| • Pseudoephedrine
• Pharmacy degree
• Prescription charges
• William Allen article
• Packaging
Letters to the Editor
|
William Allen article
The contribution of William Wilberforce
From Dr D. H. Maddock, FRPharmS
The article “William
Allen: anti-slavery campaigner” (PJ,
24 March, p344–5) made no mention of William Wilberforce’s
attempt to influence the gestation of “medicine” in spite
of his seemingly close friendship with William Allen, the Pharmaceutical
Society’s first president. Most members may be unaware that William
Wilberforce MP first tried in 1789 to get a ban on the slave trade. By
1805 he had failed 11 times to get the support of Parliament. Ultimately
his Foreign Slave Trade Act sailed through Parliament on 1 August 1806.
The profession of pharmacy must be grateful that he did not apply this
dogged persistence to the reform of the practice of medicine.
In the early 1800s many devious political moves were made to recognise
legally the body that would represent the prevailing interests in the field
of medicine. The Associated Apothecaries was formed to put a Bill before
Parliament which had, as one of its objects, “to constitute a fourth
medical body which would be empowered to examine apothecaries, surgeon
apothecaries, accouchews, midwives, dispensing chemists and assistants;
to prohibit the practice of medicine, surgery midwifery or pharmacy, by
uneducated persons, to vest in the new body the prerogative of granting
licenses to such persons as they should find on examination to be competent,
which licenses should be annually renewed on payment of a fee, the examiners
possessing the powers of withholding them from persons whose conduct had
been immoral or discreditable.”1
Although the Bill did not receive the support of the Colleges of Physicians
and Surgeons or Society of Apothecaries it was introduced into the House
by Wilberforce, Calcraft, Whitbread and Rose in March 1813. The chemists
and druggists, against whom some of the most important provisions in the
Bill were levelled, and to whom no application had been made for advice
or assistance, spontaneously took the alarm, the standing committee of
their association, which they had formed for the protection of their interests,
convened a general meeting for the purpose of opposing the new Bill.
They considered that the Bill “contained many clauses deeply injurious
to the Chemists and Druggists who compound and dispense medicines, and
dispense medicines and to the public at large … and eventually to place
a monopoly of compounding and dispensing medicines in the hands of the
Apothecaries, which will increase the price of medicines, and consequently
diminish the means of a large body of the community to procure necessary
medical assistance.
“The Committee met on the 5 March at the house of Mr William Allen
where the chairman stated, that he had had an interview with Mr Wilberforce,
who recommended a meeting, by deputation, between the Apothecaries and
Chemists; but on a full consideration of circumstances, the Committee thought
this measure inexpedient. The chairman was, therefore, requested to inform
Mr Wilberforce of this determination.”
No further reports were recorded of any further interest by Mr Wilberforce.
The Apothecaries’ Bill was withdrawn by the mover on Friday 26 April,
the day appointed for the second reading.
Hopkin Maddock
Past president
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Reference
1. Bell J, Redwood T. Historical sketch of the progress of pharmacy.
London: Pharmaceutical Society; 1880. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal