THE PROPOSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5128, 30 August 1877, Page 3

THE PROPOSED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —Permit me to trespass upon your columns for space to enable me to make a few remarks re the above Bill. Well, sir, as a courteous and expressive letter has already appeared in your issue of Tuesday last, by one signing himself “ Justice,” I will endeavor to avoid the same ground he has travelled over, and give you as succinctly as possible a few facts well worth the -attention of New Zealand gentlemen sent by various constituencies to represent them. On the one hand, the Bill provides for protection of the public against the ignorance of unqualified men jeopardising their lives from what may be termed quacks. The justice of this I admit. On the other hand, the Bill gives to any man who may bo a member of any college of surgeons (or a physician of Great Britain) power to enforce a penalty of £SO upon any unfortunate chemist who dare to prescribe or compound a remedy to alleviate

or cure a customer’s ailment.. Now, sir, this would not be fair.to those' who have served their apprenticeship or passed their , examination as being thoroughly proficient in the art of compounding or vending drugs. More especially when it is taken into consideration that the people, either from impecuniosity or no medical man being at hand in case of emergency, are compelled to get immediate assistance.

Now, sir, having experienced the jealousy of mepical men in respect to chemists, and having had the honor or misfortune appear before your present Minister of Justice on more than one occasion (in cases where men purchased drugs of me to end their existence), I ask every member if such power as the penalty clause allows should be given to the members of the medical fraternity to firstly ruin the chemist, and inflict severe charges upon the afflicted. I have no doubt members of our Parliament have frequently gone to their chemist for some simple remedy for themselves or families, and received relief from the same. Then again, sir, as medical men are so desirous to crush those who militate against their own pecuniary interests, I will ask our legislators why should not these gentlemen be compelled by law to have their charges taxed for the protection of many a poor family who suffer bereavement from death in the family, and struggle for years to recover the outrageous medical charges enforced upon them? In conclusion, I may state that I am not writing from interested motives, but in common fairness to the general public, for I have long ceased to obtain my livelihood from compounding or vending physic. I merely write to bring the matter fairly before members, who, I feel sure, only wish to do what is right in the matter, and when they have properly mastered the intended Act that they will be the first to object to the unfair penalty clause.—l am, &c„ J . J.C.B.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —I see that “ Justice” is afraid that Mr. Hamlin’s Bill will prevent chemists and druggists prescribing. I hope it will, for X should like to know what right a man, because he puts chemist or druggist over his door, has to practise medicine. He is nothing more or less than an unqualified man, aud as any person, whether be knows the difference between arsenic aud common salt, can call himself chemist and druggist, I think it is quite time that an Act even more stringent than Mr. Hamlin’s was in force; and I hope that some member will see it in this light, and bring in a clause punishing any chemist, druggist, or dentist who does practise medicine _in any way whatsoever. The respectable chemists aud druggists will not be affected, because they have no wish to practise, but it is those terrible scourges of society, quacks, and men. who, under the cover of the name of chemists and druggists, practise their quackery aud advertise their quack medicines, who at the same time do not know the difference between simple ailments and serious disease, who simply rob and injure the health of the public. “Justice” says, “Let Mr. Hamlin seek to prevent unqualified persons from practising as qualified men, and he will do good.” In reply I simply say that “ Justice” does not know what he is talking about, for that is all that Mr. Hamlin’s Bill is seeking to do. But it cannot be done if unqualified men are allowed to practise, and chemists and druggists are nothing more or less than unqualified men. And as to the settlers in outlying districts, many of them to my knowledge are looking forward with anxiety for the passing of this Bill as ene of the greatest blessings that can be bestowed upon them. Pro Bono Publico.