578 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [January u, 1871 
*** JS r o notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the ivriter ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
Pjroposed Regulations for Storing of Poisons. 
Sir,—In the discussion on this subject several important 
points have not been touched upon; and, as it is now evident 
that the Privy Council intend something to be done, and that 
within a reasonable time, it would be wise on our parts to 
attend to it early, so as to prevent any further interference. 
On a previous occasion, June, 1869, I advocated voluntary 
measures, but the time is now past for anything of that sort, 
and something compulsory must be agreed upon. 
In my opinion we can easily gratify the public, without 
any inconvenience or much expense to ourselves, and it will be 
obviously to our interests to do so. It is more as a placebo 
to satisfy the wishes of our customers, who seem to have 
made up their minds about having some regulations of this 
kind, than for any other reason that further legislation is 
needed. 
The Pharmacy Act, 1868, always appeared to me to expect 
further action by the Society; and I think we are under cer¬ 
tain moral, if not legal obligations, to bring forward some 
scheme to be universally adopted. 
There would be really very little difficulty in the matter if 
the regulations were confined to Part I., and to the sending out 
of poisonous applications in blue bottles or bottles covered with 
blue paper.* As to the argument that such precautions are 
not necessary, and that they ought, if compulsory, to apply 
equally to medical men, I attach very little weight to it, be¬ 
cause every one who has had experience in the best dispen¬ 
sing houses knows that similar arrangements are there carried 
out, and also that medical men can, in many cases, avoid in¬ 
quiry into their mistakes. 
Good bold labels, and a separate compartment for all 
articles in Part I., and labelling lin. aconit. and belladon. for 
outward use to distinguish them from the tinctures, appear 
to me the measures best adapted to retailers; but to extend 
these precautions to articles in Part II. is only to bring ridicule 
on the Society and the whole trade. Let us all make up our 
minds to carry out fully some well-considered method, and, 
by sinking private feelings for the general good that would 
follow, we shall please the public and advance our interests 
as dispensers. 
There is a growing feeling amongst the educated classes 
that medicines are better prepared by the chemist than the 
surgeon. If we can keep pace with the demands of the en¬ 
lightened portion of the community for genuine medicines 
skilfully prepared, we can well afford to leave medical men 
free to do as they like. 
Sandoivn, I. W. George Brown. 
Sir,—Although I cannot speak on the above subject from 
large practical experience, I have given some attention to the 
consideration of its bearings, both on the trade and the public, 
and am not at all surprised at the objections expressed in the 
Journal to the proposals of the Council. It is quite true, as 
“ Nemo ” observes in the number for Dec. 31, that cases of 
poisoning by “ misadventure seldom ” occur. But this does 
not, I think, show (as he seems to argue) that precautionary 
measures are not therefore requisite and advisable. The 
question is not whether such cases “seldom” occur, but whether 
they occur at all; whether anything can be done to prevent 
them. To my mind the question shapes itself thus: Has 
everything been done that can be done to prevent accidental 
poisoning by chemists ? If not, then it is clearly a duty of 
the Legislature (and intermediately of the Council) to supply 
this deficiency. This is attempted in the present simple regu¬ 
lations, to which, I think, no chemist can reasonably object. 
They are not an infallible remedy against mistakes, but a fur¬ 
ther effort (in addition to qualification) to prevent them,— 
another link in the circle of duty which we owe, as a public 
body, to society. 
* As stated by the Editor in a recent number, this last is 
very important, for it will be found on examination that most 
of the accidents occur through mistakes or neglect of patients 
or attendants. 
“Prevention is” always “better than cure,” but in cases 
of poisoning prevention is too frequently the only cure. The 
fatal draught once swallowed, no power, perhaps, can avert 
the sad results,—the loss, it may be, of a valuable life, and 
the ruin of the chemist, or at least the sacrifice, on his part, 
of a large sum of money, to say nothing of reputation. In 
how many cases would such results have been prevented bv 
the rigid adoption of a few simple precautions like those now 
proposed? Let me select three “sample cases,” in each of 
which, I believe, these precautions would have proved effec¬ 
tual. They are all recorded in the Pharmaceutical Jour¬ 
nal for July, 1869, and each proved fatal. In the first of 
these, which resulted in the death of Mr. F. Grattan Guin¬ 
ness, it is next to certain that, had these compulsory precau¬ 
tions been in existence, the porter would not have filled the 
carbonate of ammonia bottle with cyanide of potassium. It 
is distinctly stated that “ the jar had no label to it.” It is 
true the assistant should have discovered the substitution, 
but the porter’s error was the original cause of the accident, 
and would have been entirely met by the precautions now 
proposed. It was asserted at the inquiry that the rules of 
the establishment had, in this case, been departed from, and. 
this fact clearly shows the advantage of uniform and com¬ 
pulsory regulations over these privately adopted. The former 
are far less likely to be neglected than the latter. To 
the second case referred to, which involved the death of 
Essex T. Williams, surgeon, a similar line of remark is ap¬ 
plicable. Had the strychnia sent out by the “ wholesale 
house in Bristol,” in mistake for acetate of morphia, been 
originally prominently distinguished, it is hardly possible to 
suppose that it would have been supplied in error for the latter 
substance. The third case, in which strychnia was substituted 
for sugar, still more strikingly exhibits the value of precau¬ 
tionary measures. A chemist, who had on the very day of 
the accident, entered on a business, dispensed strychnia for 
saccharum. The chemist who had sold the business alleged 
that the labels had been mistaken, adding, “ It was not cus¬ 
tomary for chemists to label their bottles ‘ Poison ’ in addition 
to the ordinary label as to the contents.” It is clear enough 
that this mistake would not have occurred had the bottle 
containing strychnia been in some way distinguished from, 
the rest. A parallel case to the above, in which strych¬ 
nia also proved fatal, is recorded at page 728 of the Pharm. 
Journal (Yol. XI.). In this case a surgeon dispensed the 
medicine. It was, however, stated on the inquiry that the 
surgeon “ was not aware that there was any strychnia in a 
crystalline form in his surgery,” and that “ the bottle con¬ 
taining the poison was not properly labelled.” The above 
cases (and, did time and space permit, others equally in point 
might be cited) show that poisoning by “misadventure” does 
not occur so “ seldom” as could be wished, but quite often, 
enough to render some restrictions necessary. Practically 
they suggest that the same or similar regulations should be 
applied to wholesale druggists and surgeons, as to dispensing 
chemists. 
Such cases also furnish a reply to the observation of 
“ Pharmaceutist ” (page 537), “ that the improved education 
now demanded is a sufficient safeguard to the public.” Such 
a remark is altogether beside the question. If only educated, 
pharmaceutists and scientific men had the handling of poisons, 
restriction might be less necessary, but as we see in the case 
of Mr. Guinness, and as every one in the trade knows, these 
substances are constantly being manipulated by apprentices or 
porters, who are for the most part imperfectly educated, and 
the same remark will apply, probably, even to not a few as¬ 
sistants. The fact is, the qualification of the principals in 
Messrs. Oldham’s establishment was far less capable of pre¬ 
venting the accident above referred to, than a few simple- 
rules, regarded by all as compulsory, would have been. The 
same observation will apply in the case of mistakes which 
have occurred in other houses of the highest standing in the 
trade. Clearly enough qualification may have nothing to do 
with the matter. In neither of the above cases, where the 
principals made the blunder, was any question whatever 
raised respecting qualification. The present regulations are 
designed to meet sources of error against which no degree of 
qualification could render a man absolutely secure, either as 
regards himself, or especially as regards those in his employ. 
Education and a sense of responsibility, so far from render¬ 
ing us independent of rules, teach us to frame good ones, and 
willingly and rigidly to abide by them. 
Let me ask, in conclusion, how would these regulations, it 
adopted, practically affect the trade? Do not the alternatives. 
