Shall we have a Profession 
f 
of Pharmacy ? REPRINT FROM THERAPEUTIC GAZETTE, FEBRUARY, 1884. 
[EDITORIAL.] 
A brilliant reception was given to the members of the Trade Association 
of Philadelphia Druggists, Friday evening, December 28, 1883, by Dr. Law- 
rence Wolff, the well-known chemist, and president of the association, at his 
residence, 333 south Twelfth street, Philadelphia. There were present lead- 
ing members of the medical and pharmaceutical professions, together with 
some of the principal citizens, including the mayor of the city and editors 
of several of the Philadelphia daily papers. As much good is likely 
to grow out of this successful entertainment, combining, as it did, two mutually 
dependent professions, whose tendency of late years seems to have been to 
drift apart, in friendly and social reunion with each other, and the public, it is 
well to consider the object that brought them together, and some of the results 
likely to grow therefrom. 
The object was a very worthy one, viz., the elevation of professional 
pharmacy and the encouragement of professional and social relations between 
the professions of pharmacy and medicine. 
It is the aim of all lovers of pharmaceutical science to secure the recogni- 
tion of pharmacy as a branch of medical science, and the elevation of those 
tvho practice the art to the position of a liberal profession. How best to at- 
tain this object is a difficult problem to solve, and the difficulties in the way are 
not a few. In the first place there is a strong feeling existing upon the part of 
the professional world against trade in general. It is maintained that it is 
impossible for those engaged in trade to have a scientific and professional 
spirit, and without both the existence of a liberal profession is impossible. 
The object of a tradesman is to sell goods, and it is the tendency of trade to 
sacrifice every other interest to this end. But it is the object of a professional 
man to benefit science, his profession, and the cause of humanity; and to this 
end he would sacrifice everything else, were the principle at stake. A mer- 
chant to be great must be rich; but no amount of money will buy a scientific 
and professional position. Pharmacy is a trade. How can it, then, become a 
liberal profession ? 
In the second place there is likely to be a strong opposition to the idea 
from a portion of the medical press. It is well known that there are medical 
journals claiming to represent all there is professional and scientific, who owe 
their prosperity more to the fact that they are run for the purpose of making 
money than in the interests of the profession. If pharmacy is to be a science 
it must have a place in medical literature, not merely in pharmaceutical journals 
that never meet the eye of the medical profession; but these medical journals 
prefer that things should remain as they are, and that pharmacy should pay its way in advertising. Now we do not propose to discourage legitimate adver- 
tising, but we do maintain that pharmacy has as much right in medical litera- 
ture as therapeutics, and that the pharmacist should have equal credit in 
medical literature for his work as the physician; and that this attempt to 
keep pharmacy out of the medical journals for money-making purposes is an 
outrage to the science that these journals pretend to represent. A pharmaceu- 
tical literature founded on the fly leaves of medical journals, to be destroyed 
when the journals are bound, is worthless for scientific purposes. Not a few 
medical journals, however, will make every effort in their power to keep 
pharmacy down, believing that there is more money for them in pharmacy as 
it is, even though medical literature receive serious damage thereby. 
In the third place any attempt to secure the recognition of pharmacy as a 
profession, will meet the opposition of a certain section of the medical profes- 
sion who feel that its elevation to such a position will be to warm into life a 
very dangerous viper. The druggists, say they, are already our rivals, and as 
they come in direct contact with the public, while we are obliged to sit in our 
offices and wait for patients, they have unfair advantage. Elevate the drug 
trade to an equal position with the medical profession by making pharmacy a 
profession and you but give druggists increased power for mischief. 
There is another section of the medical profession who hold that the 
pharmacist occupies the same relation to the physician as does his cook, and 
the elevation of pharmacy to the lofty position held by this class of physicians 
in their own estimation would be a serious sacrifice of professional dignity. 
This section of the profession will unite with those medical journals above 
referred to who hold that pharmacy is a trade because there is more money in 
keeping it there. 
Another argument against the recognition of pharmacy as a profession is 
that pharmacists are guilty of certain irregularities that, unless corrected, will 
forever debar them from the privilege for which they ask. Do they not pre- 
scribe over their counters, it is asked, and what right have they to do so, not 
being educated in the knowledge of disease or its treatment? Then, too, they 
renew prescriptions indefinitely, without the doctor knowledge or consent, 
much to the detriment of the public, and to the doctor’s pocket book, who is 
thus cheated out of his fee. But more than all this, are not the druggists 
agents for the nostrum trade—the vilest species of quackery that ever'disgraced 
a civilized and enlightened country? How can pharmacy ask a position among 
the liberal professions when it is guilty of conduct so unbecoming a professional 
and scientific position? 
If pharmacy is to be a liberal profession it must drop all secrecy, attain a 
professional and scientific spirit, do scientific work on the materia medica, be 
represented in medical literature, and so guide its conduct in relation to the 
medical profession, on whom it must forever depend, as not to give just cause 
for offense. Now, while we are heartily in favor of the ideal that pharmacy is 
a branch of the science of medicine, and have worked to elevate it to a scien- 
tific and professional position, we would like to make the inquiry at this junc- 
ture of the proceedings, is it possible to raise pharmacy to the position of a 
liberal profession in the face of so many difficulties and such a storm of oppo- 
sition? We wait with interest the reply of those concerned in this matter.