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

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.

165/258 page 155

$2260. In that branch of business to which they belong?—Certainly. 2261. Do you believe it desirable to draw as distinct a line as possible between the business of a chemist and druggist, and the profession of medical prac- titioners ?—Certainly. 2262. Do you consider it wrong for chemists and druggists to practise medi- cine ?—Certainly. 2263. And do you consider it wrong for medical practitioners to act as chemists and druggists ?—I think there are localities in which that cannot be avoided. 2264. Do you think it necessary that they should make a display as chemists and druggists, by keeping open shops, exhibiting coloured bottles, and so on?— Certainly not. 2265. And selling things which do not strictly pertain to their business?— Certainly not; but I may say, that I was for nine years a physician in the country, and therefore I happen to know that there are many villages where, if the medical practitioner does not impart drugs to those who require them, the inhabitants must go without them altogether. 2266. Therefore, in such situations, you would not prevent qualified medical practitioners from selling drugs?—No. 2267. Do you consider that it would tend to draw the line much more distinctly than it now exists between the business of chemists and druggists, and the prac- tice of medicine, if at the end of clause 11, which refers to the examination of candidates for the diplomas contemplated by this Act, any provision were intro- duced to the effect that the candidates should not be examined as to their know- ledge of the theory and practice of medicine, surgery, and midwifery ?—Yes, I think it would be very useful. 2268. Do you consider that there is any objection to the term “ pharma- ceutical” ?—None at all. 22(39. Mr. Wyldd\ Would it be possible, do you think, for a medical practitioner in the country entirely to abstain from dispensing drugs?—I think there are localities in which it would be impossible; if they are to be sold at all, they must either be sold by him or by a grocer. 2270. Is it your opinion that it would be impossible to dispense with that body of gentlemen who combine surgery with the dispensation of medicines in some districts of England ?-- I understand the question to be, whether it would be possible to dispense with those gentlemen who both prescribe and administer medicine ; I have always thought that that uould be impossible. 2271. You have not seen the Bill?—I never had it in my hand until to-day. 2272. Are you acquainted with the system of Continental education ?—I have been very much on the Continent. 2273. Do you know the course of examination adoped for the pharmacien, as he is called ?—I do not know all that it comprises. 2274. Are you aware that the examination of a pharmacien is conducted by two physicians and by two pharmaciens ?—Yes ; I think I know that. 2275. Will you refer to the Bill that is before you. Do you find that it con- tains any provision that the examining body shall be composed of any other class of gentlemen than pharmaceutical chemists?—I suppose it is not so, but I have not read the Bill over with sufficient care to enable me to say, but I think they are to be examined by pharmaceutists. 2276. Chairman.] And medical practitioners ?—Yes. 2277. But that will be at the discretion of the council, according to the Bill; by the Bill the council are to appoint the examiners. Do you see any objection to the council having the power of appointing the examiner, it being understood that by the bye-laws they will appoint two or more professors, being medical practitioners, in addition to pharmaceutical chemists ?—It is difficult, to answer that question. I have much disapproved of the conduct of the councils of some public bodies. 2278. These bye-laws being subject to the revision of the Secretary of State, would not that be a safeguard to the public?—I think that is most important. 2279. Mr. Wyld^\ From your great experience, do you think it would he proper that in the constitution of the council of the Pharmaceutical Society there should be others than pharmaceutical chemists on the council, who are to be the examining body for the licentiates of the Pharmaceutical Society ?—No; it strikes me that it would not be necessary that others should form part of the council. The 0.42. u 2 pharmaceutists M. Hall, Fsq. M. D.$