On the new pharmacopoeia : with some preliminary considerations on the past and future condition of British pharmacy / T. Laycock.

  • Laycock, Thomas, 1812-1876.
Date:
[1858]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the new pharmacopoeia : with some preliminary considerations on the past and future condition of British pharmacy / T. Laycock. 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.

    5/12 (page 5)
    “ Is any sick ? The Man of Ross relieves, Prescribes, attends, the medicine makes and gives.” Nay, I am not sure whether this completeness of knowledge does not give dignity and grandeur to the professional character, by implanting a manly feeling of independence. Thus armed at all points, the practitioner has a mind unfettered by conventionalities, and a heart for every fate. And certainly, it may be observed that, while those gentlemen, whose hands were never soiled by petty surgery and pharmacy — who, like Shakspeare’s fop, object to “ slovenly unhandsome corses ” and “ villainous saltpetre ”—are the least successful in practice, they are often the most restrictive and retrograde in their views of medical polity. On the other hand, pestle-and-mortar men, like Cullen and Joseph Black, have made themselves known in the world by a large success, and have persistently advocated medico-political principles and changes, the good effects of which we can clearly recognize in our own time in a greater development of all branches of medical art, and in a more cordial union amongst those who practise them. And this credit is due also to the Apothecaries’ Society of London. I am therefore quite prepared to maintain, on the substantial grounds of a well-tried experience, that practical pharmacy ought to be an essential element in the education of the medical practitioner, and that the practice of it by him, wherever the state of society calls for it, is worthy his position as a professional man, and ought only to add to his dignity by so much as it increases his usefulness. I must, however, further remark, that this change in the pharmaceutical position of the profession will be all the more beneficial and extensive in proportion as the Pharmaceutical Chemists conscientiously restrict themselves to the duties for which they are fitted, and seek not to perform those for which they are unfitted. I say con- scientiously, for I believe no parliamentary enactment can restrain the Chemist and Druggist from engaging in the practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery if he think fit to evade the law. But I would appeal to the judgment of all of you, whether there is not a great depth of moral turpitude in that man who ignorantly, and for the sake of mere gain, presumes to tamper with the health, the ease, and even the life of those who come to him for temporary relief? Pharmaceutical chemistry is a department of medicine, not medicine a branch of pharmaceutical chemistry. If a Chemist desires to treat disease as a vocation, let him pursue the necessary studies and have his knowledge tested by the appointed examiners. These duties completed, he may be honestly and lawfully a medical practitioner, and in an open shop if he pleases. And I don’t know why as such he may not honourably and usefully administer to the wants of that large class of the numerous poor in our large towns, or in thickly populated districts, who can afibrd to pay a few pence only and no more, for advice and medicine. Of course, the Pharmaceutical Chemist cannot be expected to sink his duties as a man in the conventional restrictions which a division of labour imposes. Cases of urgency may occur in which he may help a suffering fellow-creature on the spur of the moment ; but there is a marked difference between such medical aid which need only be temporary, and the continued treatment of the case as the medical adviser. A sense of honour ought always to forbid the latter course. We will now examine a few questions relative to the forthcoming Pharmacopoeia. And first, with reference to the form, let us ask in what language should it be written? My vote is for our own English tongue, except as to the formulae and names. It can be translated into Latin, as it can, and will be translated into French and Hindu- stanee ; but I cannot conceive any sufficient reason for the continued use of a dead language when our own is as copious as the Latin, and even now is spoken over a larger space of the world’s surface than ever the Koman speech was heard. If this be so now, how much more widely will it be a vehicle of thought when our colonies have grown up into populous empires ? 2. It would be well, however, with a view to uniformity of pronunciation every- where, if a key to the proper sound of the technical words used were added to the Pharmacopoeia. Curiously enough, this is no new thing in Pharmacy. In 1688, James Shipton, a London apothecary, published in Latin the famous Pharmacopoeia Bateana, to which he added an “ Orthotonia Medicorum,'^ or correct method of pro- nouncing words usually, from ignorance or bad habits, wrongly pronounced by the apothecaries. I am satisfied every Pharmaceutical Chemist, whether at home, or in