The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-11-15
MEDICINE FOR POOR.
Reply to Pharmacists Bradley
Communication.
To the Editor Of the News and Observer.


To the Editor of the News and Observer
RALEIGH, N. c., Nov. IA.
When the Board OF Aldermen of the
city of Raleigh formulated and put i'm
action a plan by which the INDECENT
poor of the city were supplied with
medicine, free OF cost, that they had
done a humane and proper act no tax
payer in the city would gainsay. That
this privilege of charity prescriptions
has been abused is not questioned.
Patients have claimed charity pre-
scriptions when not entitled thereto.
Physicians have, perhaps, at times
given charity prescriptions to those
not clearly entitled to them, and pre-
scribed medicines perhaps little too
costly. But are pharmacists entirely
blameless of these abuses, as is indi-
Gated in MIR. Bradley's commuRica-
ton?
A physician is called to a charity
patient. lie gives his time and ser
vice without hope of reward. In his
judgment a certain remedy or prepa-
ration is indicated; he prescribes it..
The druggist, who is pledged to give
the city a reduction of 25 per cent. on
all charity prescriptions, fills it. He
is the only party in the transaction
who makes a profit. He is supposed
to make the charge the same as for
his regular customers, but -.4ere are
cases on record where the druggists
have increased their charge on charity
prescriptions so as to more than cover
the 25 per cent. reduction. For in
stance, the physician preseribes bot
tie of cod liver oil, which sells the
world over for 81. The druggist fills
the prescription and charges $1.25 to-
81 35 for it, CAS- to the accuracy of this
statement / refer to Mayor Russ or
Mr.. Bradley himself.) The question
naturally presents itself: Which has
abused the privilege most, the doctor
who has prescribed just what he
thought his patient needed, or the
pharmacist who has made an over
charge of 25 per cent. and more?
| admit that some physicians have
not exercised that care and discretion
in prescribing medicines which they
should, but | do claim that some of the
pharmacists have abused the privilege
of charity prescriptions more than
any physician ever did
Mr.. Bradley, in his communication,
says: Let the blame be put on the
proper one" / heartily agree with
him, and think that | have shown that
the pharmacists come in for a large
share of the blame for this abuse, and
that the mayor looks, or should look,
"for reform" through the pharmacist
quite as much, or more, than through
the physician.
1t is admitted that charity prescrip-
tons cost the city entirely too much,
and our present progressive and able
administration are looking for
means by which the same object May
be accomplished at a less cost.
The plan as suggested by our able
Mayor of employing city physician
is most feasible Mr.. Bradley to the con
trary Notwithstanding. If the char
ity work is placed in the hands OF
capable and conservative physician as
city physician, l feel quite sure the
cost to the city, salary, medicine ana
all would be considerably less than the
amount now paid to druggists for the
medicine alone. This would also re
lieve the physicians OF the city of
class of practice not renumerative or
desirable.
Mr.. Bradley's communication starts
out apparently as a defense of the
pharmacists of the city, but this Is
not intended as a defense of the ply
sicians prescribing charity preserip-
tions, for none is needed.
Ny excuse for this communication,
Mr.. Editor, is, that the people who
have been wrongly impressed (by Mr..
Bradley's communication in yester-
days paper) should know it,"
Yours very truly,
j. W. McGee, Jr-