Page images
PDF
EPUB

campaign, both in the legislature and among the doctors thruout the state, caused a halt on that bill, until some educational work could be done. The doctors in the legislature proved tractable, and what they finally "put over" in the way of narcotic legislation they proudly boasted was better than the Harrison lawand they were right.

The one other state that I will speak of here is Ohio. A good start was made early in this state. House Bill No. 305 was an excellent narcotic bill in every way, and in complete harmony with the Harrison law. I sent words of commendation to the doctors in the legislature and thruout the state, and after heartily urging the passing of this bill, I turned my attention to other states.

Imagine my surprise when, a number of weeks later, after I had supposed that Bill 305 had been passed and become a law, I learned that Bill 305 had been dropped, and that House Bill 132 had been passed by both houses and was in the Governor's hands. I rapidly analyzed Bill 132 and sent the strongest letter I could write to the Governor, asking him to veto it. I then wrote earnestly to the doctors in the legislature, who it seemed had gone to sleep, and they do not seem to have wakened yet. One of them replied that he saw nothing wrong with the bill, and that the others seemed to think it all right. I then wrote a strong letter to every medical journal in Ohio, asking that the editor telegraph to the Governor to veto the bill. Strangely, the Journal of the Ohio Medical Association, the official organ of the Ohio profession, rather favored the bill. may bet that I put in a strong reply there, but heard nothing further from that source, and the Governor vetoed the bill.

You

Now for the bill: It dealt only with narcotics. It was a narcotic bill, but it sailed under the misleading name of a poison bill. Its full title was:

"A Bill to amend sections 1313, 12672 and 12673 of the General Code, relative to the enforcement of the laws relative to the practice of pharmacy and the sale and distribution of poisons.'

Who would suspect this to be a bullet aimed directly at the heart of the most ancient right of the medical profession? The doctors in the legislature couldn't see it when it was pointed out plainly to them. In brief, its provisions were: "Whoever sells, barters, furnishes or gives away, directly or indirectly, or has in his possession

for the purpose of selling, bartering, furnishing, or giving away, directly or indirectly, any quantity of" (then follows the usual list of narcotic drugs, including chloral hydrate) "except upon the original written prescription of a physician," etc. There is no exception covering physicians dispensing to their patients. It is a pharmacy bill exclusively. It permits the selling "in good faith as medicins preparations containing in one fluid ounce, or if a solid or semi-solid preparation, in one avoirdupois ounce, not more than two grains of opium, not more than one-fourth grain of morphine," etc., which exceptions are of course intended to permit the selling of certain proprietaries over the counter by druggists. It places upon the State Board of Pharmacy the duty of enforcing the provisions of the bill.

You see, it is purely a druggists' measure, but it is so drawn that nobody may do the things mentioned in the bill but druggists. Physicians are mentioned only as the writers of prescriptions. This is not difficult. to see if one will only open his eyes. And where would it have put the doctors of Ohio? Right under the thumbs of the retail druggists, as far as the narcotic drugs are concerned. A physician could not have even given a hypodermic of morphine, except in the strength of one-fourth grain in one fluid ounce of water!

[ocr errors]

And the next legislature, if it contained no better friends of the medical profession than this legislature, could easily have amended this bill, had it become a law, to embrace other 'poisons," as veratrum, aconite, etc. Then the custom of the Eclectics to drop so many drops of fluid veratrum into half a glass of water for "fever drops," with directions to take a teaspoonful or tablespoonful every hour, would have to be stopped-and what would they think of that?

Are the plans and purposes of the retail druggists now becoming plain to the doctors of this country? Suppose this bill No. 132 had not come to my attention, and the Governor had innocently signed it. Then the doctors of Ohio would have wakened up some morning and found that they could not give a Dover's powder to a patient without breaking the law!

I well remember my preceptor's saddle bags. They were later replaced (except for muddy riding) by a "buggy case"-and how I admired that wonderful creation with its numerous compartments, bottles of various sizes, etc. And then his pocket

medicin case, which he always carried, even to church. Must all these be swept away at the behest of retail druggists, and the doctor's outfit reduced to a prescription pad? Imagine an anxious call at midnight, dark and rainy, urging the doctor to go ten miles into the country "and please hurry; the case is desperate." The doctor says, "Wait till I get my prescription pad! That's all the retail druggists will permit me to carry.'

"And must I come way back here for the medicin?"

"So the retail druggists have willed."

Doctor, will you and your patients permit it to come to this? Now is the time to think and act. Not one doctor in fifty is alive to the situation as he should be. Talk to the next dozen doctors and see for yourself. There were doctors on the Health Committee in both houses of the Ohio legislature, and they let House Bill No. 132 pass! I wrote one of them that THE MEDICAL WORLD has over 1,300 subscribers in Ohio; and if this bill became a law, within a year we would have double that many subscribers in Ohio. Perhaps it would be a good thing to let one prominent state, like Ohio, slide into the trap as a "horrible example." And Ohio would be a good one, for the Eclectics there would, justifiably, make a howl that would be heard from ocean to ocean. But why should we not be "wise rats" and see the trap before getting into it?

As to the retail druggists, they are nice fellows, and brighter than doctors. This is proven by the fact that they can walk all around the doctors when it comes to legislation. Maybe it is because druggists are frankly (and properly) commercial, while doctors are not, as a rule. I have taken a more pronounced and persistent stand on this legislation question than any member of our profession known to me. But I want it understood clearly that I am not anti-retail druggist. I have nothing against the retail druggists except their schemes against the doctors. All we want is to not be disturbed in our ancient rights and privileges. Druggists and doctors can work hand in hand, advantageously to both. But when our druggist friends seek to rob us of our ancient privilege of administering or dispensing to our patients according to our judgment, convenience and desire, we must raise our hand warningly and say, "you shall not do this thing.

Two Judicial Decisions on the Federal
Narcotic Bill.

The national narcotic bill is getting some queer twists and turns. It was supposed by all those who supported the bill and by the officials in whose hands rests the enforcement of it that unregistered persons could not legally have possession of opium or cocain in any form without violating that law. The collector of internal revenue for the first district of Pennsylvania, in sending out notices for reregistration of physicians and dealers, states:

Any persons or corporations which have failed to register on or before June 30th will be liable to the penalties imposed by the act, if they have in their possession or prescribe or dispense any of the prohibited drugs, no matter how small the quantity.

Notwithstanding the general idea of the intents and purposes of this bill, it has already been subjected to official rulings by the commissioner of internal revenue, who requires physicians to keep a record of all medicins dispensed, either in the office or at the bedside. Only hypodermic injections and remedies administered to the patient by the physicians are excepted. The bill as passed by the makers of the law and signed by the president exempted physicians from recording any remedies dispensed to patients.

Now comes a judicial decision in the district court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania, May 12th, in which a suit by the government against Jin Fuey Moy for unlawful possession was decided against the government on the ground that the defendant was not in the class of persons defined in the bill as requiring to be registered in order to be permitted to have the remedy in his possession.

The indictment in this case was drawn under the provisions of Section 8, defining unlawful possession. The court held as follows:

In reading the eighth section, in connection with the remaining sections of the act of congress, when it provides that it shall be unlawful for any person, not registered under the provisions of this act, to have in his possession certain drugs, I think that the word "person" should be held to refer to the persons with whom the act of congress is dealing, that is, persons who are required to register and pay the special tax in order to import, produce, manufacture, deal in, dispense, sell or distribute. And there is no allegation in the indictment that Moy had in his possession these drugs for any of these purposes.

The indictment, therefore, could not be sustained, unless the mere fact of having the drug

in his possession is a violation of the law. If so, any person would be presumptively guilty and subject to indictment and have the burden of proof cast upon him under this section, if he had any small amount of the proscribed drug in his possession, without any reference to the purpose for which it was to be used, whether legitimate or otherwise.

On account of the view which the court entertains as to the scope of the act of congress, the motion to quash the indictment is sustained, and a general exception is noted to the government, and it will be given any special exceptions that may be desired.

It will be noted that the defendant in this case, in support of the demurrer to the indictment, does not contend that section 8 of the federal narcotic law is unconstitutional as a police provision, but rather contends that the federal narcotic law does not apply to unregistered persons found with narcotic drugs in their possession when such persons have made no effort to sell, give away, etc., the said narcotics.

In other words, it is contended by the defendant that the word "person" used in the following manner in section 8:

Section 8.-That it shall be unlawful for any person not registered under the provisions of this act, and who has not paid the special tax provided for by this act, to have in his possession or under his control any of the aforesaid drugs; and such possession or control shall be presumptive evidence of a violation of this section, and, also, of a violation of the provisions of section 1 of this act; . . refers to the word "person" used in section 1 of the act in the following text:

Section 1.-That on and after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, every person who produces, imports, manufactures, compounds, deals in, dispenses, sells, distributes or gives away opium or coca leaves, or any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative or preparation thereof, shall register, etc.

In other words, an unregistered person who has the proscribed narcotic drugs in his possession, but who has not dealt in, dispensed, sold, distributed, or given away these drugs, does not hold such possession contrary to the federal narcotic law. court sustained the contentions of the defendant and held as indicated above.

The

In our opinion this decision is not sound, and is not the construction which will be finally sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States. The government will, no doubt, take an appeal from this decision, and we trust that this important question may be shortly determined by the Supreme Court.

In this connection it will be interesting to note that Robert O'Connor, Assistant

United States Attorney, located at Los Angeles, has also ruled that the federal narcotic law does not apply to unregistered persons found with narcotic drugs when such persons have made no effort to sell or give away, etc., the said narcotics.

In the case of the government against Kenneth Brown in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, April 21st, the defendant held section 8 to be unconstitutional as interfering with the police regulations of the state. On this ground the court ruled the act to be constitutional, as follows:

Congress having the power to exclude the drug entirely from the United States, and the right to regulate its relation to interstate commerce and to levy a tax, must be held to have the right to make it unlawful for any person who has not complied with the provisions of the act, by registration or paying a tax, to have in his possession this "outlawed" article. The act must be construed as a whole and force given to every part when this can be done.

This decision is a very important one, in that it sustains the constitutionality of the Federal Narcotic Law, with particular reference to section 8, defining unlawful possession.

The Abderhalden Test.

Altho it would seem that the Abderhalden test had been before the profession for a time sufficient to have permitted a definite conclusion having been reached as to its value, it is a fact that the matter is almost as much a mooted point as it was just after the announcement. F. H. Falls, in the Journal A. M. A., June 5, 1915, tersely sums the situation by saying: "The workers in the field may at present be divided into three groups: 1. Those who support Abderhalden's contentions entirely and believe that a diagnosis of pregnancy, carcinoma and various other conditions can be made absolutely by exposing the serum from a case to the specific substrate against which these ferments are mobilized by the body. 2. Those who believe that the method is of no value. 3. Those who believe that, while the ferment content of the blood is undoubtedly increased in in pregnancy and various other conditions, the specificity of the ferments as maintained by Abderhalden and his supporters is not yet proved, and in the light of the most recent work is highly improbable."

The textbook of a few years ago airily disposed of the physiology of digestion of

albumins, and many of us have long been content to believe in the peptones as representing the end product of proteid digestion. Recent work of reliable observers has convinced us, however, that the albumin molecule is really a complex substance which is broken up into albumoses, peptones, parapeptones, etc.-the amido-acids -of which there are a great number of distinct bodies. It requires no great stretch of the imagination to consider that the bone cell requires a different nourishment than the nerve cell, and that nature unquestionably must have the faculty of developing the requirements of the metabolism of the various kinds of cells.

Abderhalden elaborated the theory that when foreign proteids are introduced into the blood protective ferments are formed which break down the albumin into peptones and amido-acids. From this, he proceeded to develop his "test." If serum derived from blood of a pregnant woman be brought in contact with placental albumin, the protective ferments contained will attack the placental albumin, converting it into peptones and amido-acids. He demonstrates this by dialyzation thru a dialyzing membrane, the albumins refusing to pass thru, while the peptones and amido-acids pass easily and are demonstrable in the filtrate by well-known reactions. On the other hand, serum from a non-pregnant woman allowed to act on placental tissue will be without disintegrating power on the albumin of the placental mass, and no product passes thru the membrane.

He

The same theory applies to cancer. believes that in the blood of a person suffering from cancer a protective ferment is developed which acts against cancer proteid. The "test" is the same, substituting carcinomatous tissue for placental tissue, and peptones and amido-acids pass thru the membrane and are demonstrable in the filtrate.

The test is essentially a laboratory procedure, but this is no reason why the general country practician, now, may not take advantage of it as well as his more conveniently located urban brother. A number of laboratories are advertising very moderate rates for such tests, and the specimens are readily forwarded by mail. Abderhalden has made no admission of failure in his tests, and his standing entitles him to respectful attention. He claims the errors reported by various workers are due

to faulty technic, and it is little wonder that many half-fledged experimenters working on the intricate tests could find conflicting results. Those who deny anything whatever for the tests are generally those who have had no experience with them, and the value of their judgment is easily estimated. Tho it is quite possible that the Abderhalden test is not absolute (what test is?), if it gives results in a goodly proportion of cases it has done much for medicin, and is well worth continued study in the confidence that improved technic will ultimately yield us much more than the originator now claims. We can use it now in every case of suspected pregnancy where the diagnosis is important, but we can remember its limitations and the possibility of error. In cancer, we can use it as corroborative evidence when associated with other phenomena on which we have learned to depend.

BUSINESS TALK TO DOCTORS

July for a vacation, say many city dwellers - merchants, professional men, clerks, etc. But not so on the farm, where nature is her busiest, and the farmer must be busy, also. People in towns are not so much given to vacations as city people are, but they are getting the habit. A formal vacation varies from one week up. Ex-president Taft once said that he believed in an annual vacation of four months. Evidently he was speaking for the aristocracy.

After writing the above lines the conditions in Europe flash into my mind, and I feel ashamed of what I have written. However, as long as we have sufficient good common sense to live together on this continent without constant war and preparation for war, I guess we have a right to talk about summer vacations. We fervently hope that the people of the continent of Europe will learn the good sense of living together in peace. It is so much cheaper than war, and it is life, while war is death. And how foolish it is for men to line up and shoot one another! That is not the way to find out what is right.

And did I tell you in my Travel Talks of last year what I saw on one of the large battleships at Kiel last summer? As an ordinary tourist, along with other tourists, I was taken on and thru the Deutschland, one of the largest naval vessels there. The

men happened to be at mess. Each one was plentifully helped with fat pork, roast peeled potatoes, spinach and bread. All was well cooked. It was a good, wholesome meal. What surprised me was the waste. I think every one got more than he could eat, nay, much more. What was left was dumped into barrels, and, I was told, taken ashore and fed to hogs. In these barrels, over half full of this excellent food, I saw entire slices of bread, whole potatoes, and chunks of fat pork as large as your fist. I thought of the old saying, "Wilful waste brings woful want." I have thought of this awful waste many times during recent months whenever I have read of impending starvation in Germany, the use of "war bread" even on the Kaiser's table, etc. I don't think there is, nor that there will be, any danger of starvation in Germany. But I do think that that awful waste has long ago been stopped.

Work in July.

Do you like to work in July? Is it pretty hot? You must go when called to the sick, but you are tempted to lag on your bookkeeping. If you do the work in July, you ought certainly see to it that you do not do it for nothing. If you have good, safe investments, they work for you, hot or cold, day and night. But some people, when they think of this, want to quit work and live on their investments. It is then that they are tempted by a promised high rate of income to sacrifice the safety of the principal, and thus lose all. That is the height of folly. However, just now, if you are careful, you can get a higher rate of income on capital than you could a few years ago, with safety of the principal. Some pretty good bonds now vield as high as 6%. Consult your banker.

Wants to Sell Lots.

Dr. C. F. Taylor; DEAR DOCTOR:-Having had opportunity of profiting by your sound advice on financial matters as well as medical, I wish to ask your opinion on the following plan.

With my brothers and sisters, I own some 450 lots within the city limits of the city of Montreal, which, as you know, is the New York of Canada in every way.

These lots are free from incumbrance, and situated on one of the most important thorofares; in fact, the most important street connecting the north and south shores of the island of Montreal. The city is well built up to our property and beyond. The street railway runs the whole length of the property, which is level and most desirable in every way for building homes or stores.

These lots could have been sold easily before the

war at a much higher figure than we ask for them now, but we were not then ready.

We inherited this property from our father, who held it for 24 years. There being no improvements on it, we do not care to hold it any longer, altho the taxes are not high. We would like to sell and get some income.

My plan is to sell the lots on long-time payments, 8 or 10 years' time, with a small cash payment to insure good faith on the part of the buyers.

The prices vary from $1,000 to $1,250, interest 6% on deferred payments.

Would you advise me to advertise these in your MEDICAL WORLD? What do you think of this plan? If you think it feasible, send us your advertising rates. J. C. R. CHAREST, M.D.

Thief River Falls, Minn.

In one,

The

[Tho it is against my interest, I advise you not to advertise in our pages. Doctors scattered from ocean to ocean and from the Gulf to the Arctic, have no occasion to buy lots in Montreal. Your proper market is local. After holding this property so long, better wait till after the war, when you can make sales more readily than now, and at better prices. Then, better put the lots into the hands of a good, honest local agent on the usual commission. But be sure that the agent is honest, and acting in your interest, and not playing the double game of agent and speculator. I say this because I have come in contact with two instances of this kind just lately. the owner agreed to sell for $1,200. agent got a party interested. The prospective purchaser innocently "let the cat out" by saying to the owner, "I will pay $1,500 but not $1,700"! The agent was trying to make a profit of $500 plus his commission on $1,200. This was not honest. It would have been all right if he had bought the property and then sold it at as high a Another case: The figure as he could. agent (a strict churchman-I know this case intimately) was authorized to sell at a certain figure. He called up his principal (in another town) and said he could get only $4,500. Principal told him to sell if the buyer would pay the commission. Agent said buyer wouldn't do it. Principal finally said all right. Agent had deed made out, and when owner came to sign it he found $4,850 named as the purchase price. The agent stood to get the difference, plus $90 commission! The owner would not sign the deed till the agreed amount was named therein. The agent would not work honestly for his principal. However, if he had been an investor, not posing as an agent representing a principal, his transaction would have been all right, as nobody would have been deceived.

« PreviousContinue »