432  Should  Pharmacists  Prescribe?  {^d^lCmi^ 
should  he  usurp  the  right  to  play  the  role  of  physicians  in  cases 
other  than  his  own  flesh  and  blood  ?  Is  it  because  he  has  a  lower 
estimate  of  a  human  life  not  bound  to  him  by  the  ties  of  relation- 
ship ?  The  query  is  broad,  inasmuch  as  it  covers  the  moral  and 
legal  phases  of  the  function  of  the  pharmacist.  As  pharmacists, 
we  should  accord  to  physicians,  without  regard  to  its  legal  bearing, 
the  privileges  embodied  in  the  Medical  Act,  and  this  carries  with  it 
nearly  if  not  all  the  weight  of  the  argument,  viz.:  that  pharma- 
cists, as  such,  have  no  legal  right  and  no  qualification  to  prescribe, 
excepting,  as  previously  stated,  in  such  cases  of  emergency  as, 
demand  immediate  attention,  and  only  pending  the  arrival  of  a 
physician ;  and  in  no  event  should  he  undertake  the  treatment  of 
diseases,  specific  or  otherwise,  because  he  is  neither  fitted  by  educa- 
tion nor  by  moral  or  legal  right  to  play  the  role  of  physician. 
There  is  a  growing  tendency  on  the  part  of  pharmacists  to  recog- 
nize the  rights  of  physicians  ;  especially  is  this  true  since  the  enact- 
ment of  the  medical  law.  The  pharmacists  cannot  be  accused  of 
wilfully  trespassing  upon  the  field  of  medicine  prior  to  the  passage 
of  this  act.  They  might  be  excused  on  the  grounds  that  their 
jurisdiction  was  not  clearly  understood ;  but  now  the  law  clearly 
defines  the  offices  of  both  pharmacist  and  physician. 
It  has  been  said,  much  to  the  discredit  of  the  pharmacist,  that  he 
boldly  and  wilfully  exercises  the  function  of  a  physician  and  defi- 
antly disregards  all  ethical  and  legal  laws  that  govern  the  two  pro- 
fessions. However  true  this  may  be,  it  does  not  merit  the  condem- 
nation of  the  medical  fraternity  upon  all  pharmacists.  No  more 
should  we,  as  pharmacists,  condemn  the  entire  medical  profession 
for  certain  apparent  irregularities  committed  by  them,  and  who 
bring  discredit  and  disgrace  to  their  ranks.  As  pharmacists,  we 
should  condemn  and  severely  discountenance  all  transgressions  of 
medical  law  by  members  of  our  profession.  It  has  been  intimated, 
but  not  fully  authenticated,  that  in  some  instances  pharmacists 
transgress  the  medical  law  to  such  an  extent  that  they  make  gynae- 
cological examinations,  treat  obstinate  diseases  of  the  eye,  ear,  nose, 
throat,  urethra,  and  a  score  of  other  serious  diseases  that  demand 
the  attention  of  skilled  physicians.  These,  however,  are  isolated 
cases,  and  very  properly  should  have  our  condemnation. 
In  justice  to  the  physician,  and  for  the  promoting  of  a  more 
harmonious  feeling  between  pharmacist  and  physician,  the  former 
