54 
ON ACCIDENTAL POISONING. 
tion from them if we may. A pharmaceutist this time, not a general practitioner, 
in position and attainments equal with the best; labouring heartily for the ad¬ 
vancement of the status of his profession ; endeavouring to attain, and to a large 
degree attaining, the patronage of the public, not by having recourse to underhand 
or questionable means, but legitimately, by constant personal care and attention, 
and an endeavour to keep pace with the ever-increasing requirements of the 
practice of pharmacy, is the person most nearly concerned. In an unlucky 
hour a dispenser, in whom years of satisfactory service gave him just right to 
place confidence, whose one fault seems to have been the over-confidence arising 
from long practice, makes an error in compounding a bottle of medicine, using 
powdered strychnia instead of James’s powder. The immediate effect need not 
be dwelt upon. We are informed that the principal was not aware that he had 
such an article as powdered strychnia on his premises, and that the crystals had, 
without his knowledge, been rubbed down by his assistant for convenience in 
dispensing, forgetting the safeguard which resides in their peculiar appearance. 
It is obvious that an accident like this may occur to any one of us, even the 
most careful, and it is well therefore that we should look at the matter with 
thoughts for the future. We need not quote trite latinisms in testimony of the 
intimate association of error with humanity, nor can we expect our assistants 
to be above human weaknesses ; if they understand their work, and are careful 
and trustworthy, we have reason to be thankful. Accidents, in the very nature 
of things, must happen ; let us do all in our power to prevent them, but let 
us seek also to protect ourselves should they happen from causes beyond our 
control. 
It is easy to see how a jury, unacquainted with the details of a dispensing 
establishment, and having no reliable authority on which to base their judgment, 
may be persuaded, or bullied, or tricked, according to the fancy of a barrister 
on the prosecuting side, into a belief that some precaution ought to have been 
taken by the chemist which he has omitted ; and a tirade on a fanciful poison- 
bottle, or a sand-paper label, may induce a verdict utterly unjust in the magni¬ 
tude of its consequences. Nor is it unnatural that the tendency of a jury, 
when the “ safety of the public” and the u carelessness of dispensers” has been 
duly sounded in their ears, should be disposed to decide the case in a spirit of 
revenge, rather than of sober judgment. On the other side, the pharmaceutist 
can scarcely complain, inasmuch as the class to which he belongs, to whom the 
public naturally looks for information on the subject, has never given any indi¬ 
cation as to what means may be, or ought to be, taken by the chemist so as to 
reduce the chance of error to the minimum. It is useless to state, that because 
the substances with which we have to do glide, by imperceptible gradations, 
from the alimentary and harmless into the virulently poisonous, we can draw 
no line amongst them, nor even define what constitutes a poison. The public 
recognize a difference, and common sense, rather than abstract science, is their 
guide, as it must be ours. In reading the history of the Liverpool case, we 
cannot avoid the conviction that, had the error occurred in the administration 
of an ounce of paregoric instead of a dose of strychnia, though the effect 
would have been the same, the verdict of the jury would have been couched in 
very different language. 
. Nearly three years ago, we understood that a committee had been appointed 
by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society to consider the whole question ; 
we even heard of a re-appointment of that committee on the formation of a new 
Council. Pharmaceutists would be glad to know the results of their delibera¬ 
tions. We can scarcely suppose that they have not produced a report; their 
silence on the subject can scarcely be intended to signify an opinion that no 
precautionary measures are of any value; if this be so, their heaviest task is 
still before them, which will be to convince chemists in the first place, and the 
