It is true there may be some parts of our country where the opportunities for obtaining an education are more or less limited, but this is no argument why those in the vanguard should stop in their course and wait for the center of population to shift a few hundred miles. We know that in Alaska and the Philippines the means for education are not so ample as they are with us, but we are not thinking of stopping to wait for those countries. On the contrary they desire us to go ahead and they will follow as rapidly as possible. And so if the youths of the country districts of Iowa, or Kansas, or Missouri have not, as is claimed by some, the opportunity for obtaining a high school education, is that any reason why those in Ohio, or Michigan, or Pennsylvania should be excused for neglecting theirs? No, this is not the way of progress.
If there are any two professions or callings where the unfit should be culled out more than in others, it is in those of medicine and pharmacy. These are the professions calling for the highest type of manhood, and at the same time special educational equipment and intellectual acumen. Being largely answerable to himself in the conduct of his business, it is plain that the pharmacist must be of a high moral type, and if he is of the type that he should be to assume such a responsible calling, he will first see to it that his general education warrants him in undertaking its pursuit. But if there are those who have not the moral sense to conscientiously qualify themselves by obtaining the necessary preliminary education, then the teaching bodies should exercise their power to eliminate them. Here is where the highest obligation of the schools and colleges of pharmacy rests, and here is where the supreme test of their sense of their obligation to the public comes in.
Certainly those applicants for entrance who have had opportunities for obtaining an education and have been so indifferent as not to improve them, can hardly be considered fit candidates for the practice of pharmacy. Entrance to a college presupposes a good general education; the studies to be mastered require it, and to admit the unqualified reacts on all those engaged in the practice of pharmacy and in the teaching of pharmacy. It also does harm to those who are still in the public schools, for instead of finishing their courses they discontinue their studies knowing that they can fit themselves by short cuts. It lowers the standard of the schools of pharmacy and so tends to keep away those who are qualified to pursue the work. In short, it lowers the tone of pharmacy at every point. And who can say that it does not eventually make an impression on the general public and influence them in withholding their support, both moral and financial?
I know of a young man who desired to study law, but who had not gone further than the grammar school. When he came to inquire about the terms of admission to the bar, he found that graduation from a high school was required. He then decided to enter school again and go through the high school. Can any one doubt the advantage of such a course to this young man or to the profession of law in requiring him to complete his preliminary education?
There are those who incline to take pity on those applicants in pharmacy who have not the desired amount of preliminary education and who argue that they should be given a chance. But this is a false kind of charity; if the applicants are sincere and have natural ability, they should be advised to go back to school, but if they belong to the shiftless class, they should above all things not be allowed to ally themselves with pharmacy. No, this is not the place for the exercise of charity, particularly when we think of our obligations to the great public who have so long and so implicitly trusted us.
COLLEGE COURSES.
Having once eliminated the unfit, the next highest duty of the colleges of pharmacy is to qualify their students for the work that they may be called upon to do. This may seem like a very trite saying to some of you, and yet I feel warranted in its utterance. We have reached a crisis in pharmaceutical history, and if the pharmacist is to continue a separate and independent existence it must be on the basis of his scientific attainments. The pharmacist has felt his hampered position for some time, but now that the Pure Food and Drugs Act has become effective, we are face to face with the issue. With the United States Pharmacopœia and the National Formulary as the legal standards he will now be held responsible for the identity and quality of the drugs which he sells. The question then is, will he assume this responsibility, and pronounce finally on the quality and efficiency of the drugs and medicines which he dispenses, or will he shift this responsibility whenever possible? If he adopts the latter course, then will he lose in importance and standing to that extent.
By the adoption of the Pure Food and Drugs Act both the responsibility and the obligation of the pharmacist are increased and added importance must attach to his position. He should take as much pride in his ability to pronounce upon the quality of an article guaranteed by the manufacturer, or in making a preparation which he himself guarantees, as he has heretofore taken in his ability to decide upon the compatibility, or to question the dosage, of a prescription. He must stand between the manufacturer and the physician as he has stood between the physician and the public. Too much care cannot be exercised in this direction, for the manufacturer’s guarantee may in some instances prove to be only a label.
To do work of this kind means that the pharmacist shall be a master of the Pharmacopœia, that he shall be able to identify any substance in the Pharmacopœia, carry out any of the tests, and make any of the preparations in the Pharmacopœia and National Formulary, processes for which are given. The least, then, that the colleges of pharmacy can do is to prepare their students to employ the Pharmacopœia and the National Formulary as working guides.