgar abuse, which has been noticed by 
several of our correspondents, would, we are sure, 
be disavowed by the best members of the profession. 
Not so wise as its contemporary, the Times, which 
can mould itself to public opinion so as to do no 
