MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11283, 26 May 1902, Page 9

MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS

aIEETINO OP THE PHARMACEUTIC-_L ASSOCIATION.

ALLEGED SKCKKT CO-QIISSIONS.

Serious allegations were brought forward st a meeting of tbe Canterbury Pho'-maceu* tk-al Association on Friday, which, if supported fry fact, chow that » somewhat undesirable relationship' exists between the _ae_iuil profession and the local chemists.

The President of the Association, Mr H. A. Papprill, occupied the chair, and there TCtTe also present _le-s„ VV. JJarnett, o. Ross, Smith-Ansted, R. S. Cooke, J. (J. Sopp, C\ W. Price, M. Mark, J. Berry, and ■W. Barrett.

Mr W. liarnett moved —"That this Association disapproves of secret commissions to doctors in any fcrm whatever." Sonyears ago, he stated, a few chemists had commenced the system of paying secret commissions to such doctois as dealt with them, fhe con-iiissi-nti had increased, together with the number of chemists who gave, and doctors who received them, and at present one firm was paying 50 per cent, on the retail price by way ol comm_ sion. Numbers of medical men, when making out prescriptions for their patient-, inscribed them with the name of a particular chemist of whom they were to be obtained. If the prescription were worth 2s 6d, half this amount would then go to the doctor as has commisgion. Again, druggists in close competition were unable to raise prices, and, therefore, it often happened that they could not dispense the prescription honestly, and make it pay. The temptation then was to make np an inferior mixture, with the result that the patient suffered.

Mr W. Barrett, who seconded the motion, said that many people who received prescriptions thought that it was necessary for them to take them to the chemists indicated by the doctors. T.ms w;i* n.it the case, however, and no patient could be compelled to go to any particular druggist. Sometimes, also, doctor.) wrote their prescriptions in a formula known only to one particular chemist, anu o.v.iMonally thty seated them, and addressed them to him as private notes. Mr R. S. Cooke supported the allegations made by the last two speakers. Mr J. 8. Ross said that to the best of his understanding very few doctors in the city would not accept commissions. He had spoken to some who did, and tbey had admitted that the system was not right. He knew that the medical profession generally, however, would oppose the abolition of the present system. Mr J. C. Sopp, who stated that he had not given commissions, alleged that many doctors cast slurs on druggists who refused to do so, and suggested that they might not keep certain medicines. He could bear out the _tat~neut that some of the commis-iona Went as high as 50 per cent. Mr Smith-Ansted hinted at an understanding between pertain doctors and certain chemists, that some expensive drugs should not be prescribed.. ' After some further, disMmssion the motion irw carried unanimously.