THE CHEMIST IN DISPENSING MEDICINES. 
195 
callings.” “ To become an expert dispenser of medicines, it is only necessary 
that a lad should have an ordinal education at a third-class grammar school, 
and an apprenticeship to a competent master for a moderate length of time.” 
Now surely, if the duties of dispensers of medicine were correctly repre¬ 
sented by the editor of the ‘ Medical Times’ in last February and March, they 
were not improperly performed by the chemists who dispensed Dr. Pymer’s 
prescription at Brighton. There is not the slightest imputation of any want 
of accuracy in dispensing the medicine. 
But we never have contended or admitted that the duty and responsibilit} 7- 
of the dispenser are limited to the strict and accurate fulfilment of the written 
instructions of the prescriber. We contend that the dispenser ought to pos¬ 
sess a knowledge of the probable effects of the medicines he dispenses, and to 
exercise this knowledge with discrimination and judgment for the prevention 
of injury to the public. This is a part of the duties of the pharmaceutist 
that is not acquired in three months or in three years,—which is altogether 
independent of a competent knowledge of dispensing, and involves a consi¬ 
derable amount of professional acquirement. The interference of the dis¬ 
penser in refusing to supply a medicine ordered by a physician’s prescription 
is a duty which sometimes occurs, and when it does occur it requires the exer¬ 
cise of much judgment and some amount of medical knowledge. It seems 
to have been implied in the case under notice that the chemists ought not to 
have supplied the medicine, but in this we do not agree. Such medicines are 
not unfrequently ordered in medical practice. A reference to Pereira’s 
4 Materia Medica ’ will show that the medicine prescribed in this case may be 
used for many legitimate purposes, some of which would involve a lengthened 
continuance of its use, yet the patient would naturally be averse to any in¬ 
quiry being made by a dispenser as to the object for which it was adminis¬ 
tered. Even if circumstances, other than the mere nature of the medicine, 
should cause suspicions to be entertained, the task of objecting in such a case 
to dispense a physician’s prescription for a known customer w r ould be a deli¬ 
cate and difficult one, which few would like to undertake. It must be borne 
in mind, with reference to the conduct of the chemist who latterly supplied 
several bottles of the medicine, that the prescriber had previously called on 
him and told him he was ordering such a medicine for the patient. Could he, 
under such circumstances, and especially if he had refreshed his knowledge 
of the therapeutic uses of ergot by a reference to Pereira, decline to supply 
the required dose without some more specific ground of objection than that 
of its possible application for an unlawful purpose ? A further and sufficient 
ground of objection was afterwards afforded him, and then he refused to 
supply any more. 
Under all the circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in saying 
that we had rather represent the pharmaceutical than the medical agents in 
this affair. 
