View report page

49 [1923
is impossible for him personally to supervise every operation in his shop.' He should
certainly be in a position to depend both on the know ledge and the conscientiousness of his
assistants, and his shop should not be too big or too inefficiently organised for him to be
assured of the greatest possible care in a matter so vitally important to the public."
The press propaganda, although unfortunate for the faultless chemists, certainly by the
attention drawn to the matter, caused more care to be taken in dispensing in Islington,
for the time being at any rate, and it is to be hoped the improvement will be permanent.
With a view to bringing out the question of the unqualified assistant, a prescription
was sent round for dispensing containing a poison. There was a marked difference in the
results. Apparently it would seem as if this prescription was not entrusted to assistants,
as in only two cases out of 20 was there inaccuracy, but not to such an extent as to warrant
prosecution. The chemists concerned were warned. In none of the cases which have
been taken has there ever been an opportunity in the witness box of cross-examining the
responsible assistant. It has been noted that this possibility is apparently always very
carefully avoided by the defence.
The fifteen prescriptions, without the poisonous ingredient, which were taken in the
earlier part of the year resulted in a startling proportion of inaccuracies. When the
totals altogether are taken for the year, adding on the others tested, of course the relative
proportion is markedly diminished, but as stated, there were two different methods adopted
for testing the accuracy of dispensing. In the first method (the simple prescription) 15
chemists were tested ; seven were inaccurate. Four prosecutions were instituted, and three
of these were successful, while one summons was dismissed upon the merits of the case;
it had been taken under Section 6 (Food and Drugs Act, 1875), which requires proof of
prejudice. In addition to these four prosecutions that were taken, three chemists were
warned. On the second method (i.e., the prescription containing the poison) twenty were
tested, and the dispensing was good on the whole; two chemists were warned. The fines
and costs awarded the Council amounted to £27 8s.