410 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [November 19, 1370 , 
ever, be more our fault than clue to want of per¬ 
spicuity in the writer. 
We are told— 
It is essential that drugs be taken only upon 
medical advice. 
Druggists must be prepared to limit themselves 
to the work of preparing drugs prescribed by 
others. 
Pharmacists and druggists must know that they 
are entirely unfitted for advising persons affected 
with sferious ailment or disease. 
A great deal of prescribing by chemists confessedly 
goes on. It is in constant evidence in our 
(Lancet ) columns that chemists prescribe even 
in serious cases and sometimes visit. 
If a literal interpretation be attached to the first 
two passages, we must say frankly that they will 
prove intolerable to the trade and to the public, and 
it would be useless for Pharmaceutists to pretend to 
accept them. But if we may understand them to 
be limited by what follows, to an improper assump¬ 
tion of responsibility in circumstances where the 
chemist must admit his want of qualification, we 
can only express our unconditional concurrence. But, 
then, we wonder why the article was ever written! 
It asserts a truism of which every reasonable person 
must be aware, one which Pharmacy unreservedly 
acknowledges; any infringement of it being a breach 
of pharmaceutical discipline, to be visited upon the 
offender, not upon the innocent commonwealth. We 
are not prepared to deny the statement that “ a great 
deal of prescribing by chemists” goes on; but we 
believe that the prescribing here spoken of is, for 
the most part, justifiable and unavoidable. We are 
intuitively conscious that there are, in this country, 
millions of persons—graphically described by the 
Lancet as “ people who believe in paying for all that 
they receive, and refuse to pauperize themseves”— 
who have no accessible means of obtaining relief for 
their minor ailments, other than recourse to the 
chemist. 
We venture to assert that the organization of the 
medical profession is totally unequal to cope with 
this gigantic public necessity, and this conviction 
helps us to understand a dark saying of the Lancet , 
that the remedy for the grievance of prescribing 
chemists “ rests Jirst with the medical profession in 
perfecting its own efficiency'' When it has done 
that,—when it has brought a better medical service 
within reach of these classes,—it will be time to call 
upon chemists to vacate the functions which they 
now discharge conscientiously, kindly, and to the best 
of their ability. Tliis is the prescribing to which 
we confess, on the part of Pharmaceutists chiefly in 
the poorer districts, from which the complaints of 
interference usually proceed. We hope, for the 
honour of the medical profession, not to be reminded 
of the fable of the dog in the manger, by medical 
pien restraining others from doing that which is 
beyond their physical ability to do themselves. Any 
present interference with existing custom would in¬ 
deed be to place “ artificial and injurious restric¬ 
tions ” in the way of the supply of drugs; nor are- 
we sanguine enough to hope that it will ever be pos¬ 
sible to supersede the present imperfect accommoda¬ 
tion by a better one. Notliing is more common 
than for a person who has not a shilling to spend, to 
apply to a chemist for sixpence worth of cough 
drops, or some other simple remedy. Can human 
ingenuity devise a way by which any portion of this 
modest coin can be diverted to the payment of a 
medical fee without grievously taxing the patient, 
and placing an artificial restriction upon the use of 
drugs? It is open to the Lancet to say that the 
man would probably be better without the drops, but 
you cannot make him think so, and you have 110 right 
to control his freedom of choice. 
We cannot close this article without expressing a 
hope that the discussion is now finally removed from 
the sphere of personalities, and that, if it be con¬ 
tinued, it may be in an earnest and temperate spirit, 
becoming two departments of a profession devoted 
to the relief of human suffering. We have carefully 
abstained from introducing topics of an irritating 
nature, which will at once present themselves to our 
readers as trenchant weapons of debate, for we are not 
actuated by desire to heap confusion upon an enemy, 
but are sincerely anxious to appease a friend, and 
deem it better to restrain the exuberance of our own 
members than provoke asperities from those with 
whom it is our policy and our desire to cultivate re¬ 
lations of mutual respect. Therefore we exhort Phar¬ 
maceutists, as they value that independence for which 
we shall ever strenuously contend, to avoid its abuse, 
and to show by their conduct that they know how 
to exercise their privileges in a spirit of good feeling 
and good faith. 
PHARMACY IN IRELAND. 
A few weeks ago we notified the probability of an 
attempt being made to assimilate the law 7 as to the 
practice of pharmacy in Ireland with the Pharmacy 
Act of Great Britain. The need for such a measure 
is, we are sure, sufficiently w 7 ell appreciated by all 
w r ho have any cognizance of the case, to ensure their 
attentive consideration of the steps taken with the 
object of giving an independent existence to the art of 
pharmacy in the Sister Isle, and of creating there a 
body of competent pharmacists. We mentioned at 
the same time that the Apothecaries’ Hall at Dublin 
would probably bring forw r ard a Bill with this object, 
and w 7 e are now 7 enabled to place before our readers 
the draft of this Bill.' 1 ' It proposes to amend the 
Act for regulating the profession of an apothecary, 
and that a Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland should 
be instituted, since it is deemed expedient to enable 
* See page 405. 
