and when I read some of the letters and comments which appear in the
medical journals I am almost tempted to fear that for once medicine
is thinking more of its share of the pecuniary reward, than caring
for suffering humanity. There is, however, I am sorry to say, a
great deal too much prescribing by chemists, and some of it is of a
most reprehensible kind. I know a case where a chemist treated a man
suffering from rodent ulcer of the face for two years, all the time
buoying the man up with the hope that it was getting better, and that
he would cure it, until the face was so bad, and the ulcer had spread
to such an extent that when it came under the notice of the surgeon
nothing could be done for the patient. If that chemist had met the
man upon the highway, and robbed him, he would have been liable to
imprisonment, but having got the man into his shop he not only robbed
him of his money, but he rendered it impossible for the man ever
again to be restored to health. For the dishonor which such men bring
upon pharmacy, and for the irreparable injury which they inflict upon
suffering humanity I should like to give them several years of penal
servitude. But there are innumerable small accidents, and little
ailments to which humanity is liable, which quite legitimately come
within the province of pharmacy to treat, and the pharmacist, if he
is wise, is a much safer man to treat these than the clergy and the
laity, who are ever ready to prescribe for each other upon any and all
occasions. The best and wisest exponents of medicine admit this right
on the part of pharmacy, and welcome the service which is rendered
by it to sufferers. Pharmacy may make some mistakes, but I know it
frequently sends patients to medicine long before they or their friends
would think seriously enough of the case to do so.
There should be no rivalries or jealousies between medicine and
pharmacy, and the better qualified each of these may be to exercise its
own share of the duties devolving upon both, the more will each of them
respect the rights and the work of the other.
Before I conclude, one word on the principle upon which remuneration
should be based. This is a question of the utmost importance to the
English public, as well as to the pharmacists. John Ruskin says, “You
do not pay judges large salaries because the same amount of work could
not be purchased for a smaller sum, but that you may give them enough
to render them superior to the temptation of selling justice.” We
cannot err in applying this principle to pharmacy, and deciding that
the dispensing chemist must be paid at a rate of remuneration which
will enable him to get his living honestly and openly, and render him
superior to the temptation to increase his profit and his income by
tampering, in ever so small a degree, with the quality of the drugs he
uses, and with the health, and may be the lives, of dear ones, and of
men important to the community. His remuneration should also enable him
to devote sufficient time and care to every detail of his responsible
work, and eliminate a very real source of danger which is unavoidable
if the haste and the bustle of trade methods are adopted by pharmacy.
The Conference has entered upon the fourth decade of its existence,
and, possibly, I should have made a better and wiser choice if I had
addressed you upon its past achievements, and its future prospects,
but the other matters upon which I have touched seemed to me of greater
importance. Let me say, however, briefly, that I think the record of
this Conference has been eminently an honorable one, and that it has
fulfilled, in a high degree, the functions for which it was called
into existence. The story is written in the Year Books, and another
phase of it is engraved in the hearts and memories of many of us who
have been members almost from the beginning, and who have attended a
large number of its meetings. It has added to our knowledge, enlarged
our experience, and broadened our intellectual grasp of pharmacy;
and last, but not least, it has been the means of bringing together,
introducing to each other, and cementing friendships between men who
practice a common avocation in districts as wide apart as Inverness and
Cornwall. In this latter function the excursion on the last day has
played no inconsiderable part. Amongst the critics of the Conference
there are some persons who affect to sneer at the excursion as if it
were sheer frivolity, and was at variance with the avowed scientific
objects of the Conference. I beg to differ, and to claim for the
excursion day a very high place in the work of the Conference. It
affords the opportunity, as no other arrangement could do so well, for
men to meet; and I am quite sure that my own experience is by no means
singular when I tell you that many, very many, of the best friends I
have in pharmacy were first known to me through the opportunity of one
of the Conference excursions; and further I could not exaggerate to
you the benefit which I have received from the numerous conversations
and informal discussions which always takes place on these days. But
it is with societies, as with individuals, they tend to decay, and
already, more than once we have the alarm: the Conference is on its
last legs! I do not believe it, as I feel sure it fulfils a purpose
in the realm of pharmacy which is too important for the Conference to
be left to decay, and if we neglect the trust which has been handed
down to us, our successors will revive it. I would ask every member of
the Conference to get, at least, one other member to join, and I do
not think he can use a stronger argument, than that, apart from the
opportunity of attending and taking part in this annual scientific
gathering of pharmacy, the Year Book, which he will receive, is worth
many times the subscription. The Year Book of Pharmacy should find a
place on the desk of every chemist and druggist in this land. In it he
will find abstracts of papers from a larger number of sources than he
can possibly consult for himself, and many of these papers may be of
great value to him.
There is no occasion to disguise the fact that we do not get as many or
possibly as good papers sent to the Conference as we should like, but
when we consider the needs of a weekly press and the number of small
societies which absorb in the aggregate a large number of papers, our
experience need cause us neither surprise nor alarm. I should like,
however, to ask many of those who are doing original work and writing
papers in connection with pharmacy to consider whether there is any
place so suitable for them to be read as at these meetings.
The authors may feel certain of a larger audience to listen to their
papers and a far more capable set of men to discuss them than can
be found at any other time or place. In provincial towns the papers
are read to a few local men, and the discussion is taken part in by
fewer still, and even at the monthly meetings at Bloomsbury Square the
discussions have a great tendency to fall into the hands of very few
men. However capable these men may be, they cannot possibly have the
wide and varied experience of the aggregate of the men who attend this
Conference. I would, therefore, venture to urge thoughtful pharmacists
to contribute papers to this Conference, and I should like them to come
in such numbers that we may be compelled to add another day or two to
our meeting.
I mentioned just now the friends whom we have met at these Conference
meetings, and before I close I must briefly allude to those we have
lost. The first name that will occur to you, I am sure, is that of
our genial botanist, the late Professor Bentley, who was president
at Nottingham in 1866 and Dundee in 1867. Many of us knew him first
and best at Bloomsbury Square as our dear and honored teacher, but to
many others the Conference must have been the means of their meeting
him, and by all was he respected and beloved. He reached a good ripe
age, and of him it might be said--as of many other men who have lived
and been true to themselves and their calling--“He has done his work
well and earned his rest.” The next, an even greater loss to us as a
Conference, because of his younger age and the promise there was in
him of greater achievements for pharmacy, is our late treasurer, Mr.
R. H. Davies, I, with many others, made his acquaintance through this
Conference, and I feel, as I am sure many of you do, that I have lost a
personal friend with whom intimacy would have ripened year by year into
stronger bonds.
OFFICINAL OR OFFICIAL.
In the _Pharmacentische Rundschau_ for January, 1895, is found an
interesting discussion on the use of the words officinal and official
by Theodore Husemann, of Göttingen, and Charles Rice, of New York. It
would be interesting to our readers to give the views of both of these
well-known writers in full. At present, however, we reprint in full the
views of Dr. Rice:
“In compliance with a request by the editor of this journal, the writer
presents a few facts, as well as his personal views, regarding the use
of the words “official” and “officinal” when applied to drugs and
medicinal preparations.”
It should be stated at the outset that the writer accepts the ordinary
derivation of the two words, and the meanings assigned to them in
accordance with their origin. Nor does he deny that it has been
customary, up to within a few decades, to apply the English word
“officinal” quite generally in the sense of “pharmacopœial.” Yet,
within the memory of most readers of the _Rundschau_, voices arose
in favor of a change, the word “official” being proposed to replace
“officinal” in the special sense of “pharmacopœial.” It is evident that
some cause arose which produced the feeling that such a change was
necessary and the cause is not far to seek. In those countries in which
the exercise of pharmacy is under the control of the government, and
where the stock of a pharmacist, so far as it is used in physicians’
prescriptions, contains comparatively few remedies besides those
directed by the Pharmacopœia, the two meanings of the word “officinal,”
viz: 1, the original one “pertaining to an ‘officina;’ pertaining to
or kept in a drug store,” and, 2, the more modern one, “pharmacopœial;
authoritative,” practically cover each other. This is particularly the
case in Germany, where the word “officinell,” and in France, where
“officinal” is in general use in the second sense mentioned above. It
is different in this country, where the pharmacist is compelled to
carry a large stock of non-pharmacopœial preparations, many of which
are prescribed by physicians.
The two meanings of the word “officinal” have two widely differing
boundaries. They may be likened to two concentric circles. In the
first mentioned sense (“kept in a drug store”) the word occupies the
area of the larger circle; in the second sense (“pharmacopœial”)
usually that of the inner, smaller circle. In some parts of this
country the inner circle--to continue the simile--is much smaller in
proportion to the outer than in others. In some it may attain an area
of perhaps three-fourths or four-fifths of the larger; in others it
may even outgrow the former outer circle. Only in rare cases will the
peripheries of the two circles coincide. Since the two meanings long
ago ceased to cover each other, the necessity arose to use different
words to express the two different meanings, and it was therefore,
proposed to employ the closely related word “official” in the sense
of “pharmacopœial,” and to use the word “officinal” only in the
general sense “kept in a drug store,” which is, indeed, in accordance
with its original meaning and origin. Those who object to the use of
“official” in the sense of “pharmacopœial” say that _officialis_ means
“governmental; pertaining to an office or official, etc.” That it is,
therefore, correct to say, for instance: “The official preparations for
the reception of the President are completed,” but incorrect to say:
“He made all the official preparations in his own laboratory.” There
is, however, no danger of any misunderstanding in these two sentences,
indeed, much less danger than would be “officinal.”
Professor Husemann, in his letter, brings within the space of
his discussion the terms “medicamenta magistralia,” and “formulæ
magistrates.” He shows, himself, that while the word _officinalis_[1]
was, in more recent times, applied to drugs and preparations of an
authoritative character or origin, it was formerly used in its broader
sense “what is at any time to be had in a drug store,” in which sense
it was the opposite of _magistralis_ (magistral, or magisterial), or
that which is not kept ready made, but has to be prepared or compounded
extemporaneously. It will be noticed that there is a much better
logical correspondence between the terms
_Medicamenta magistralia_ = medicines whose composition is
fixed or prescribed by the _magister_ (a person), that is the
attending physician, and
_Medicamenta officialia_ = medicines whose composition is
fixed or prescribed by an _official_ (a person), that is the
Committee of Revision as a body--
than there would be between the former and _medicamenta officinalia_,
which term refers to the _shop_ and not to the _person_ of authority.
As to the word “unofficinal,” this means properly “not pertaining to,
not kept by or dealt in by a pharmacist.” If used in this strictly
literal sense, however, its scope or applicability will become more
and more contracted in the course of time, as it may eventually become
difficult to mention articles to which the word may justly apply. It
should be abandoned altogether. “Unofficial” much better expresses the
idea sought to be conveyed by it. A few examples will show the use and
meaning of the several words: Fleming’s tincture of Aconite is not
official (or “Unofficial;” not “unofficinal,”) but it is officinal.
Tinctura Opii Deodorati is official, and ought to be everywhere
officinal.
Concerning the right of any person, or body of men, to coin a new word,
or to use one already in existence, for the purpose of expressing a new
idea, or removing an ambiguity, there can be no question, provided only
that the selected word be appropriate and in harmony with the genius
of the language. Of course, its acceptance by the public at large,
or by the profession, for the use or benefit of which it was coined
or selected, cannot be enforced. Yet, if it is found to answer its
purpose, and if its superiority over the term formerly used in place of
it is recognized, it will gradually and surely come into general use.
The judgment of the writer is that the employment of the word
“official” in the sense of “pharmacopœial” is justifiable on linguistic
grounds, and that it is, moreover, fully justified by the condition
of pharmacy in this country, where a clear distinction between
“all sorts of medicines,” and “pharmacopœial medicines” has become
necessary. Of course, the Committee of Revision,” which hoped to
settle the controversy by an “official” vote, according to which the
word “official” was hereafter to be used in place of “officinal,” when
applied to pharmacopœial preparations or directions (see U. S. Pharm.,
1890, p. xxxvi.), did not mean thereby to encroach upon the ordinary
meaning of the word, which appears, for instance, on the title page of
the Pharmacopœia in the sentence: “Official from January 1, 1890.”
[1] Professor Husemann did not find this word in _Du Cange’s
Glossarium Mediæ et Infinæ Latinitatis_. It is, however, contained
in the latest edition (by Favre; Niort 1883-87), Vol. VI. p. 37.