November 19, 1870.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
409 
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1870. 
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 Breh- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, Neio Burlington 
Street, London, W. Envelopes to be endorsed “ Bharm. 
Journ.” 
PHARMACY AND MEDICAL PRACTICE. 
Tlie controversy wliicli has for some time been 
carried on in the correspondence columns of this 
Journal and of the Lancet, as to the existing rela¬ 
tions of pharmacy to medical practice, has assumed 
a different and more important aspect since the 
scattered grievances of the profession have been 
gathered up and adopted bj r the editorial pen of our 
influential contemporary. As in actual warfare, the 
skirmish of outposts threatens to involve the oppos¬ 
ing parties in a general engagement; but we will 
not willingly permit ourselves to be drifted into an 
impolitic and unnatural quarrel with our proper 
allies, the medical profession; therefore we do not 
hesitate to hang out the olive branch and confess 
that we have observed with regret, the acrimonious 
tendency of the correspondence on both sides. At 
the same time, we owe a duty to our members which 
we shall not shrink from fulfilling; and this duty 
constrains us to take serious exception to the tone of 
the leader hi the Lancet of October 22nd, founded, 
us it appears to us, upon an entire misconception of 
the case it professes to deal with. We think the 
tone of that article must be deprecated by all who 
desire the maintenance of good relations between 
the profession of medicine and its handmaiden, the 
art of Pharmacy, amongst whom we fondly believe 
that the quantity and quality of both bodies are 
included. 
While we are solicitous to show all proper respect 
to the exalted profession of medicine, and to extend 
that consideration to the Lancet, as being, in some 
•sense, its recognized organ, our first duty is to uphold 
the independence of Pharmacy, and we protest, in 
terms admitting of no misinterpretation, that Phar¬ 
macy, while willing to concede respect and deference 
to the higher branch of the healing art, owes neither 
obligation, subjection, nor allegiance to its members. 
It acknowledges no authority by virtue of which they 
may assume to interfere with its internal affairs; it 
repudiates any suggestion of subservience inconsis¬ 
tent with its own absolute independence in that 
respect. 
Having said this, our readers will understand that 
we do not propose to follow the Lancet into a futile 
discussion of the alleged overcharges of chemists. 
So far as the Lancet and the medical profession are 
concerned, Pharmaceutists are free to make their 
own arrangements with the public, without reference 
to such extrinsic considerations as the ability of their 
customers to pay a further sum to some other person 
for medical advice. It argues little wisdom to sup¬ 
pose that competition will not surely bring prices to 
a fair average, but it implies absolute fully to suppose 
that where competition fails, any other influence—be 
it the remonstrance of the Lancet or the pleadings of 
angels—will have a chance of success. Were it ne¬ 
cessary to do so, we are prepared to prove, not by 
vague assertions, but by statistical facts, that the 
average dispensing charges of Pharmaceutists are 
fair and moderate; but for the purpose in hand it is 
sufficient to refer to our own pages during the last 
two or three years, to show that, in the opinion of 
those upon whose action any alteration must depend, 
the dispensing department of Pharmacy is less re¬ 
munerative than ordinary retail trade. 
Having, then, disposed of the accusation of over¬ 
charges, as not admissible in a discussion upon what 
the Lancet properly terms “ the relation of pharmacy 
to medical practice,” it is surprising how little re¬ 
mains that is tangible, and how obscure that little 
is. After a most earnest study of the article under 
consideration, we are obliged to confess that we do 
not know what is the exact nature of the Lancet's 
complaint, nor what is the precise character of the 
restrictions which it calls upon Pharmaceutists to 
observe. We suspect, indeed, that the Lancet could 
not venture to put forward any proposition hi express 
terms which would not either outrage public opinion 
or dissatisfy its malcontent correspondents, whose 
statements, we take leave to observe, do not, accord¬ 
ing to our belief, represent the feelings of an en¬ 
lightened profession. We fear that whatever would 
satisfy those correspondents would be so imprac¬ 
ticable, that it would be no more effectual against 
public opinion than a cobweb against the charge of 
an infuriated bull. The Lancet tells us that the es¬ 
sential tilings are “ two; ” we venture to interpolate 
that the two essentials of any restrictions of pharma¬ 
ceutical functions are that they should be rational 
and practicable. This being granted, we see no dif¬ 
ficulty in candid advocates arriving at a fair under¬ 
standing ; and the time appears to have come when 
it is desirable that this vexed question, the source of 
many petty jealousies in time past, should be set at 
rest by frank and full discussion. The following 
passages will put the views of the Lancet fully before 
our readers; but we profess ourselves unable to in¬ 
terpret their combined signification until we are in¬ 
formed whether the stringent restrictions of the first 
two quotations are intended to be moderated in the 
spirit of the latter. We cannot derive this informa¬ 
tion from their position or context; tliis may, how- 
