$72  Pharmacopceial  Revision  Problems.  {^imberfigoT' 
PHARMACOPCEIAL  REVISION  PROBLEMS. 
By  Joseph  P.  Remington. 
The  article  written  and  read  by  Mr.  Wilbert  at  the  Pharmaceu- 
tical Meeting  of  the  Philadelphia  College  of  Pharmacy,  while  inter- 
esting, contains  some  views  and  statements  which,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  writer,  call  for  a  reply. 
In  the  second  paragraph  of  the  article  the  author  states  that : 
"  The  Pharmacopoeia  of  the  United  States  is,  and  for  several  decades 
has  been  the  '  peer '  among  national  pharmacopoeias."  It  is  also 
stated  that :  "  The  most  severe  arraignment  to  which  this  Pharma- 
copoeia has  been  subjected  is  reflected  in  the  publication  of  '  New 
and  Nonofncial  Remedies  '  by  the  American  Medical  Association 
and  the  '  Additions  and  Corrections,  U.  S.  Pharmacopoeia  (8th 
Rev.),  May  i,  1907  (et  al),'  published  with  the  approval  of  the 
committee  less  than  two  years  after  the  publication  of  the  U.S. P. 
VIII  itself." 
In  answer  to  this  the  writer  would  say  that  the  American  Med- 
ical Association  has  done  yeoman  service  through  its  Council  of 
Pharmacy  and  Chemistry  in  publishing  from  time  to  time  lists  of 
modern  remedies  which  are  used  by  physicians  to-day,  and  in  sifting 
out  those  which  are  really  valuable  and  condemning  such  as  are,  in 
their  opinion,  unworthy  of  serious  consideration.  The  Council 
have  undoubtedly  made  some  mistakes  and  in  this  respect  they  are 
like  the  criticized  Committee  of  Revision.  It  is  impossible  for  any 
individual  or  committee  to  avoid  the  common  fault  of  humanity. 
Mr.  Wilbert  has  not,  in  my  opinion,  fully  stated  the  case  as  far 
as  the  "  Additions  and  Corrections  "  issued  by  the  Committee  of 
Revision  is  concerned.  In  reference  to  these  "  Additions  and  Cor- 
rections "  he  says :  "  The  first  of  these  publications  has  been,  very 
widely,  interpreted  as  an  indication  that  the  U.S. P.  VIII  does  not 
fully  meet  the  needs  and  wants  of  medical  practitioners,  and  the 
second,  embodying  as  it  does  a  total  of  431  changes,  many  of  them 
important  and  all  of  them  significant,  can  surely  not  be  interpreted 
other  than  indicating  that  the  U.S. P.  VIII  when  put  to  a  crucial 
test  failed  to  meet  the  requirements  as  a  legal  standard  for  the 
articles  described  in  its  pages." 
The  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Revision  explained  in  detail 
