468 
EDITORIAL. 
Suit  against  an  Apothecary  for  the  fatal  result  of  a  mistake  in  com- 
pounding a  Prescription. — Itappears,  from  the  Cincinnati  Medical  Journals, 
that  a  physician  prescribed  a  mixture,  for  a  patient  (Neil  McClardy)  who 
was  suffering  from  some  gastric  disease,  in  which  "  aqua  cinnamomi"  was 
directed  as  the  dilutant.  The  prescription  was  taken  to  an  apothecary, 
Mr.  Chandler,  who  read  it  "  aqua  ammonige,"  and  put  it  up  accordingly.  A 
teaspoonful  was  administered,  one-half  of  which  was  solution  of  ammonia, 
and  death  ensued  in  twelve  hours.  A  post  mortem  examination  proved  the 
existence  of  a  cancerous  state  of  the  stomach,  which  had  so  far  progressed 
as  to  demonstrate  the  certainty  of  death  being  close  at  hand  under  any  cir- 
cumstances. The  coats  of  the  stomach  were  inflamed,  which  was  attributed 
to  the  ammonia.  It  was  generally  conceded  by  the  medical  testimony,  that 
the  amount  of  ammonia  taken,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  was  not 
adequate  to  produce  death,  but  may  have  hastened  death  in  this  case.  The 
prescription,  it  is  alleged,  was  plainly  written.  The  Judge  (Spencer) 
charged  the  jury  that  the  action  was  brought  under  the  Act  of  1851  (Ohio), 
entitling  the  personal  representatives  of  a  deceased  party,  whose  death  was 
caused  by  the  wrongful  act  or  default  of  another,  to  sue  for  damages,  &c. 
The  question  is  of  such  vital  interest  to  apothecaries,  that  we  have  made 
the  following  extracts  from  the  published  account  of  the  charge  to  the  jury: 
u  The  first  question,  therefore,  under  the  provision  of  the  law  was,  whether  the 
deceased  had  died  in  consequence  of  any  wrongful  act  of  this  defendant,  and, 
under  such  circumstances,  that,  if  he  had  not  died,  but  was  only  injured,  he, 
himself,  could  have  recovered  damages  for  that  injury.  Was  his  death  the 
want  of  proper  care  on  his  own  part?  To  charge  carelessness  on  him  in  a  case 
of  this  description,  it  should  be  shown  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  danger- 
ous properties  of  the  medicine.  Before  finding  negligence  on  the  part  of  de- 
fendant, they  should  inquire  whether  the  prescription  itself  was  legibly  written, 
so  that  a  man  with  ordinary  care,  suitable  to  the  situation  this  defendant  occu- 
pied, would  have  known  what  it  was?  If  it  was  so  written  that  it  could  not 
be  readily  mistaken,  it  was  the  obligation  of  the  druggist  to  put  it  up  accu- 
rately ;  and  if  he  did  not,  he  would  be  responsible  for  the  evil  consequences. 
If  the  Jury  should  find  that  there  was  a  want  of  proper  care,  they  would  next 
determine  whether  the  effects  of  the  mistake  were  injurious  to  the  decased  and 
contributed  to  his  death. 
It  was  not  necessary  to  show  that  the  deceased,  at  the  time  the  medicine  was 
taken,  was  in  the  full  vigor  of  life.  The  law  regards  life  in  any  of  its  stages  as 
valuable;  and  though  an  individual  should  receive  a  wound  of  which  death 
must  be  the  inevitable  and  speedy  result,  yet  if  it  is  hastened  to  by  another,  he 
would  be  responsible  for  the  consequences.  Though  the  deceased,  in  this  case, 
was  laboring  under  a  mortal  disease,  if  this  ammonia  produced  inflammation 
and  thereby  shortened  life,  the  circumstances  would  bring  the  case  within  the 
provisions  of  the  statute,  and  the  defendant  would  be  responsible  for  the 
shortening  of  life. 
If  the  Jury  were  not  satisfied  ammonia  caused  the  death,  it  would  not  be 
necessary  to  pursue  the  inquiry.  Where  an  individual  in  apparent  health  dies 
after  the  administration  of  a  medicine  adequate  to  produce  death,  it  was  natu- 
ral to  refer  the  effect  to  that  particular  cause ;  but  here  the  defendant  claimed, 
in  the  first  place,  that  ammonia  administered  in  such  a  quantity  as  was  given 
here,  was  not  capable  of  producing  death;  and,  in  the  second  place,  that,  at 
the  time  it  was  administered,  the  deceased  was  laboring  under  a  mortal  disease 
— cancer  in  the  stomach — and  that,  during  the  progress  of  the  disease,  a  rupture 
