Am  jour.  Pharm.  j        Secret — Private — Personal.  ^zn 
June,  1919.       }  o^O 
recompensed,  if  publicity  for  the  general  good  is  accorded.  In  such 
views  as  these,  each  party  to  the  discussion  may  in  all  fairness  take 
a  part. 
However,  most  insidious,  often  approaching  sophistry,  are  such 
arguments,  carried  to  the  extreme,  in  some  of  their  ethical,  as  well  as 
material  outreaches.  That  physicians  or  surgeons  should  be  re- 
quired to  publish  the  details  and  results  of  every  operation  or 
diagnosis,  is  not  acceptable  to  some  persons.  That  privacy  is  occa- 
sionally a  right  of  everyone,  and  especially  in  such  as  this,  is  a  self- 
evident,  ethical  axiom.  To  announce  openly,  much  less  publish,  the 
closet  discussions  of  a  called  consultation  of  physicians,  or  surgeons, 
might  do  much  harm.  Privacy  such  as  this  seems  to  be  a  sacred 
trust ;  likewise,  privacy  concerning  the  diseases  from  which  some 
persons  suffer. 
Turn  now  to  the  pharmacist  who  in  business  has  no  professional 
fee,  but  who  joins  hand  with  the  physician  in  his  contribution  to 
humanity's  welfare.  Might  one  not  argue  that,  on  ethical  grounds, 
no  one  should  deprive  him  of  rights  accorded  in  common  law  to 
other  business  men,  or  expect  from  him  greater  contributions  to  ' 
humanity  than  come  from  others  dependent  on  scientific  art  for  a 
livelihood?  Might  one  not  ask,  should  he  not  have  the  fullest  self- 
privilege  and  protection,  by  reason  of  his  personal  (private)  efforts 
to  excel  ?  Might  it  not  be  asked,  is  not  the  accomplished  pharmacist 
entitled  to  even  greater  personal  privileges  than  others?  Is  he  not 
an  educated  man  and  yet  dependent  wholly  on  the  materialistic  side 
of  his  profession  or  art  for  his  opportunity  to  serve  the  people  ?  Is 
not  the  pharmacist  who  devotes  his  early  youth  to  pharmaceutical 
education,  who  in  later  years  spends  his  money,  often  the  savings 
of  a  lifetime,  to  the  limit  in  acquiring  knowledge,  confronted  with 
competitors  no  less  unworthy  than  the  charlatan  who  discredits  the 
term  physician  ?  Why  should  anyone  deny  him  the  returns  that  he 
has  earned,  and  that  cannot  in  some  instances  come  unless  he  keeps 
in  private,  details  that  the  charlatan  neighbor  has  not  acquired  ?  In 
this  line,  is  not  knowledge  property ?  Might  it  not  be  argued  that 
one  of  the  reasons  why  young  people  take  a  pharmaceutical  educa- 
tion or  spend  time  and  money  in  research,  is  to  enable  them  to  be- 
come superior  in  their  art?  Is  not  every  qualified  pharmacist,  be 
he  young  or  old,  who  has  by  sacrifice  earned  his  privilege  to  the 
position,  surrounded  by  competitors  with  larger  signboards  over 
