550 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[January 7, 1S'\ 
tender topic, it will be to recommend our readers to 
follow the barrister’s example, to be a little more 
independent of the conduct of others, and to have 
more confidence in right principles of business, 
which it should be their object to discover and to 
practise. 
But while we hold ourselves apart from the con¬ 
tentions of Mr. A. with his neighbour Mr. B., we are 
thoroughly cognizant of the points involved, viz. the 
honour and credit as well as the pecuniary interests 
of Pharmacy; and in promotion of these objects we 
propose to divert our readers’ attention from a per¬ 
sonal to a general discussion upon which an expres¬ 
sion of opinion may exercise some beneficial effect: 
—we have in view the alliances more or less overt 
between members of tiro medical profession and 
pharmaceutists. 
It would be impossible to specify the many forms 
under which Ihese alliances exist. Some have re¬ 
cently been brought to view in the correspondence 
columns of this Journal, and have elicited the dis¬ 
approval of the medical profession as well as of our 
own body. Whatever the precise character of the 
compact may be, the essential feature is that the 
doctor hands his patients over to a particular che¬ 
mist, and in some shape or other receives a premium 
for so doing. We will speak only of the more 
avowed and, to our thinking, the least objectionable 
arrangement, where the doctor is the ostensible pur¬ 
veyor of the medicines, the chemist acting as his dis¬ 
penser or agent. In these cases the doctor receives 
the full remuneration for work which he does not do, 
while the pharmaceutist is preposterously underpaid 
for the work which he does,—only receiving, in fact, 
about half the remuneration to which he is fairly 
entitled for his services. 
What then is the operation of arrangements such 
as these, and how do they affect the interests of 
pharmacy collectively and of individual pharma¬ 
ceutists ? These questions deserve the thoughtful 
consideration of our readers. Obviously the effect 
is to lessen the remuneration fairly earned by phar¬ 
maceutical labour, in order that the lion’s share may 
be appropriated by members of the medical profes¬ 
sion to whom it does not legitimately belong, thus 
realizing that interested dream of the Lancet, which 
recently aroused so much pharmaceutical indig¬ 
nation. Why is it then that pharmaceutists will 
give themselves up in detail to that which they repu¬ 
diate in gross ? We fear that it is because they 
have not sufficient esprit de corps to refrain from 
snatching a selfish advantage at the general ex¬ 
pense. But does it even yield a selfish advantage ? 
M e think not. Speaking with competent knowledge 
of the large percentage to which the working charges 
upon dispensing trade amount, we state our delibe¬ 
rate conviction that the customary prices of this sort 
of dispensing do not pay; and we know that this con¬ 
clusion has been arrived at by many who have made 
the experiment. But if it does not pay in itself, it 
may be said that it brings other business which does 
pay, and is thus indirectly advantageous. Assuming 
it to be so, we are directed to the unfair operation of 
the system upon neighbouring chemists, who are 
compelled to see their own legitimate connection 
poached upon by an occult competition against 
which there is no defence, and we can imagine the 
jealousies which may and do arise from this cause; 
for such is the daily experience of those who are 
brought within the baleful influence of these combi¬ 
nations. A Nemesis does, however, attend them ; for 
the faculty as a body have a reasonable mistrust of 
chemists who are too closely identified with this or that 
individual practitioner. Of course medical men re¬ 
commend those pharmacies in which they have most 
confidence, and it is quite right that they should do 
so. We are no friends to artificial restrictions, and 
we claim a reciprocal freedom for our members who 
are often consulted as to the skill and reputation of 
professional men. Provided that no self-interest un¬ 
derlies these recommendations, the public is bene¬ 
fited, and no one has any just ground of complaint. 
Nor would we interfere with medical men who dis¬ 
pense their own medicines, which is often a matter 
of necessity to meet the circumstances of a scattered 
population. We do not expect that the practice of 
dispensing will be altogether given up by the medical 
profession; but in the interest of pharmacy we de¬ 
sire to see it reduced to its minimum, and we think 
that considerable diminution might take place with¬ 
out inconvenience to the profession or to the public. 
Unfortunately pharmaceutists have lent themselves 
to the perpetuation of the custom by these very al¬ 
liances of which we have spoken, and by means of 
which they preserve the whole profit of the business 
to the doctor, who, being anxious to relieve himself 
from this irksome duty, would otherwise probably 
abandon it altogether. 
We are aware that in the foregoing remarks we 
have only reproduced facts already familiarly known 
to our readers. It has not been our object to ad¬ 
vance anything new, but to invite serious reflection 
upon an old abuse, and we trust that a laudable 
esprit de corps will bring such influence to bear upon 
this really important subject as will serve (not sud¬ 
denly but surety) to put an end to a custom which is 
injurious to pharmacy, unjust to pharmaceutists and 
a fruitful source of misunderstanding and jealousy. 
The programme of the London Chemists’ Associa¬ 
tion for the next three months includes papers on 
the following subjects:—“ The Preservation of Vege¬ 
table Substances,” by Mr. E. Beyxox ; “ Belladonna 
and its preparations,” by Mr. B. Pick; “Filtra¬ 
tion,” by Mr. De Putron ; “ Structural Botany,” by 
Mr. J. H. Jessop; and “Phosphoric Acid,” by Mr. 
G. Brownen. The Annual Dinner will take place 
on Thui sday next. 
