Juiy 8,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
29 
SATUEBAY, JULY 8, 1S71. 
Communications for this Journal, and hooks for review, etc., 
’should he addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should he sent to Elias Brem- 
&IDGE, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street, London, W. Envelopes indorsed “ FJiarm. Journ.” 
ACCIDENTAL POISONING. 
The cases reported in tlie present and preceding 
numbers of tliis Journal opportunely illustrate some 
of tlie sources of danger attending tlie keeping and 
dispensing of poisons. These cases are also of 
special interest while this Society is engaged in op¬ 
posing “ the regulation of pharmacy” which is pro¬ 
posed in shape of the Pharmacy Act Amendment 
Bill now before the House of Commons. 
In the first place, the death of the two children 
from the effects of a poisonous dose of opium admi¬ 
nistered by mistake, affords striking support to the 
argument that regulations as to the keeping and dis¬ 
pensing of poisons—if they be imposed at all—ought 
to be imposed so as to affect all classes of persons 
who dispense medicine. We apprehend the force of 
that argument must be apparent to every one who 
considers the subject even cursorily. For what is the 
object to be gained by regulation ? Protection from 
poisoning by the accidental substitution of one drug 
for another. It is as a measure for ensuring public 
safety that these regulations are proposed to be 
made compulsory; and, considering the matter from 
that point of view, it seems impossible to conceive 
why medical dispensers should be exempted from 
the obligation of conforming to any regulations pre¬ 
scribed as to the keeping and dispensing of poisons. 
We here purposely leave aside the purely pharma¬ 
ceutical question, whether or not there be any need 
for pharmacists to be subjected to compulsory regula¬ 
tion, for that is a question of comparatively less im¬ 
portance than that affecting the whole community; 
and even admitting that there be, on the part of the 
public, a demand for protection against accidental 
poisoning, we cannot imagine any one being less 
unwilling to be poisoned by a medical man than by 
a pharmacist. 
We are glad to see this view of the case fully 
adopted by at least one of the medical papers in the 
statement that— 
“ .... no protection against poisoning can bo complete 
or satisfactory, which does not include medical, dispen¬ 
sers. The risk of accident would appear, primd facie, 
to be even greater in their case than in that of pharma¬ 
cists, inasmuch as their functions and attention are not 
solely given to the making up of medicines.” 
In a subsequent number, also, the same paper speaks 
of the above-mentioned fatal case of poisoning as 
being “ but another instance of the abominable way 
poisons are stored in apothecaries’ shops.” Numerous 
correspondents in tliis Journal have pointed to the 
same fact; and certainly the evidence given by “ Mr. 
John Levygill, the apothecary at the dispensary,” 
seems to afford ample ground for the remark, and 
for the opinion that in medical Dispensaries the pos¬ 
sible substitution of poison for physic is neither 
efficiently provided against nor regarded with suffi¬ 
cient seriousness. 
It is probably from a sense of these deficiencies 
that the Parliamentary Committee of the British 
Medical Association in considering the Pharmacy 
Act Amendment Bill, resolved— 
“ That it is desirable that provision should bo made 
for the carrying out the regulation for keeping, dispens¬ 
ing and selling poisons, and that for this purpose a clause 
should bo introduced providing inspectors to ascertain 
that they are carried out.” 
We understand that the view we have here put 
forward is favourably entertained by the Privy 
Council, and that Mr. Forster is now disposed to in¬ 
troduce into the Bill amendments that would give it 
the more extended application to all dispensers of 
medicine. 
Contrasting strongly with the state of things illus¬ 
trated by the case referred to is the caution evi¬ 
denced, as regards the sale of a dangerous drug, by 
a pharmaceutical chemist in the other fatal case o‘f 
poisoning reported tliis week. It would perhaps be 
difficult to have done anything more for “ public 
safety” than was done in that case, for the too fre¬ 
quent practice of amateur doctoring is a source of 
danger that -would override even the most stringent 
compulsory regulations. 
Another point illustrated by the Dispensary case 
is the vagueness of the Poison Schedule of the Act 
of 1868, and the difference of opinion as to what is 
to be regarded a poison within the meaning of the 
Act. Kino powder is a preparation of opium, and,, 
though it contains a larger amount of opium than 
paregoric does, there is still a possibility that either 
might poison. It seems, therefore, that the exercise 
of judgment and caution by the competent vendor 
or dispenser of drugs is, after all, the safest protec¬ 
tion against accidental poisoning. The granting of 
a monopoly of the business of pharmacy to such 
competent men was indeed a measure mainly taken 
in the interests of the public; and, though it has, no 
doubt, been the means of improving that business 
for its followers, there is nothing to justify the taunt¬ 
ing tone in which the “monopoly” enjoyed by the 
Pharmaceutical Society is often spoken of in some 
of the medical journals. Rescinding that monopoly 
is surely an inconsistent suggestion from those who 
study the protection of the public from accidental 
poisoning, and who maintain this to have been the 
