Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

injurious to those suffering from the diseases for which they have been prescribed. Especially is this the case with soothing compounds intended for children. In an inquest held some time since upon the body of an infant whose death was attributed to an overdose of Winslow's soothing syrup, it appeared from the analysis made for the Coroner that opium and camphor were largely used in the composition of this drug.

It is much to be deplored that the law upon the whole subject is in a far from satisfactory condition; and a few figures may here be given to illustrate the extent to which the trade in patent medicines is carried on. The Government derives from £200,000 to £240,000 of revenue yearly from the sale of patent medicine stamps, and thus to some extent sanctions the practice of quackery. For example, from the 30th report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue, for the year ending 30th March, 1893, it appears that the Revenue from this source amounted to £240,062. This sum accrues from the 1d. stamp affixed to each bottle of patent medicine. Thus, for every sovereign of revenue, 160 bottles of physic must be sold. It will be seen from this that the total number of bottles sold yearly, taking the revenue at £220,000, amounts to the enormous number of 35,200,000, or, speaking roughly, about a bottle per head of the total population. Now let us suppose that these 35,200,000 bottles are sold at Is. each (IS. 1d. being the common charge for a bottle of these proprietary articles), then it will appear that patent medicine vendors reap between them the comfortable harvest of £1,760,000 yearly. This, however, is a very low estimate; many of the compounds being sold at a much higher figure. Thus, for example, a large bottle of Clarke's Blood Mixture is priced at 11s., I whilst 2s. 6d. is no uncommon charge. And this does not include the sale of so-called electric belts, ear drums, et hoc genus omne, so that the total sum disbursed by a too credulous public during the year cannot be far short of £4,000,000. The ignorant and uneducated, amongst whom the quack does business, is apt to imagine that the Government stamp, coupled with the use of the word "patent", is some guarantee of quality. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. But there is abundant room for legislation in this direction, and a chance for some private member desirous of distinction and of benefitting his fellows, to introduce a bill regulating the sale of patent medicines. The vendor of quack remedies makes it his boast that his wonderful preparation is a secret. It is strange that any sensible person should find satisfaction in taking a composition of the nature of which he is left in

ignorance. The physician cannot, of course, prescribe any of these medicines, as he is unaware of the character of their contents. He hands to his patient a prescription, which sets forth the name of the remedies prescribed; and although it is not necessary, or even expedient, that the patient should be acquainted with the action of the different drugs which compose the prescription, yet the mere fact is in itself a guarantee that all is above board. It is the reverse of this with the quack. The nature of the so-called remedy is known only to himself, and he is careful to conceal it. It has always been rightly felt amongst the medical profession that any drug known or discovered to possess healing qualities, should be made the common property of all. If the law required that the contents of each bottle of patent medicine should be legibly printed on the label, the trade in quack remedies would inevitably decline, to the great benefit of the community. "A fool and his money are easily parted," but it is hardly conceivable that anybody would be induced to pay 2s. 6d. or 4s. for some simple drug which can be purchased at a chemist's for a few pence. But if the patent medicine man does not display any originality in the composition of his nostrums, his ingenuity is abundantly manifested in the preparation of the literature and testimonials with which he endeavors to substantiate his absurd claims. Testimonials of this character are usually obtained from the ignorant and uneducated classes of the community who, suffering from some trifling ailment, magnify it into a serious disease. An advertisement of some patent medicine meets the eye, a bottle is purchased, and when the cough or ache has passed away, the ignorant patient is easily induced to furnish a glowing testimonial. The faulty grammar and spelling of the original, which would inevitably betray its worthlessness, are improved upon by the literary hack who is paid to exercise his skill in this direction. Other testimonials are couched merely in general terms, and do not furnish the name or address of the sufferer, whilst some are palpable forgeries. Whole newspapers and news sheets are even produced filled with sensational accounts of startling cures illustrated by extraordinary specimens of pictorial art. A remarkable instance of the worthlessness of these testimonials is furnished by a case of a "cancer-curer" which occurs at the moment of writing, and has been fully reported in the daily papers of October 15th, and in subsequent issues. It is worth quoting as presenting the worst features of patent medicine mongering, viz., false diploma, unreliable testimonials, drugs of no medicinal value, and containing opium. An inquest was held at the Battersea Coroner's Court on the

death of the wife of a bricklayer named Holliday, who died after being treated by a "Dr." Ferdinand, who professed his ability to cure cancer. Dr. Frederick Womack, M.B., B.Sc. London, analyst to the London County Council, after analysis, declared that the pills found in the house of the deceased contained opium which was the only active ingredient present. A witness named Maria Bloomer, who had given Dr. Ferdinand a testimonial for curing her of three cancers, admitted that some of the statements contained therein were untrue, her husband had written it, but "she did not know all that he wrote ". Drs. Norton and Purcell, the latter one of the surgeons at the Cancer Hospital, agreed that there was no cancer about Mrs. Bloomer. Ferdinand, when called, professed to have a diploma from the Eclectic School of Medicine, Philadelphia; U.S.A., but could not produce it. He stated that it was in the possession of a friend, but, acting upon the advice of his solicitor, withdrew the statement. He confessed that he practised under different names, and was remanded in custody. The coroner pointed out that the school of which the accused claimed to be a graduate had been deprived of its charter for distributing diplomas to all and sundry for a consideration. Afterwards, when the diploma was produced, it was found through the medium of the Röntgen rays to have another name erased under that of Ferdinand, and the latter substituted for it. It appeared that this quack had received pounds from ignorant and credulous people, and the case is only an example of many others which might be quoted. The uninitiated are hardly aware of the number of the pretenders, herbalists, healers, and the like, ready to cure everything, from pimples to paralysis, who flourish unchecked in the poorer quarters of the town. The State does not intervene to suppress them unless necessity for an inquest arises. The ordinary practitioner does not care to embark upon a law suit with its attendant anxieties and expense, which, moreover, will not be of any advantage to himself. It should be the business of some public official or department to initiate proceedings. Medical men to comply with the regulations of the State are obliged to undergo an expensive and lengthy education. Furthermore, public duties are imposed upon them. They are compelled to notify infectious diseases, to give death certificates, to attend as witnesses at inquests, often for a ridiculously inadequate remuneration, and it is only fair that the community which requires these services should protect them in the discharge of their duties. As it is at present a remarkable number of bogus and worthless pretenders to medical skill continue to flourish, and the patent

medicine man lines his pockets at the expense of the ignorant and credulous. A greater diffusion of knowledge upon the subject of health and health laws would no doubt lead to a suppression of the mischief, but it is to be feared that it will be long before such information becomes general. Selfmedication is at all times dangerous. It is the more mischievous when it takes the shape of tampering with patent drugs. Some revision of the medical laws is imperatively demanded, but before this is done there should be a Royal Commission appointed to enquire into the whole question, and to determine the lines upon which legislation should proceed.

A. BINGHAM.

SHALL WE DECEIVE OUR CHILDREN?

TO THE EDitor of the "FREE REVIEW".

SIR, Mr. George Macmillan in his able article under the above heading, having given a decided negative to the question propounded, will no doubt have the support of the thoughtful; but he makes a couple of statements which do not appear to be borne out by the weight of such evidence as is to be obtained on the subject—a subject which for a lengthy period has been regarded as one quite unfit for public discussion, and which, therefore, all the more urgently demands a thorough threshing out, now that it has had public attention claimed for it.

In the first place, the essayist speaks of the silly conventionalities of the average British matron of to-day as oldfashioned; but unless he desires to give that term no more weight than would be accorded to it in speaking of a robe or mantle of the style of a season or two gone by, his description appears to be disproved by our national literature, which suggests that in a sturdier age no such conventionalities existed. Shakspere's Miranda, alone on an island with her male parent, appears to have thoroughly understood certain matters of which the "protected young lady" of to-day knows nothing; and, to come nearer to our own age, Clarissa Harlowe that pink of all super-sensitive prudes, who thought it indelicate to accept a distinct offer of marriage, because her lover had not gone through the farce of dragging consent from her by reiterated and urgent proposals even she thoroughly understood the physical nature of any sexual contract or arrangement, legal or illicit, as witness her perturbation at any approach to her by her lover, the libertine Lovelace, who was actually counting on the prudery which would prompt her to refuse his apparently honorable overtures, in order later on to compass her destruction. Again, in the School for Scandal, young Maria is usually present on the stage during the scene in which Mrs. Candour discourses so openly on the delicate state of a certain spinster's health; and as no one in the company appears surprised at such a conversation taking place before a young girl, it is evident that the author saw nothing surprising in the situation, and did not expect it to in any way startle or offend the audience for whom he wrote.

Thus, if Shakspere, Richardson, and Sheridan may be

« AnteriorContinuar »