DOCTORS' PRESCRIPTIONS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXXVII, Issue 11658, 28 May 1902, Page 7

DOCTORS' PRESCRIPTIONS.

SBCHEH COMMISSIONS

ALLEGATIONS BY THE PHARMA-

CEUTICAL ASSOCIATION,

The following, teken from Saturday's "Lyttelton Times," is a report of the proceedings of the Pharmaceutical Association ox Canterbury, at which the members discussed at some length the question of giving secret commissions to doctors. The subject was brought up by Mr. R. S. Cooke.

Mr. W. Barnett moved— : "rrhat this Association disapproves of giving of secret commissions to doctors in any form whatever. He said that a great evil had grown tip out of the practice of giving these commissions. It was an evil which had crept into the (t/radie gradually. Some years ago a firm began paying small sums as commissions to doctors -who sent their prescriptions to them. Since then: the evil had grown at a rapid, rate, and. now there was one firm in ' Christchurch which was paying a ■commission amounting to as much as 50 per cent, on the retail price. The outcome of the practice was that nine out of ten prescriptions written by some medical men would contain the name of the firm referred to. The reason for that was obvious. Out of every prescription worth, 2s. 6d., Is. 3d. would, go in commission given by that firm. Innuendos had been nx.re against druggists by doctors who received the high commissions and sent their pre.-samptdons to those shops. It.was an easy matter for those doctors to make innuendos about the druggists, who did not give them commissions, and that was one of the evils which had arisen owing to the introduction of commissions in the trade. It was a thing that the Association should do its best to stamp out. Another evil was that frequently druggists who paid 50 per cent, in commission could ont make up the loss by a higher charge, as they were in competition with otlher druggists. Although there was a very considerable profit, on dispensing, when a doctor had to receive 50 per cent, it reduced the chemist to such a position that he could not honestly dispense the prescription on which the" high commission was paid. THhere were several notorious cases where the health and the well-being of the patients had. been considerably injured . owing, to that practice, the druggists paying the commission not being able to honestly make up the prescription. There were other cases in which the matter had been brought ruder the notice of a doctor, who, though informed' that the prescription had) not been honestly made up, refused to go to the chemist who dispensed it and complain, as he was in the same box as the chemist. What he ihad just stated was a strong reason, from the patient's point of view, why the Association should take the matter up. (Hear, hear.) Mr. W. Barrett seconded the motion. He said there wei;e many caess where a certain preparation was ordered)'of a standard brand, and the chemist's own brand was made up. It. would be impossible to make up an expensive drug such as Hewlitt's bismuth and pepsine mixture, and put two ounces of the preparation into an eight ounce bottle, and give a commission of 50 per cent. There were doctors in the city who really libelled druggists that did not give them commissions, but took care that they did not come within the libel law.* Many people who received prescriptions ran away with the idea that it was imperative for them: to take the prescriptions to the chemists named by the doctors. That, however, was not the case, as the prescriptions belonged to the patients. No patient could be compelled to go to any particular chemist. In other cases, doctors made out their prescriptions in a certain formula which was known only to a certain chemist, whom the patients were compelled to patronise. Sometimes, too, doctors who received commissions wrote prescriptions, sealed them,' and sent them to the chemist as a private note. Again, the patient was compelled to patronise the chemist who gave the commission. Mr. E. S. Cooke said it wa.s time that some stand was taken by the chemists to pub a stop to secret commissions. He quoted instances of the evil complained of, and said it looked very much as if there was an arrangement between some doctors and some chemists in regard to the making up of prescriptions. He was an old resident in Christchurch, and he, ■was sorry that such a thing should exist in the city. The Association, as a body, should try to put* a stop to it. Mr. J. S. Ross said that he had come; to the conclusion that the chemists should put an end to the Avhole giving of commissions, as that was the only method of stamping out the evil. He had spoken to some doctors on the subject, and' he was convinced that the Association was doing right in bringing the matter forward and seeing it right through. So far as he understood the position, there were only a few doctors in" the city who would not accept commissions. The whole question should he thoroughly threshed out. He was sorry that some of the large firms were not represented at the meeting that evening. The matter rested with the large firms to a great extent. He knew that the doctors, as a body, would oppose the abolition of the present system. At the same time, he did not think the Association should hesitate for one moment. (Hear, hear.) They would have to face vie trouble, and put an end to the evil. Mr. J. O. Sopp said that the question was a very important one. Personally he would not be affected one way or the other. He had not given commissions, and would not give them. The same question had been threshed out in England forty 3'ears ago, and it had been laid down that the prescription belonged to iflie patient, who could patronise any chemist he liked. He strongly resented the mean manner in which some medical men cast slurs on chemists. He prided himself on keeping the best article. Some of the doctors, acting, he understood, on the principle of medical etiquette —(laughter)—<cast slurs and innuendo® in regard to the chemists. They did not say anything outright, but it was, "Oh, yes, but perhaps he does not keep these things," or something of that kind. The speaker understood that that was what took place when chemists did not give commissions. If they could only do away with those secret commissions it would be a good thing for the chemists as a whole. He was going to speak plainly. He could bear out the statement that some of the commissions went up as high as 50 per cent. He maintained emphatically that that was wrong. If there was to be any reduction in the tariff, so far as the chemists were concerned, it was the x>ublic who should receive the benefit. He strongly recommended that the proposed reform should be put in operation by a unanimous movement on the pai*t of the chemists of Christchurch, but he was afraid that unanimity was impossible. Mr. C. W. Price said that it was certainly in the interests of the public that commission should be abolished. There was a tendency, under the present system, for chemists, when there were two qualities i/fa drug, to buy the inferior one. Mr. Smith-Ansted said he believed thata there was an understanding between certain doctors and1 certain chemists that some

high-priced drugs should not be prescrib.ed.

Mr. Bamett said that once people began to do dishonest tilings no one could say where the matter would end. The commissions had already gone as high as 50 per cent., and it only needed some one to raise it to 75 per cent, to make the 50 per cent, more general. There was no doubt that it was the patient who suffered by the present system, and not the trade as -i whole. The chemists had the power to protect, the patient, and it was their duty to do so. Mr. Bamett added that when small quantities of drugs were made up, the public did not know whether or nob the proper proportions had been used. It was impossible for a chemist, for instance, to put into a preparation two ounces of celerina, charge 2s. 6d. a bottle, and make a profit. The motion was carried unanimously.

The following members of the Association were present at the meeting : Messrs. H. A. Papprill (president), W. Barnefct, S. Ross, Smith-Ansted, R. S. Cooke, J. C. Sopp, C. W. Price, M. Mark, J. Berry, and W. Barrett.