189

Co Correspondents.THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT.

I notice in your "Answers to Correspondents" relating to the new MedicalAct-lst. That Irish and Scotch physicians, as also English, are not qualified,and cannot practise as general practitioners.-2nd. That members of the Col-lege of Surgeons are not allowed to qualify as general practitioners.-3rd. Thatapothecaries cannot recover as general practitioners if the cases are surgical.-4th. Yet I notice you say the M.R.C.S.L. and L.M. are qualified as generalpractitioners, and as such can recover.-Now, from a careful perusal of theAct, and also your replies, I am at a loss to know what benefit the existingmedical practitioners receive by this new Act. To me it appears confined tothe M.D., being allowed legally to receive their fees in England, although theirqualifications are obtained elsewhere. It does not alter the position of anyother qualification, while it allows the continuance of a great many examiningbodies, none of which can confer the power on any person to legally practiseas a general practitioner, and recover for medicine and attendance, simply be-cause they are not in possession of the apothecary’s licence, thus giving theirqualification a position superior to all others. This arrangement the publicWill not endorse. Another difficulty arises. I suppose the certificate of asurgeon only, in a medical case, will not be available with the registrar ofdeaths; yet the Act fails to mark the line of distinction between surgery andmedicine. The public, by this new Act, are to define the surgeon as the manwho only uses the knife; the apothecary as only allowed to give his patientdrugs; and as this distinction is kept up, and they, the public, dislike it, andsee the absurdity, fly to the prescribing druggist, who is allowed as before totrifle with the people. To the druggist this new Aet is a decided benefit, andwill tend more to increase counter practice than the old law, ten to one, whichis a matter for the serious consideration of the profession. Moreover, itsprovisions are full of doubt; for you say that a Scotch surgeon is there qua-lified as a general practitioner, but "that here it is impossible to predict whatthe courts of law may determine."

August, 1858. 1kiEDYCUS.

*** The complications regarding the qualifications of practitioners, and theirrights arising therefrom, were so multitudinous, that it was found impossibleto obtain more as a first effort than has been acquired by the new Act.

A homoeopathie practitioner in Cambridge, an extra-licentiate of the Collegeof Physicians, signs himself " Licentiate." Now the examination is different,the fee is different, and the privileges conferred are different. Has he anyright to the title of " Licentiate ?"August, 1858.

*** We regret to state that he has. QUERY.

*** We regret to state that he has.

The Medical Act, as published in THE LANCET, differs from that which iscontained in the Medical Times and Gazette. Can you inform me the causeof the difference ?London, August, 1858. R. B.

?* The MEDICAL ACT is now for the first time published in a medicajournal. The Royal Assent was not given to the Bill until August; eonsequently the Act could not have been published antecedent to that dateOn all future occasions we shall refer to the MEDICAL ACT as it is published in THE LANCET of this day.

In your last number, " F.R.C.S. Edin." (not possessed of the licence of theApothecaries’ Company) asks if "for practising medicine in England he willbe liable to be prosecuted by the Apothecaries’ Company ?" Your reply is,"Yes." But in reply to a question by " Q.," substantially similar to the torc-going, although perhaps not so clearly put, you lay down a principle whichwould warrant, one would think, an emphatic "No" to the question submitted*by " F.R.C.S. Edin." You say the advantage" that will accrue from registra-tion under the new Act " is rather the extension of an existing right than thecreation absolutely of any perfectly new right;" and you add, in illustration,"for example, a man now entitled to practise as an apothecary in Englandonly will have the right to practise as an apothecary in any part of the king-dom, and vice versâ." Therefore, vice versâ, a man now entitled to practise asan apothecary in Scotland only will have the right to practise as an apothecaryin any part of the kingdom, England included. Now, in Scotland every onepossessed of the diploma of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh is bylaw entitled to practise as an apothecary in that part of the kingdom.

Again, in reply to another correspondent, you say that a man "will be en-titled to register ’according to his qualification.’ " Now, every candidate forthe diploma of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh is examined inmedicine and pharmacy, as well as in surgery, and his diploma bears " Utmuneri tam chirurgico quam pharmaceutico suscipiendo omnino par esse

videretur."Accordingly, on both the grounds you have stated-viz., the extension of an

existing right, and registration according to qualification-it does appear tome that both fellows and licentiates of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edin-burgh will be found entitled to practise as apothecaries in England withoutlet or hindrance from the Apothecaries’ Company.

August, 1858. L.R.C.S. EDIN.

In your number of the 7th instant you state, in answer to " Q.," a 1t1.R.C.S.Eng. cannot be registered as possessed of a qualification in medicine and sur.gery. To "A Constant Subscriber," a M.R.C.S.L. and L.M. will be able to register and practise as a general practitioner. To " M.R.C.S.E.," you say hIwill not be allowed to register as a general practitioner. I am a member othe Royal College of Surgeons of England, and practising as a general practitioner. Under the new Bill, shall I be able to register as a general practitioner or only as surgeon ?August, 1858. , ** Only as a surgeon.

CANNY HILL.

1. Can a M.D. St. Andrews and L.S.A. recover at law for surgical attendaneunder the new Act ?-2. Will the new Act do away with those impudent members of society, " bone-setters" ?-3. Will the new Act put a stop to druggist:quacking ?

August, 1858. MYOPIA-*** 1, 2, and 3. All the questions must be answered by a negative.

" He may register according to his qualification.’ "-(THE LANCET answer-passim.)

" He may practise * * according to his qualification or qualifications."-(Medical Act.)And further, you say in several places that a debt due for professional ser.

vices rendered can be recovered only by a person registered according to the-particular branch for which he claims. Thus, none but apothecaries can re-cover for medical cases; none but surgeons for surgical cases. Now, withinthe last few years a new qualitication has been established-licentiate in mid-wifery ; this qualification is recognised in the Act. According to the veryrestrictive doctrine laid down in your answers, no one but a licentiate in mid.wifery will be privileged to practise midwifery, or to sue for a debt due forattendance in a midwifery case, whatever be his other qualitieations. He maybe M.D., 1’.R.C.P., F.R.C.S., L.S.A., M.R.C.S., &e. &c.; but if he have not thelicence in midwifery, then is he nothing; for he may practise medicine or sur-gery only according to his qualification, and he can have no right to includemidwifery in his practice if that branch be not a part of his qualification. Iam using an m;gicrnenfum ad ibsitrdum. For what are these newly-fledgedlicentiates in midwifery ? Mere boys all of them. The best men are those whohave not the licence. Their very eaaminers are not "licentiates in midwifery,"and will not be privileged to practise! What are the privileges of a personpossessing only the midwifery licence ? for there may be such a person. Is anM.D. a physician ? And what are to be the privileges as regards surgery of a"before’15" man ? The Act of 1815 has nothing to do with surgery. Thepractice will, I think, be the following :-All registered persons will practisemedicine or surgery, or medicine and surgery, including midwifery of course,as they please, and will sue in the same way. The Apothecaries’ Company wiltstill be masters of the situation, they alone having the power to put downillegal practice. But they will not prosecute any who are on the register.

August, 1858. Kai TA LUIPHA..

Am I, a licentiate of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow, en-titled by the new Act to practise in England both medicine and sur,-ery,-andif not, which of these can I do ?Manchester, August, 1858. MANCUNIENSIS.

*** We believe both, if the provisions of the Aet are interpreted by the courtsin a liberal spirit.

I hope you will give the earliest information as to who are appointed mem.bers of the General Council under the Medical Act, by publishing the names inTEE LAXCET as soon as appointed.

Sherborne, Dorset, August, 1858. W. H.

*** We shall give the names at the earliest possible period. The selectionrests with the Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole. It is earnestly to be hopedthat no patron of quacks will be found in the list.

Will a M.R.C.S. Eng. and L.M. be able to register under the new Act, andrecover for attendance and medicine supplied in medical cases ?

Brigham, August, 1858. ADJUTOR.*** He would be entitled to register according to his qualification, and could

recover charges for professional services, provided he did not actually prac-tise as an apothecary.

1. What does the Act mean by an apothecary?-2. Can Sir B. Brodie or anyother distinguished surgeon attend and prescribe for medical cases after theAct comes into operation, without the risk of being prosecuted by the Apothe-caries’ Company?-3. What are medical and what are surgical cases ?-4. Canapothecaries attend surgical cases without a surgeon’s diploma ?-5. CanM.D.’s attend surgical cases without a surgeon’s diploma ? P

August, 1858. M. D. C.

*** 1. The Act does not state; there is no interpretation clause.-2. Yes.-3. Unfortunately our definition would not govern the decisions of the superiorcourts of law, where unhappily confusion worse confounded reigns without

. check or control on this subject.-4 and 5. The varieties of cases of this de-

: seription are so numerous, and take so wide a range, it is impossible to pre-. dicate what will be the decisions in the courts of law with respect to them.

Under these circumstances, we are unwilling to express a decided opinionon points which admit of so much doubt.

1. Will you kindly give me in your next a copy of the clause in the recentPublic Health Bill relating to vaccisation ?-2. Will there be any difficulty inputting the penal clause in the Medical Act in action against a homwopathig,quack resident here ? He is the Unitarian parson, and about two years ago hawent over to Germany, and bought a thing he calls a diploma, and forthwithputs up a brass plate with " Dr. Smith," and is now practising in a most im-pudent wav, a man who has had no medical education whatever.

Theme, Yorkshire, August, 1858. M.R.C.S. and L.S.A.*** The Act will be found at p. 183 of our present number.-2. Such a person

will be liable to prosecution. Our correspondent’s former letter must havebeen mislaid.

I am a licentiate in medicine of a College of Physicians, and a licentiate insurgery, pharmacy, and midwifery (according to my diploma) of the College ofSurgeons of Edinburgh, (L.R.C.S.E.) Shall I be enabled to register in medi-cine and surgery, and practise as a general practitioner, "according to myqualifications," under the new Act ? If not, what can be the meaning of clause 30 ? as I should seem by the qualifications I hold to fulfil all the requirementsfor general practice.

August, 1858. X. X.

*** By clause 30 it is provided that higher or additional qualifications may.beregistered on the payment of a further fee, as may be fixed by the Council.

In Schedule (A) of the new Medical Act I do not see the licentiates of mid-wifery of the Rotundo Lying-in Hospital, Dublin, mentioned. Can it bepossible that we are excluded from registering a qualification which cost.610 10s., and for which we had to undergo a strict examination ? Having theabove degree, together with the certificate of merit, should I be admitted tothe L.M. London without further examination ?

August, 1858. L.M.D.*,* The licentiates in midwifery of the Rotundo Lying-in Hospital are notmentioned in Schedule A.

190

1. Will a M.R.C.S. have to pay 92 to register his name before January next?And should he obtain the licence of the Hall in 1859, will he have to pay jE5 5additional before he can register that qualification ?-2. In what manner can aM.R.C.S. and L.M. register, and what privileges will he be entitled to ?--- 3. According to the new Act, cannot an apothecary practise surgery, and asurgeon medicine, although only able to recover for medicine and surgery as thecase may be ?-4. Would the authorities prosecute a surgeon for practising medi-cine-i. e., visiting and prescribing in medical cases for gain ?-5. What ad-vantage will a person derive from being registered as a general practitioner ? - 6. Will a registered M.R.C.S. be considered as a duly and legally qualifiedpractitioner ?-7. Can a L.F.P.S. Glasgow and a M.R.C.S. be registered topractise medicine and surgery, and recover in a court of law ?—8. Does not thenew Medical Act leave the physician, surgeon, and apothecary just on the samefooting as formerly, and gives him no right to practise in the three capacitiesunless he possesses the three diplomas ? ?Manchester, August, 1858. INFORMATION.

*"* The sum for the registration of the additional qualification is not named,but is left to the discretion of the Council. 2. He registers as a surgeon andlicentiate in midwifery. The second title confers no extra privilege.-3. Yes.-4. It is not at all probable.-5. None ; the registration of his" qualification" will show whether he is entitled to practise both medicineand surgery, and recover at law for attendance, &c.-6. Every registeredperson will be " a duly and legally qualified practitioner."—7. He could.-8. It leaves the three classes as they were before the Act.

*Can a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, London, and a licentiate inmidwifery of the same College, practise as a general practitioner, and recoverfor medical attendance generally under the new Medical Act ?

Guisbro’, August, 1858. G. SELWYN Momis, M.D.*-** An answer to this question will be found in reply to another correspondent.

I am desirous of knowing whether the 45th clause of the new Medical Actwill give me power to practise and recover in medical cases, in virtue of mynow practising medicine and surgery from having been an assistant-surgeon inthe navy, and having passed the examination for full surgeon, which examina-tion is purely medical, or should I be liable to be prosecuted by the Apothe-caries’ Company for acting as an apothecary? I hold the diploma of theRoyal College of Surgeons of England, which will only entitle me to registerand recover as a surgeon.Portsmouth, August, 1858. SUBSCRIBER.

8..* We believe that he could recover at law, and would not be liable to prose.cution by the Apothecaries’ Company.

L By holding a diploma as licentiate in midwifery of the Royal College ofSurgeons of England, without any other qualification, can I practise solely asan accoucheur ?-2. Also, if so, can I register under the new Medical Act as alicentiate in midwifery ?

August, 1858. *** To both questions, Yes. X. Y. Z.

Having been in practice prior to the 1st August, 1815, and having practisedas a surgeon since, can I register as a surgeon, and recover for medicine andattendance ?

Gateshead, August, 1858. P. T. C.*** He can register as a practitioner in medicine.

An ex-Royal Engineer.-The coffee from the Military Hospital at Chathamwe believe to be genuine. It is not often that we are called upon, from the

"grounds" of coffee, to declare whether the article used was genuine or not.The fact of the coffee having been boiled increases considerably the diffi-- culty of forming a correct opinion; for although the structure of the coffeeberry is not itself destroyed, other softer vegetable substances, as the floursof wheat, rye, beans, &c., are much changed by the boiling. The tea is like-wise genuine, with the exception of the single entire leaf picked out. Whetherthis is a tea-leaf or not is very doubtful, and, had other similar leaves beenpresent, we should not have hesitated to pronounce the sample to be adul-terated.

M.D.-Yes, he can recover, unless he practises as a "physician," and thecollege to which he belongs enacts a bye-law prohibiting its members fromthe power of suing at law.

J. B.-It is probable that the Council, upon a memorial of the claimant beinglaid before them, would permit him to register.

A Nervous Man.--The Society of Apothecaries will not interfere with a gentle-man so qualified.

Mr. Joseph Richardsorz.-It would be useless to publish an ex-parte state-ment.

Mr. A. Ebsuortla will see that we have an Annotation on the subject at p. 177.

MEDICAL REfOBM.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,-Allow me to congratulate you upon the, so far, successful result of

your efforts in the cause of Medical Reform. I mean the passing of the Medi-cal Bill, which, if not ail the profession requires, is at least a movement in theright direction. Your endeavours have been unflinching and indefatigable,and it cannot but be gratifying to your feelings to find them thus in a measurerealized. In saying this, I am sure I do but echo the sentiments of my brotherpractitioners, than whom none are more ready on all occasions "to render toCeesar the things that are Ca-sar’s."

I have not yet seen the Act, and only learn its intent from the abstract givenof it in your number of the 31st ultimo. Am I right in the conclusion I drawfrom it-namely, that the profession, numerous as it is, is to be again sub-jected to a fee for registration, or is the registration fee to those already inpractice, these only being liable to the fee who shall in future qualify ?

After having been already taxed for the licence at the Hall, for the member-ship and the fellowship at the College, &c., it appears anomalous to be calledupon for further payments, however small or insignificant.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,Pembroke Dock, August, 1858. W. THOMAS. F.R.C.S.

A Constant Reader of THE LANCET.-There will be some appointments madeunder the Act; but at present no idea can be formed of the emolumentsattached to them.

Mr. J. Roles had better apply to the registrars of the different Universities,by which means he will obtain copies of the " regulations" as they at presentexist.

Molar.-There is no provision in the Act for the registration of dentists.A. E. M. could only recover fees for attendance and medicines in surgical

cases. He will not, under the circumstances stated, be interfered with bythe Society of Apothecaries.

Medicus, (Guildford.)-Mr. Onslow, the Liberal candidate for the representationof Guildford, is a staunch supporter of the interests of the medical profession.

M. C.-It is not probable that any steps would be taken in the matter.

A CAUTION.To the Editor of TaE LANCET.

SIR,-" Forewarned is forearmed." A tall man, with foreign accent, sportinga moustache, and dressed in a grey tweed coat, and with another loose coatthrown over his arm, paid me a visit a few days ago, stating that he wasstopping with a gentleman who resides two doors from my house, and that hewas desirous of seeing me. I was out. My domestics were, however, on thealert, and he was not left in possession of the room a single moment. Findinghimself foiled, he stated he would call again. This, however, he has not done;and on making inquiries at my neighbour’s, I find the tale a fabrication, and adodge of the gentleman styling himself Mons. Pfeifer.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.,Princess-terrace, Regent’s-park, Aug. 1858. F. GOODCHILD, M.D.

*** We have received a communication relative to the same individual fromanother correspondent.

A Constant Subscriber (Staffordshire) will oblige by forwarding to us his nameand address in confidence. They have been mislaid, and we are desirous ofcommunicating with him respecting the facts stated in his letter.

L.S.A.-l. Could recover for attendance in an obstetric case.-2. Yes.-3. Ithas never been defined.-4. An apothecary.-P.S. Yes.

A Subscriber, (Llanfyllin.)-He would be liable to punishment under the pro- visions of the new Act.

G. W., (Hartlepool.)-Coulson on Lithotomy and Lithotrity : Churchill.Middlesex.-Senior appears to have acted unjustly. Haw can he refuse to ad-here to his agreement ? Surely he can be compelled by Junior to carry itout.

Enquirer.-Such practice is illegal; but it is difficult to put a stop to it.

THE NEW MEDICAL ACT.To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-I am astonished to find you express an opinion that surgeons andgraduates of medicine registered under the new Act, and expressly allowedunder clause 30 to recover for medicines and surgical and medical appliances,will still be liable to prosecution under the old Apothecaries’ Act. I am assuredby a distinguished lawyer that such an action would be quite untenable, as itwould have the effect of utterly destroying the " reciprocity" which is the dis-tinguishing feature of the new measure. Yours faithfully,August, 1858. Q.

WE must refer numerous correspondents, who have addressed us relative tothe New Medical Act, to an article at page 175.

ERRATUM.-In a communication headed " Dr. Duke’s Operation for the Recti.fication of Hare-lip," in our last number, at p. 160, in the fifth line, for " &c.,"read " so."

COMMUNICATIONS, LETTERS, &c., have been received from-Professor Syme;Dr. Brown-Sequard; Dr. Ranking, Norwich; Dr. F. Goodchild; Dr. Hassall;Dr. Croft, Clevedon, Somerset; Dr. Walter Sumpter; Mr. Newhouse; Mr.Granville; Mr. Thomas West, Cowes, Isle of Wight; Mr. Mackinnon; Dr.Tuson; Mr. W. Hooper Masters ; Mr. Frederick Danford; Mr. H. Ward,Atherstone; Mr. J. C. Arnold; Mr. Bollon; Dr. Johnstone, Montrose ;Mr. J. Ferra Watson; Dr. Ashley; Dr. William Stillman, Southam; Mr.Ravenscroft, Ramsey, (with enclosure;) Mr. Jones, Brierly Hill; Mr. Pratt,Cardiff; Dr. Baxter, Bromley; Mr. Kennedy, Birmingham; Mr. Towning,Sleaford; Mr. Walker, Blakesley; Mr. Gaggs, Howden, (with enclosure;)Dr. Carlyle, Carlisle; Mr. Beeley, Holmfirth, (with enclosure;) Dr. Tuke,York; Mr. Maule, Southampton, (with enclosure;) Mr. Lloyd, Wakefield,(with enclosure;) Mr. Ladmore, Hereford; Mr. Blanshard, Wistow; Mr.Gorten, Kirklinton ; Mr. Bailey, Liverpool; Mr. Batten, Coleford, (with en.closure ;) Mr. Currie, Edinburgh, (with enclosure;) Mr. Cooper, Bilston,(with enclosure;) Mr. Woodman, Ormsby; Dr. Corner ; Mr. Soloman, Bir-mingham ; Messrs. Mappin, Sheffield, (with enclosure;) Mr. Juler, Isleham;Mr. Newby, Grimsby; Mr. Leadarn, Farnham; Dr. Bowden, Cork; Mr.Orange, Torquay, (with enclosure;) Mr. Watts, Yeovil; Mr. Le-Maout;Mr. G. N. Smith; Dr. Donkin, Morpeth; Dr. Jones, Llanfyllin, (with enclo-sure ;) Mr. Unthank, Appleton-Wiske; Mr. Trend, Long Sutton; Mr. Plato,Chesham; Mr. Arnold, Sutton-on-Trent; Dr. Highmore, Sherborne; Mr.Brodie, Coldstream, (with enclosure;) Mr. Thomas, Pembroke Dock; Mr. A.Ebsworth; Mr. Joseph Richardson; Mr. J. Roles; Dr. G. Selwyn Morris,Guisbro’; J. A. B.; M.D.; A Student; M.R.C.S.; Justitia; A Subscriber;Jura; A Subscriber and L.A.C.; F.R.C.S.; Medico-Lex; Jus; Pisæmon;M.R.C.S., L.A.C., and L.M. ; Q.; A Constant Reader; M.R.C.S. and a Two-Faculty Man; Myopia ; L.M.D.; J. B.; A Nervous Man; Molar; A. E. M.A Constant Reader of THE LANCET; L.S.A.; Enquirer; M. C.; G. W.Hartlepool; Middlesex; Medicus ; A Constant Subscriber, StaffordshireQuery; R. B.; L.R.C.S. Edin.; Canny Hill ; Mancuniensis ; W. H.; X. X.M. D. C.; Adjutor; Information; M.R.C.S. and L.S.A.; Kai ta LuiphaSubscriber; X. Y. Z.; P. T. C.; &c. &e.