30       Eighth  Decennial  Revision  of  the  U.S. P.  {A7^uairyfi9o«m' 
THE  EIGHTH  DECENNIAL  REVISION  OF  THE  U.  S.  PHAR- 
MACOPCEIA  FROM  A  PHYSICIAN'S  STANDPOINT. 
By  M.  Clayton  Thrush,  Ph.M.,  M.D. 
Instructor  in  Pharmacology  and  Therapeutics,  Medico-Chirurgical  College, 
Philadelphia. 
The  United  States  Pharmacopoeia  of  1900,  more  properly  termed 
the  Eighth  Decennial  Revision,  became  the  official  standard  on  Sep- 
tember I,  1905. 
The  present  revision  has  been  the  most  thorough  that  has  ever 
been  attempted,  and  more  time  has  elapsed  than  ever  before  in  its 
preparation. 
For  one  to  attempt  to  review  all  the  important  changes  as  viewed 
by  the  physician,  would  be  futile  in  the  short  time  allotted  in  a 
meeting  of  this  kind,  and  I  shall  endeavor  merely  to  consider  some 
of  the  more  important  changes. 
One  hundred  and  seventeen  articles  have  been  added  and  107 
dismissed  and  the  strength  of  a  number  of  important  preparations 
has  been  altered,  yet  how  many  physicians  and  pharmacists  through- 
out the  United  States  to-day  are  familiar  with  these  changes,  not- 
withstanding that  over  two  and  a  half  months  have  elapsed  since  its 
recognition  as  the  official  standard  ? 
In  order  to  speak  authoritatively  on  this  subject,  I  have  inquired 
of  a  number  of  pharmacists  as  to  what  extent  the  physicians  are 
prescribing  the  new  official  preparations ;  and  the  answer  has  been 
in  every  instance,  that  they  have  not  received  any  prescription  in 
which  the  new  nomenclature  or  preparations  were  used,  with  a  few 
minor  exceptions.  Now  where  is  the  trouble  ?  To  keep  pharma- 
cists and  physicians  ignorant  of  what  is  being  done,  and  then  sud- 
denly project  upon  them  innumerable  changes,  many  of  them 
radical,  some  of  them  dangerous  and  nearly  all  of  them  important, 
is  to  cause  them  an  embarrassment  which  is  as  great  as  it  is  un- 
necessary. Why  come  upon  them  with  the  unexpectedness  of  the 
thunder-clap?  Why  drive  them  into  consternation  and  almost 
paralysis  when  it  would  be  so  easy  to  prepare  them  for  what  is 
coming  ? 
At  best  it  is  a  slow  process  for  a  huge  pharmaceutical  and  medical 
body  to  adapt  itself  to  pronounced  changes,  and  we  may  now  expect 
more  or  less  confusing  and  many  amazing  if  not  dangerous  mistakes 
for  a  year  or  two,  or  perhaps  longer,  until  the  process  of  adaptation 
has  been  fairly  completed.    It  takes  the  pharmacist  some  time  to 
