Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1915-06-01

not know the woman in question was
1t habitual user of the dope, that he
did not know she had been cured, y
but that she had complained of pains
in her feet and abdomen, and that
accordingly he prescribed for her.
However, he added that he had
made no inquiry as to whether she
had been an habitual user of lauda-
mum.
Il did not know she was addicted
to the use of laudanum," said he, land
there was nothing in her appearance
so far as l could see to lead me to
think so. Furthermore. l was given to
understand that she had never been
cured OF the habit
within the Law
Il thought went on the doctor
that l have been within the law
Otherwise l most certainly would not
have prescribed for her. She said she
was in pain and of course L can't see
pain, you Know"
The physician added that he had re-
ceived no Instructions from the Poor
Board as to whom it had been treat
ing as dope fiends.
Aside from the legal end of the
question, does not a physician feel any
moral obligation in the matter" in
quired b. NJ. Mead, acting counsel for
the Poor Board. IF there isn't any
moral end to it, what is the purpose OF
the act? Doesn't a physician feel that
there is moral obligation involved?"
"Oh, yes, certainly" returned the
doctor.
Have you ever refused anybody a
prescription
oh, yes, some
"Why?"
Because 1 thought they were TAX
ing too much"
1t was further brought out that
three ounces of laudanum had been
prescribed at intervals of from -four
days to a week, all within a couple OF
months. The label was marked TIC
be used as directed" The feature oi
the drug act which provides that the
specific ailment for which the drug is
prescribed and the further provision
that the druggists record shall show
"ever-decreasing doseages" was re-
called TO the physician.
Why the dope" Came Back
The county resident physician, who
had treated the woman, mentioned
how his attention had been called tc
her by her request for morphine, OF
his refusal, of his efforts to cure heI
and of his success by the Lambert
Towns treatment; of how, weeks aftel
he had visited her for the last time
and had pronounced her cured, she
had turned up FOR treatment at the
dope ward at the almshouse.
The resident physician discussed
briefly for the board the effect of the
opiates on victim, of his or her lacl
of will power, and of how the treat.
ment means complete isolation from
the drug. One patient, he said, haC
! been using opium for thirty-sever
years and really made her husband
poor in his efforts to provide her with
the drug. The name of the woman
about whom the inquiry was raised
was kept as secret as possible, hi
said. because she feared to let hel
husband know she was using it,"
When l asked this woman how
she obtained the drug again she told
me- continued the physician, that {
neighbor had told her where she coulC
get a supply"
Did she tell you to whom she wa.
referred?"
Yes. sir. She said DR.. Duff"
Does the law provide any restric
tions for the use of the opiate?"
THE law provides that where the
user is a dope fiend the prescription
must show decreasing doseages anC
| that the specific use for which the
drug is prescribed must be set fortI
on the label"
Besides the legal end of this, ISM
there a moral issue to be considered? 2
There should be-"
But among physicians, doesn't such
an obligation eXist?"
Whether the physician does rec.
ognize a moral obligation or not would
of course depend upon the physician.
concluded the witness.