July 30,18?0.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
91 
(EJe |)jranMteutiral foitnral. 
-♦-- 
SATURDAY , JULY 30, 1870. 
DR. RUMSEY ON THE PHARMACY ACT. 
In some recent comments on the Laws relating to 
Public Health, Dr. Rumsey, the well-known sani¬ 
tary reformer, remarks—touching the connection, so 
obvious in theory, between legislative control over 
the supply of drugs and poisons, and laws affect¬ 
ing the exercise of medical and sanitary functions— 
that the two departments are so sharply separated 
in this country, that the late attempt to establish 
some normal relation between them, in framing the 
Sale of Poisons Act of 1808, was defeated by the 
antagonism of its leaders. Yet, in Great Britain 
alone of all European nations, is the practice of 
pharmacy legally undertaken by physicians and 
surgeons acting as apothecaries. The fact that 
there is no law applying indifferently to all pliarma- 
copolists, and the existence of a controlling power 
over the examinations of chemists, vested in the 
Privy Council, are anomalies Dr. Humsey objects 
to, as well as the circumstance, that whilst the 
Medical Council is the sole authority in the com¬ 
pilation of the national Pharmacopoeia, it should pos¬ 
sess no control over the selection of articles to be 
included in the Schedule of Poisons. Dr. Humsey’s 
efforts, as our readers may perceive, are resolutely 
directed to secure a distinct separation of the duties 
of dispenser and prescriber. This is a utopian pro¬ 
ject to many minds, but it is one surely, though 
slowly, making its way with the medical profession 
as both desirable and necessary for the true interests 
of the public as well as the profession. Dr. Humsey 
complains, that though there is all the rigidity of 
caste hi the legal separation between the two regis¬ 
ters, yet a large number of the men on either regis¬ 
ter invade at pleasure the occupation of those on the 
other. He further states, that “ Pharmacists have 
become, in fact, a new race of unqualified practi¬ 
tioners.” This is anything but a just way, and it is 
certainly a one-sided way, of putting the case, con¬ 
sidering Dr. Humsey admits that many of his pro¬ 
fessional confreres systematically usurp the duties 
of the pharmacist. One more regret is expressed by 
Dr. Rumsey, that there is no independent supervi¬ 
sion of the practice of pharmacy and sale of poisons 
in the public interests, no inspection of druggists’ 
shops and stores, etc. We believe that Dr. Humsey 
is in a distinct minority on this point. Mere in¬ 
spection, as such, will do little for the public. Their 
interests are directly secured, (in the only certain 
way,) in proportion to the excellence of the education 
of the pharmaceutist and of the examination, by 
which he becomes qualified for enrolment in the 
register list. In like manner, mere legislation can 
do little to promote the desired demarcation between 
physician and pharmacist. This can alone] be 
brought about successfully by the increased educa¬ 
tion of the twain. 
HYPODERMIC INJECTION. 
From the ‘ Medical Times and Gazette,’ we learn 
that the Committee appointed by the Royal Medical 
and Chirurgical Society to investigate the hypo¬ 
dermic method of administering medicines, reports as 
follows:— 
1 . That, as a general rule, only clear neutral solutions 
of drugs should be injected. 
2. That, whether drugs be injected under the skin or 
administered by the mouth or rectum, their chief physio¬ 
logical and therapeutical effects are the same in kind, 
though varying in degree; but 
3. That symptoms are observed to follow the subcuta¬ 
neous injection of some drugs which are absent when 
they are administered by other methods; and, on the 
other hand, certain unpleasant symptoms which are apt 
to follow the introduction of the drugs by the mouth and 
rectum, are not usually experienced when such drugs are 
injected under the skin. 
4. That, as a general rule, to which, however, there 
are many exceptions, neutral solutions of drugs, intro¬ 
duced subcutaneously, are more rapidly absorbed and 
more intense in their effects than when introduced by 
the rectum or mouth. 
5. That no difference has been observed in the effects 
of a drug subcutaneously injected, whether it be intro¬ 
duced near to, or at a distance from, the part affected. 
6 . That the advantages to be derived from this method 
of introducing drugs are:—rapidity of action, intensity 
of effect, economy of material, certainty of action, facility 
of introduction in certain cases, and, with some drugs, 
avoidance of unpleasant symptoms.” 
In commenting on this report, the ‘ Medical Times 
and Gazette ’ remarks :— 
“ We may safely take, as a broad guide in prac¬ 
tice, the rule that the physiological activity of nearly 
every substance which can thus be used, is three, if 
not four times greater when it is given by the skin, 
than when it is swallowed.” The proper com¬ 
mencing dose of strychnine is x ^j grain of the sul¬ 
phate. The dose of atropine is also grain at 
first. The dose of morphia is grain to ^ grain. 
The circumstance, that the action of medicines ad¬ 
ministered hypodermically is very rapid and often 
instantaneous, renders the method invaluable in 
certain cases ; as, for instance, in cases of poisoning. 
POISON REGULATIONS. 
The ‘ Hall Mall Gazette,’ in announcing the fact 
that this Society is in future to certify the competence 
of dispensers in naval hospitals, expresses the 
opinion that this is a very proper proceeding on the 
part of Dr. Armstrong, the Director-General, and 
adds that the Society’s monopoly is thereby com¬ 
pleted. It goes on to say, “ All monopolies of the 
kind are to be regarded with distrust, and watched 
with anxiety in the public interest. This Associa¬ 
tion has a twofold position: it has public duties and 
