Report from the Select Committee on Pharmacy bill : together with the proceedings, minutes of evidence and index.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Pharmacy Bill.
Date:
1852
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report from the Select Committee on Pharmacy bill : together with the proceedings, minutes of evidence and index. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    29/258 (page 19)
    268. Then would it not be a necessary part of any such measure that such a schedule should be a part of the Bill ?—YTes, I should think it very advisable. 269. If there is no such schedule in this Bill, is it not a palpable defect?—It would be advisable that it should be introduced, I think ; but I need not say to you that in going through a subject of this sort, the discussion very often leads to observations of the kind which you have made, and gives rise to the intro- duction of matters which perhaps at the moment may have been overlooked. I must confess that it had not struck me till you yourself put it, and very appositely suggested that there must be of necessity an exception in the case of those com- mon medicines which people will have, and must have. 270. I understand you to say, that this Bill, as it stands, would give a sanction to parties in the trade who are at the present moment not competent to carry on that business?—I do not see how you can prevent it. When the Apothecaries Act was passed in 1815, all persons then in practice, whether they had passed the College of Surgeons, the only examining body to which general practitioners resorted, or not, were assumed to be general practitioners, and allowed to con- tinue practising, and it was only prospectively that persons were prevented prac- tising, without examination, as general practitioners ; the unexamined are fewer of course every year, as they die off. 271. Is “pharmaceutical” a commonly known term ?—Yes, and has been for many years past; I believe the first pharmaceutical society existed some 25 years ago, which wras rather a convivial meeting—a sort of club. 272. Chairman.] There w'as a druggists’ club?—Yes, there was something of that sort. 273. But it was not an educational society?—Not at all. 274. Sir H. Willoughby.] This title of “pharmaceutical chemist” is used in the Bill ; and there is an interpretation clause which drags in, under the name of “ pharmaceutical chemist,” everyr chemist and druggist in the country ; is not that so?—Yes, I believe so. 275. Can you explain, as a term in the profession, what is the meaning of “ pharmaceutical chemist”?—I should say a man who not only makes chemical preparations, but also mixes them together, and compounds them for medical pur- poses ; that is what we understand by the term “ pharmacy ;” he is a dispensing chemist and druggist, a person who makes use of chemicals, and mixes them up and compounds them with other chemicals, or with articles in the materia medica, and then dispenses them for the use of persons to take by the mouth. A chemist, strictly speaking, is a different occupation—a different term, and used with a dif- ferent application. 276. Is not “chemist and druggist” the older term?—Yes, “chemist and druggist” is the older term. But, generally speaking, a man called a chemist and druggist is not a chemist at all. Very few chemists and druggists make their own chemicals; veiy few indeed; they go to the large manufacturing houses; manufacturing chemists, as they are called. 277. Mr. Ewart.] Is it riot possible that the term “chemist” might be exclu- sive of the application of the science of chemistry to healing diseases?—Yes. 278. And does not the addition of the word “pharmaceutical” limit the appli- cation of the term “ chemist” to that part of chemistry which has reference to the healing of diseases ?—Yes; he is meant to be a compounder of medicine. 279. The term “pharmaceutical” confines it to chemistry, as applied to the healing of diseases?—Yes. There are many chemists who have nothing to do with that. 280. Liebig is a chemisf, but he does not confine himself to chemistry, as applied to the healing of diseases ?—No. 28], Chairman.'] I believe you understand this Bill to be a Bill for the esta- blishment of an educated body of pharmaceutical chemists, but that you admit the impossibility of preventing persons, who are not chemists at all, in small country villages, Irom selling simple drugs ?—Yes. 282. Then, if this Bill recognises those who have passed an examination as being the only persons who are entitled to call themselves pharmaceutical chemists, would not that be a very considerable protection to the public, although they did not have a monopoly in the sale of every kind of drugs?—I think that would be a very great protection. 283. Then, though it does not go quite so far in the way of monopoly, as it has 0.42. c 2 been John F. South, Esq.