The late inquest at Putney: a commentary on the attempted vindication of John Rose Cormack, M.D., Edin. : with an appendix, containing important documents and editorial articles relating to the above inquiry / by John Farmer.

  • Farmer, John.
Date:
1847
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The late inquest at Putney: a commentary on the attempted vindication of John Rose Cormack, M.D., Edin. : with an appendix, containing important documents and editorial articles relating to the above inquiry / by John Farmer. 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.

    8/24 (page 8)
    at tlie inquest, but so loud in my condemnation after the jury had been dismissed? I presume the public will think, that if Dr. Cormack considered me guilty, and failed to prefer his charge at the proper time, and before the proper tribunal, that he either knew not his duty, or neglected to discharge it: in either case, his judg- ment of other men’s duties ought to be received with considerable caution. There is a particular paragraph in Dr. Cormack’s letter to the Lancet, of such a dilemma-involving character, that I must quote it entire: —“I may add, in passing, that I agree with all that you (the editor of the Lancet) have recently so ably and earnestly written regarding quack medicines ; and were I to act in reference to them as Mr. Farmer does, T should be doing what— as a teacher of Forensic Medicine, and formerly as the editor of a medical journal— I was in the habit of denouncing in my lectures and writings as immoral and fraudulent, and what I never cease, in my intercourse with society, to stigmatize as one of the most pestilent abominations of the age—I mean, the traffic in quack or patent nostrums.” This is truly the very climax of effrontery on the part of a rival druggist. Not long since, a highly-respectable lady purchased sundry drugs for domestic use, at the shop of Dr. Cormack. These con- sisted of— 2 antibilious pills—or “pestilent abominations”* .. .. Id. 2 Seidlitz powders, 4d., and 1 do. 2d 6d. Tincture of myrrh, and laudanum 6d. Total Is. Id. A short time after this purchase, a receipted bill of what had been had was asked for, and the following highly-interesting document was furnished by the assistant. As the same has been kindly placed in my hands, I am enabled to present it to my readers verbatim et literatim : ‘Paid Is. Id. for Bruges Augt. 24th, 1847.* “ H. Hicks.” Upon the back of this receipt, the lady has appended her signature to the following remarks : “ When this bill was paid, I asked the assistant to specify the particulars, when he said they could not do so, as they would be levelling themselves with the druggists in the town.” “ E*** S****t.” So, then, according to this logic, it is not the actual selling or retailing of “pestilent abominations,” Seidlitz powders, and drugs of all descriptions, but the mere making out of correct accounts, that reduces an M.D. and F.R.S. to the level of a druggist! Upon what trifles does dignity hinge !! The Doctor’s dilemma here is indeed inextricable. Either his asser- tions as to denouncing these practices in his writings are true—he then stands self-convicted of “ fraudulent and immoral conduct; * As Dr. Cormaek traffics in antibilious pills, 1 am justified in terming them pestilent abominations,’ which according to his own opinion, they undoubtedly are, hether sold in boxes or by the pennyworth.