612 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[January 2S, 1371. 
DISPENSING IN SURGERIES. 
In calling tlie attention of our readers to tlie re¬ 
port, in another column, of a case of poisoning by 
an overdose of morphia, we wish to say that any 
remark that may he made will not he intended to 
apply to particular individuals. If the method of 
dispensing adopted in Mr. Dex Bean’s surgery had 
been singular and unusual, probably we should have 
abstained from comment; but as, on the contrary, 
we believe it to be typical of what might be met with 
in hundreds of surgeries throughout the country, 
and these belonging to members of a body which, 
at times, is inclined to be rather exigent in its de¬ 
mands upon pharmacists, we are tempted to call at¬ 
tention to some of the facts of the case. 
A child being ill, a medical gentleman who was 
called in, prescribed for it a mixture of solution of 
tartarized antimony, hydrate of chloral, and colour¬ 
ing matter. This mixture was supplied from his 
-own surgery. A teaspoonful having been admi¬ 
nistered the child fell into a deep sleep, only dis¬ 
turbed by convulsions until its death. We do not 
think we shall be charged with unfairness if we say 
that here, in the ordinary course, there would have 
been an end of the affair. But it happened that the 
father, who is a chemist and druggist, recognized the 
appearance of narcotism in the child; and after its 
■death he obtained an analysis of the portion of the 
mixture which remained, the result being that it was 
found that antimony which was ordered was absent, 
while morphia, which had not been ordered, was 
present. 
As to the state of things which would allow of 
such a result. The prescription was left to be dis¬ 
pensed by a pupil who had been under tuition one 
year and three-quarters. Now we doubt whether 
there are many respectable pharmacies in which an 
apprentice in so early a stage would be entrusted 
with the responsible work of compounding prescrip¬ 
tions, certainly not without vigilant supervision. 
But what are the facts with regard to this young 
man? What is Mr. Dex Bean’s own evidence on 
this point ? The drugs were left to be compounded 
by his assistant, John Simeon Dyson. No other 
person was authorized, or even able to compound 
the medicine. He had not interfered with the dis¬ 
pensing department for the last twelve months. He 
•could not say where the bottle containing chloral 
was kept exactly. Mr. Dyson had had one and 
three-quarter years’ practice in dispensing. He had 
dispensed, without supervision, sixteen months.” 
Again, in answer to the question, “ How many pre¬ 
scriptions has the young man Dyson made up?” 
the answer was, “ Several thousands.” And again, 
in answer to a question from the foreman of the jury 
as to the qualifications required in a dispenser, Mr. 
Dex Bean replied that dispensing was merely 
mechanical, and he did not think that previous 
education had much to do with it. 
So that this young man, when he had only 
had five months’ experience, was left to make up 
his employer’s prescriptions without any super¬ 
vision, since which time he has prepared several 
thousands! Such statements carry in them tlie 
strongest possible condemnation of a system under 
which it is possible for them to be made. The 
inference to be drawn from the occurrence by every 
candid mind, amongst medical men and pharmacists, 
must be, that it is their duty to do all in their power 
to hasten the time when dispensing as well as pre¬ 
scribing shall be performed only by men specially 
trained to each calling. 
At the Evening Meeting of the Pharmaceutical 
Society on Wednesday next, a Lecture will be de¬ 
livered by Dr. Caupenteu, the subject being “ Tlie 
Microscope and its Revelations.” 
The British Medical Journal, referring to the 
paper by Mr. Ince in our last number, expresses an 
opinion that while the object is a good one, it is worth 
considering how far it accords with proper reticence 
and courtesy. It thinks that before putting such 
documents to a public use the permission of the 
writers should be asked, and if this were not pos¬ 
sible, the signatures should be erased. 
tnrosafiTO uf lire f titwiratM Sotitlg. 
EXAMINATION IN EDINBURGH. 
January 17 th, 1871. 
Present—Messrs. Ainslie, Aitken, Baildon, Brown, 
Buchanan, Kemp, Mackay and Young. 
Twenty-four Candidates were examined, eleven for 
the First or Preliminary Examination, eight for the 
Minor, and five for the Modified; the following passed 
and were duly registered :— 
FIRST, or PRELIMINARY (as Apprentices or 
Students). 
Anderson, David Smith.Musselburgh. 
Bray, William...Dumfries. 
Chislett, Charles .Edinburgh. 
Galloway, George, jun.Inverness. 
Gardner, William .. .... Inverkeithing. 
M‘Leish, Stewart Munn.Uddingston. 
Meldrum, David .Edinburgh. 
Moffat, Alexander Dryden .... Glasgow. 
Russell, James Bryce .Glasgow. 
Sharp, Robert Henry.Portobello. 
MINOR (as Chemists and Druggists). 
Gallow^av, George, jun.Inverness. 
Giles, William.Aberdeen. 
M‘Naught, Archibald.Greenock. 
Macpherson, Richard .Greenock. 
Veitch, John Wilson .Dunse. 
MODIFIED (as Chemists and Druggists). 
Ewing, James .Edinburgh. 
Robinson, Jonathan Scott .... Rhyl. 
Savage, James .Bradford. 
Stephen, John .Aberdeen. 
