Am  Jour  pharm.)  Editorial.  207 
April,  1881.  J 
EDITORIAL  DEPARTMENT. 
Pharmacists  and  Physic  ians — Their  Rki^ations.— Wlieii  we  wrote 
the  editorial  witli  tlie  above  lieading  for  the  February  nunil)er  of  the 
Journal  (page  92),  we  did  not  think  that  we  should  be  again  called  upon 
for  further  remarks  upon  a  subject,  in  the  amicable  settlement  of  which 
mutuality  should  not  be  overlooked,  and  we  regret  that  the  Committee  on 
Hygiene,  etc.,  did  not  at  the  conference  held  with  representatives  of  the 
College  of  Pharmacy  intimate  the  nature  of  the  resolutions  (see  page  193) 
which  were  subsequently  reported  to  the  C-ounty  Medical  Society  and, 
presumably,  adopted  by  that  l)ody^in  the  form  reported  in  another  place  of 
this  number.  We  believe  that  the  committee  of  the  College  would  have 
made  some  explanations,  which  would  have  put  a  ditterent  aspect  upon 
some  of  the  points. 
For  our  own  part  we  decidedly  object  to  the  pharmacist  being  styled 
simply  the  agent  of  the  physician  in  compounding  his  prescriptions,  as  has 
been  done  in  the  first  resolution  offered  by  the  committee.  The  last  reso- 
lution affirms  that  ethics  do  not  forbid  a  physician  dispensing  his  own 
medicines — neither  does  the  law  forbid  it ;  but  do  these  facts  constitute  the 
compounder  the  mere  agent  of  the  writer  of  prescriptions?  There  is 
nothing  in  ethics  or  in  law  forbiding  a  sick  man  curing  or  treating  him- 
self; does  the  physician,  on  being  called  in  for  that  puriK)se,  thereby 
become  the  mere  agent  of  the  patient?  Neither  can  the  i)harmacist  claim 
as  his  agent  the  druggist  who  supplies  him  w  ith  the  needed  herbs  and 
roots,  or  the  manufacturing  chemist  who  prepares  for  him  quinia  and  mor- 
phia, and  yet  neither  ethics  or  law  prevent  the  pharmacist  from  collecting 
his  own  herbs,  and  from  manufacturing  his  own  chemicals.  It  is  a  long 
time  since  pharmacy  has  branched  off  from  ancient  and  mediaeval  medi- 
cine, and  has  established  its  claims  as  a  distinct  profession,  co-ordinate, 
but  not  subordinate  to  modern  medicine.  It  is  a  long  time  since  chemistry 
was  almost  exclusively  cultivated  by  physicians  ;  more  recently,  the  phar- 
maceutical laboratory  was  almost  the  sole  school  for  acquiring  chemical 
knowledge  ;  is,  on  account  of  this  former  close  connection,  the  chemistry 
of  to-day  simply  tlie handmaid  of  medicine  and  pharmacy? 
We  are  sorry,  indeed,  that,  after  all  that  has  been  said  and  written  on  the 
subject,  the  Philadelphia  County  Medical  Society  still  regards  the  renewal 
or  furnishing  cojoies  of  prescriptions  as  a  breach  of  the  pharmacist's  proper 
obligations  to  the  i^hysician  (see  first  resolution).  We  should  feel  obliged 
to  the  society  if  they  would  point  out  a  law^  forbidding  it,  or  would  prove 
that  the  practice,  considered  so  repugnant,  is  not  well  established  by  usage. 
As  to  the  law  on  this  subject  we  desire  to  direct  the  attention  of  the  Society 
to  chapter  856  of  the  statutes  of  Rhode  Island,  more  particularly  to  the 
closing  sentence  of  section  10,  which  has  been  re-enacted  in  section  7  of  the 
Rhode  Island  pharmacy  law  of  1871,  as  follows  : 
"Said  prescription  shall  be  j) reserved  (by  the  apothecary)  at  least  five 
years,  and  shall  be  open  to  the  inspection  of  the  writer  thereof,  and  a  copy 
shall  be  furnished,  free  of  expense,  when  demanded  by  either  the  writer 
or  purchaser  thereof." 
The  resolutions  of  the  Philadelpliia  County  Medical  Society  have,  with- 
