Am.  lour.  Phurm. 
April,  1900. 
Chicago  College  of  Pharmacy. 
197 
introduction  of  such  medicines  were  these  :  (1)  That  it  is  unethical  to  use  a 
medicine  of  unknown  composition  or  the  manufacture  of  which  is  controlled 
by  a  monopoly,  especially  as  such  monopoly  often  means  an  exorbitant  cost 
to  the  patient.  (2)  Patented  processes  exclude  the  improvement  in  methods 
of  manufacture  of  a  medicine,  copyrighting  the  name  bestows  perpetual  mon- 
opoly, and  the  manufacturer  may  control  the  medicine,  without  regard  to 
standard,  varying  its  composition  as  he  sees  fit.  (3)  Introduction  of  these 
remedies  under  their  trade-marked  names  would  unduly  advertise  certain 
manufactures.  These  arguments  the  speaker  then  proceeded  to  refute.  The 
physician  is  in  duty  bound  to  prescribe  what  his  experience  has  led  him  to 
believe  is  best  for  the  patient,  regardless  of  ethics.  Whatever  the  physician 
prescribes,  unless  obviously  endangering  the  life  of  the  patient,  the  pharmacist 
must  dispense.  Again,  the  inventor  is  entitled  to  the  fruits  of  his  labor,  and 
protection  should  be  extended  to  him.  This  is  universally  conceded  concern- 
ing mechanical  inventions  ;  why  does  it  not  apply  as  well  to  the  results  of 
the  chemist's  researches  ?  The  Revision  Committee  may  safely  be  entrusted 
with  the  duty  of  admitting  only  worthy  products  of  this  kind.  He  then  read 
a  large  number  of  expressions  from  prominent  physicians  and  pharmacists 
favoring  the  admission  of  protected  remedies,  the  chief  argument  used  being 
the  advantages  of  having  a  definite  standard  of  purity  and  strength  of  these 
medicines  and  of  obtaining  disinterested  and  authoritative  information  con- 
cerning them.  In  conclusion,  the  speaker  stated  that  it  seemed  altogether 
likely  that  a  number  of  the  new  synthetics  will  be  recognized  in  the  next 
Pharmacopoeia  regardless  of  any  consideration  of  patents  or  copyrights.  The 
pharmacist  can  only  ask  of  a  drug  that  its  identity,  strength  and  purity  can  be 
definitely  fixed  and  controlled. 
Dr.  D.  R.  Brower,  Professor  of  Mental  Diseases,  Materia  Medica  and  Thera- 
peutics and  delegate  to  the  Convention  from  Rush  Medical  College,  opened 
the  discussion.  The  doctor  said  that  he  would  greatly  regret  the  admission  to 
the  Pharmacopoeia  of  those  patented  remedies  which  physicians  are  using  with- 
out excuse.  Such  admission  would  be  greatly  to  the  injury  of  the  Pharmacopoeia. 
Mr.  A.  E.  Hbert  asked  "  For  whom  is  the  Pharmacopoeia  created  ?  Is  it  for 
medicine  and  pharmacy  or  for  the  manufacturers  ?"  He  was  opposed  to  the 
admission  of  such  remedies,  especially  with  our  present  faulty  trade  mark  laws. 
Dr.  J.  A.  Patton  expressed  himself  that  physicians  are  responsible  for  the 
immense  number  of  these  patent  remedies  that  are  in  use,  and  in  his  opinion 
the  great  majority  of  these  new  synthetics  serve  no  useful  purpose  and  could 
be  well  supplanted  by  official  remedies.  The  fault  rests  largely  with  the  medi- 
cal colleges,  most  of  which  have,  in  the  past,  given  inferior  instruction  in 
materia  medica,  resulting  in  the  student  neglecting  this  important  study,  and 
consequently  after  graduation  depending  largely  upon  the  advertisements  of 
the  manufacturer  for  his  remedies. 
Dr.  H.  H.  Rogers  also  expressed  himself  as  opposed  to  the  proposition. 
Prof.  C.  S.  N.  Hallberg  pointed  out  the  distinctions  between  medicines  made 
by  patented  processes,  those  in  which  the  substance  itself  is  patented  and 
articles  possessing  copyrighted  or  trade-marked  names.  No  preparation 
controlled  by  a  copyrighted  name  should  be  placed  in  the  Pharmacopoeia, 
but  substances  the  process  of  manufacture  of  which  is  alone  patented  might 
well  be  admitted.    He  cited  the  case  of  salicylic  acid,  prepared  by  Kolbe's 
