The chemical nomenclature is substantially the same as that adopted in the previous revision; so is the nomenclature of drugs. The addition of official abbreviations for the Latin titles of drugs will doubtless be found a useful feature.
Less commendable is the change from the familiar “Cc.” to “mil.” The term “cubic centimeter” is so thoroughly established and so widely used, wherever the metric system is employed, that it cannot be expected that it will be universally displaced by the word “mil.” The latter is therefore only a superfluous synonym, and as such out of harmony with the simplicity of the metric system. Perhaps it may even be taken for the abbreviation of “millimeter,” “milligram” or other words derived from “mille,” which would be equally entitled to the same abbreviation.—(Book Review in The Journal A. M. A., Sept. 2, 1916.)
PHYSICIAN’S STOCK IN PRESCRIPTION PRODUCTS
The letter that follows comes from a physician who feels that he has a grievance regarding a company in which he holds stock:
“In 1914, I bought some stock of the —— —— Company, and in 1917 bought some more stock in the same company. I notice that the company advertises in The Journal of the American Medical Association, and I believe it does this not so much to acquaint the medical profession with its product, as to acquaint physicians with its name in order that its stock salesmen can keep on unloading more stock to members of the medical profession.
“The company gets the doctors’ money through the sale of stocks, it gets its product on the market with the doctors’ assistance and through their influence, and it looks to me as if the doctors were getting very little in return, as the dividend checks have been few and far between since I have known anything of the company.
“It is not my idea to criticize the product; but I do believe and feel that the stockholders are entitled to a square deal from a company which in turn is expecting so much from them, and again I feel that the publishers of The Journal should be made aware of these conditions so that they do not either consciously or unconsciously foster a concern that is depriving the physician of his hard-earned money.
“If this letter is unfair, I am willing to be shown otherwise. Kindly publish it in The Journal, omitting my name and address.”
The company to which our correspondent refers put out a proprietary product prescribed by physicians and used by the public. Some years ago the company in question advertised its product in The Journal until its stock-selling scheme was brought to the attention of The Journal; the advertisements were then rejected. Some years later, on evidence that the company had discontinued its stock-selling methods to physicians, its product was again admitted to the advertising pages of The Journal. Our correspondent says that he believes that the physicians who hold stock in this company “are entitled to a square deal.” What about the public? Is it getting a square deal when physicians are financially interested in the products that they may be called on to prescribe? Is the average layman’s confidence in the medical profession likely to be enhanced when he learns that the physician to whom he went for treatment has a financial interest in the therapeutic agent which was prescribed? Our correspondent’s complaint against the company seems to be, not that the company sold stock to physicians, but that “the dividend checks have been few and far between,” the assumption being that had the dividends come regularly, there would have been no complaint. It cannot be too often emphasized that it is against public interest and scientific medicine for physicians to be financially interested in the sale of products which they may be called on to prescribe for the sick. It is perfectly true that there are many physicians who would not consciously permit financial considerations to warp their judgment; but it is not humanly possible to remain unbiased in cases of this sort. It is conceivable that a judge on the bench might make every effort to dispense impartial justice in a suit in which one of the parties was a firm in which he, the judge, had financial interest. Nevertheless, it would be obviously improper for such a judge to try a case of this kind. Yet, in this supposititious case the only harm that could result would be of a financial nature. In the case of the physician, the harm is not to the public’s purse but to the public’s health.—(From The Journal A. M. A., Dec. 11, 1920.)