October 28,1871.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
347 
mm 
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1S71. 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs for review,etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
■transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
HIDGE, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square . W.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
JStreet, London, IF. Envelopes indorsed “ Bharm. Journ .” 
POISON LABELS. 
So much lias been said of the notice taken of 
the poison question by the general press, that it 
seems desirable to place before the readers of this 
Journal any comments that may from time to time 
.appear in the London or provincial newspapers. 
Through the courtesy of a correspondent we are 
•enabled to reproduce, from the Carlisle Express and 
Examiner , the following editorial article upon the 
ease of poisoning reported at page 355. The article 
is evidently written in a spirit of fairness that we 
•should be glad to see more generally manifested by 
those who discuss the difficult subject of accidental 
poisoning. 
“ The facts brought out at the inquest held in Carlisle 
on Tuesday last, upon the body of a child that had been 
poisoned by an overdose of syrup of poppies, possess an 
importance beyond the case which was immediately 
under consideration. That the child died from the effects 
of the poisonous drug was placed beyond question, and 
the medical man mentioned another instance which had 
come under notice recently, in which a child that was 
troublesome at nights had received his quietus in the 
.shape of some narcotic of a similar kind. Mr. Parker, 
the druggist, stated that it was not a medicine that he 
recommended, and he denied having given any direc¬ 
tions or advice at all in supplying the bottle last week; 
but it was certainly far from satisfactory for the jury to 
bear an experienced apothecary saying that a teaspoon¬ 
ful could be administered with safety, and a medical 
man of extensive practice asserting that such a dose w r as 
fatal to a child so young, and backing up that view by 
authorities of the highest standing. Such a collision 
-shows clearly the wisdom of the Legislature in requiring 
that such preparations should all be labelled “ Poison,” 
so that those who use them may at least have something 
to remind them that death lurks in these ‘drowsy 
syrups.’ There are good grounds for believing that 
they are most extensively used among women who wish 
to save themselves the trouble of nursing; therefore, it 
is all the more important that the provisions of the Le¬ 
gislature should be carried into effect. The directions 
of the ‘Sale of Poisons Act’ (1868) are clear and em¬ 
phatic. It is enacted, under a penalty, that ‘ it 6hall be 
unlawful to sell any poisons, either by wholesale or by 
retail, unless the box, bottle, vessel, wrapper, or cover in 
which such poison is contained he distinctly labelled 
•with the name of the article and the word ‘ Poison,’ and 
with the name and address of the seller of the poison.’ 
Opium, and all preparations of opium or of poppies, are 
specifically mentioned in the schedule of the Act, and 
this inquest—which affords a good example of the value 
of those coroner’s inquiries which some people would 
abolish—wiffi we trust, have the effect of reminding 
dealers in poisonous drugs of their duties and resj on- 
.eibilities.” 
This case is interesting, from the fact that it illus¬ 
trates one of the difficulties involved in the applica¬ 
tion of the Pharmacy Act of 1868, viz. the question 
how far the use of the poison label should be carried 
as one of the precautionary regulations for prevent¬ 
ing accidental poisoning.* 
It has been maintained b}' - many that the use of 
the poison label for paregoric and such medicines 
would be an absurdity; and we thoroughly agree 
with this opinion as regards very many of the cir¬ 
cumstances under which paregoric is used. The 
same view might, perhaps, be taken in regard to 
syrup of poppies, were it not for the fact that this 
syrup and other mild narcotics “ are most exten¬ 
sively used among women who wish to save them¬ 
selves the trouble of nursing.” Bearing this in 
mind, it does not seem an unreasonable opinion 
that “ such preparations should all be labelled 
‘ poison,’ so as to remind those who use them that 
death lurks in these ‘drowsy syrups;’” nor, apart 
from the misuse of these narcotics, can it be deemed 
a strained interpretation of the Act to include under 
its provisions for the use of the poison label a pre¬ 
paration that is capable of proving fatal to those 
for whom it is cliieity used. 
We cannot, therefore, complain that our contem- 
porary, referring to the “clear and emphatic” di¬ 
rections of the Act, expresses a hope that tills case 
will have the effect of reminding dealers in poisonous 
drugs of their duties and responsibilities; but it 
! must not be supposed that we also admit Mr. 
Parker to be censurable in this case; for though 
the Coroxer distinctly put forward the opinion that 
the Act rendered obligatory the use of the poison 
label for syrup of poppies, it must be remembered 
that the contrary opinion is held as decidedly by 
very respectable authorities. They would argue 
that in this case the poison label would not have 
prevented the death of the child, either because such 
a wide use of tins label as to comprise syrup of pop¬ 
pies, paregoric, etc., would make that precautionary 
regulation ineffective by reason of its being so fa¬ 
miliar as to be little heeded, or because of the bad 
habits, ignorance, etc., of the people using such pre¬ 
parations, or because of idiosyncrasy. There is, no 
doubt, some ground for each and all of these reasons 
being urged against the wider use of the poison 
label; but we believe that whatever cogency those 
reasons may have in this respect, they would be still 
more effective in support of the view that the sense 
of individual responsibility in a properly qualified 
pharmacist, no less than regard to self-interest, 
would afford the public security against the danger 
of poisoning by accident or misuse, far more effectu¬ 
ally than the prescription of regulations which, in 
spite of the effort to make them specific and precise, 
are nevertheless open to diverse interpretation. 
* Just as we are going to press we have received the re¬ 
port of another case of poisoning by syrup ot poppies, which, 
will be found printed at p. 356. 
