confined behind prison walls. Farewell, Fred." On the same day in William Ralder's saloon, 522 Lackawanna Avenue, he shot himself. The verdict of the coroner's jury was that Stock came to his death "by a self-inflicted gunshot wound." Here is another typical case. Mrs. Jacob Friedman, of South Bend, Ind., died on October 19, 1904. She suffered from neuralgia and took a dose of laudanum, which she secured at a drug store upon presentation of a prescription reading, "Laudanum for neuralgia by Dr. H. A. Finch." One drug clerk refused to fill the prescription until instructed to do so by the chief clerk, who first cautioned Mrs. Friedman, and instructed her in the use of the drug. The clerk who filled the prescription also cautioned her,— but nevertheless she took an overdose and died. On the record of the coroner,-a photographic reproduction of which is printed on page 34-the name of the physician had apparently been altered before the photograph was taken. All Due to Overdoses. It will be remembered that in not one of the six cases in which headache powders figured as an agent did death result from the proper use of such powders, but that all were due to overdoses. It should also be remembered that these six deaths occurred during a period of nearly two years. No sane physician will condemn a drug or medi cine because the abuse of it results disastrously. In a subsequent issue "Collier's" reproduced a number of newspaper articles in which cases of death or injury were charged to "patent medicines." Because these statements were made in reputable newspapers "Collier's" undoubtedly felt justified in reproducing them without investigation, though, of course, “Collier's" staff must have recognized the fact that the source of information from which most of these "stories" were obtained by reporters for the various newspapers publishing them, was the same as that from which Mr. Adams secured his information, which in his Baltimore speech, quoted early in this chapter, he admits was nine-tenths wrong. In discussing this phase of the question, the St. Louis "Medical and Surgical Journal" said, editorially (April, 1906, page 186): All newspapers are supposed to be reputable until proved to be contrary, but if a paper published a statement to the effect that Norman Hapgood, while attending a banquet in St. Louis recently, became beastly drunk, would we be justified in publishing the occurrence as a fact without investigation? If some newspaper alleged that Samuel Adams, while in Albany during the recent legislative session acted as a lobbyist in the interest of The American Medical Association, and spent large sums of money to obtain the enactment of the Stevens-Wainwright bill, would we be justified in publishing the statement as a fact without making an investigation of the matter? This opens a question of newspaper ethics which there is no disposition to discuss here. A doctor is supposed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to be a reputable citizen, and, because of his position, he is often called upon by local reporters in cities and villages for "news." Nothing is more natural than for a reporter to accept the doctor's word that "patent" medicine is responsible for a certain death or illness and even though the doctor's name is seldom permitted to appear in print, the responsible editor knows the source from which the information was secured,-and neither he nor the reporter can be censured for accepting the word of a man who, above all others but the minister, ought to be honest. The doctors who make use of their positionand some of them do-to spread false reports concerning "patent medicines" are frequently simply malicious falsifiers. What "Collier's" Did Not State. It was in its issue of April 28th that "Collier's" gave publicity, without investigation, to these numerous cases of death and injury alleged to be due to "patent" medicines. It would be impossible, in limited space, to take up each of these cases-a few typical ones will suffice. Some stress is laid on the fact that Maud Andrews, a chorus girl, playing at Indianapolis, was stricken after taking headache powders. For some mysterious reason "Collier's" failed to state that the "headache powders" were prescribed by a reputable physician, which demonstrates that "Collier's" tells the truth only when it thinks the facts will hurt patent medicines. The newspaper article reproduced by "Collier's" plainly stated that instructions were to "take one powder I held an inquest on the body of Coroner of said County, Anna Friedman. following being the report in full of the proceedings of said inquest: Lauro Strin Kohl. bring duly sworn ن ам 20 old singh and live at 71224. Das 21 I am a prescription druggist at the Pennor drug slove Car Washington & It alut 2ts. Caur to the above with a Au. Oct 17-1900 about 8 aclock fr. m. Mrs Funduvan slip of paper which mad Laudanum for neur algee By Dr. H.A. Finch" I looke The paper and handed it to the head chert. Mr. Darby he talked to the lady same time and cautioned her about the drug. and then lurived to me which I did and told me ми it up I put us two runces and properly labeled the battle. I also cannond her she told neighbor laly mcommended it to her and she wanted to use it. I didnt hear anything about it till the next uncorning. when I heard she was was under. fit every four hours," and that "instead of following directions the girl took one every half hour." In other words she took eight times as much as she should have taken. The death of a very young child (George Lancaster) in Baltimore is charged to a "patent" medicine. The facts, as stated before a Legislative Committee by a Baltimore physician, were substantiated as follows: Twenty-four hours before the child died the mother of the child gave it a dose of a "patent" medicine intended for infants. Several hours afterward, as the "patent" medicine did not produce the result desired, the mother procured some paregoric and administered it in sufficient quantities to put the child to sleep and it subsequently died. There is nothing to show that the death of the child was due to the first medicine taken and the presumption is, if the death was caused by either of the medicines, that it was due to the medicine last administered. Paregoric contains two grains of opium to the ounce and has about two and one-half times the narcotic strength of a widely known soothing syrup. Paregoric has been a household remedy for generations and is widely prescribed by physicians, although they constantly denounce a certain "patent" medicine having less than one-half the narcotic strength of paregoric. Some stress is laid by "Collier's" on the death at Utica, N. Y., of twin children, who died on January 25, 1906. These deaths were attributed by "Collier's" to an infants' remedy, which conclusion is to an extent borne out by the verdict of the Coroner. These children were the illegitimate offspring of Stanilaus Gnad and Catherine Zarlak, and were one month and one day old. The father swore, at the Coroner's inquest, that on the night prior to the death (which in the case of one child occurred at 2:30 P. M., and in the case of the other at 7:45 P. M.) he had administered two drops of medicine to each child. Part of the contents of the stomach of these twin children were submitted to chemists for analysis. They reported the presence in the stomach of one child of a substance which might be ptomaine or morphine,—the quantity being too small for identification. There was no trace of poison in the other stomach; but despite these facts the Coroner's jury laid the blame on a "patent" medicine two drops of which had been given eighteen hours before death! Truth Told by a Father. "Collier's" in this same issue, stated that "Alfred Watsberger" of Wheeling, died from eating a quantity of “Dr. Week's Break a Cold." Here is a different version of that unfortunate occurrence, prepared and signed by the father of the lad, which shows that the child was killed by a doctor. "In looking over a copy of "Collier's Weekly" last week I noticed that it contained an account of the death of my son Alfred Witzberger. The paper stated that death was caused by Dr. Week's Break-a-cold Tablets, which I say is absolutely false. My wife having discovered that the child had taken a number of the tablets, and fearing that it would result fatally, hurriedly called a physician who administered an overdose of mustard as an antidote, which literally burnt the child's insides up and raising blisters the size of a man's thumb in its throat, causing it to slowly choke to death. In the meanwhile our family physician had been called who stayed with the child until it died. He claimed that if the mustard had not been administered the child would have recovered as the pills did not contain enough poison to cause its death.. Another physician corroborated this statement." (Signed) JOHN WITZBERGER, 1705 Wood Street, Wheeling, W. Va. May 2, 1906. "Collier's" says that, if this box had been labeled "poison" it is reasonable to suppose that the parents would have kept it out of the reach of the child. It might "reasonably be supposed" that parents would not leave any medicine where children can get it, but they do. They also leave carbolic acid, fly paper, lye, Paris Green, rat poison, matches, moth balls, silver polish and a great variety of other things within the reach of children who eat or drink them, and are injured or killed thereby. Another chapter is wholly devoted to cases of this kind. (See page 3). Edward J. Gaynor, of Hempstead, Long Island, may have taken "headache remedies," as "Collier's" alleges, but the Village Register, in which are recorded the vital statistics, gives alcoholism as the cause of death. George Vilekok "didn't know he had a weak heart," said "Collier's as it reprinted the chief features of an item which appeared in "The Chicago Post," charging that his death was due to taking headache powders. Coroner Hoffman, of Cook County, held an inquest and the jury found that death was due to chronic endocarditis. In a letter, dated March 30, 1906, the Coroner says: "Nothing in the testimony showed he took headache powders." A baby in Cincinnati died after drinking the contents of a bottle of soothing syrup. The facts are these: The mother left the medicine bottle near enough for the baby to reach. The child drank the contents of the bottle and died from the effects. Had the child picked up a pin, and swallowed it, would "Collier's" have accused the manufacturer of the pin of being responsible for the death of the child? Logically it would have the same reason for accusing pin manufacturers of killing children as it has for basing an attack on "patent medicines" on such incidents as are cited in this chapter, and which might be cited at much greater length. CHAPTER XI. "FOOL" LEGISLATION. "Ladies' Home Journal Bill" Often Introduced "By Request" but Never Passed-Exempts Dangerous Drugs Dispensed by Physicians "Patent Medicines" Containing Over Eight Per Cent of Alcohol to Be Labeled "Poison", but Flavoring Extracts with 60 to 80 Per Cent of Alcohol, and Doctors' Medicines Regardless of Alcoholic Percentage Exempted-Ridiculous Features of the Bill-What Bok Forgot-Strychnine Tablets Need Not be Labelcd-A Case of "Quid pro Quo"-A Specimen of Medical Ethics. No greater absurdity in the line of legislation was ever proposed than what is known as the "Ladies' Home Journal" Bill, which was produced and sent all over the country by Editor Bok. About two years ago Mr. Bok in a letter to the "Journal of the American Medical Association," undertook to instruct the doctors what to do and how to do it; and among other things he said: It is not only likely, but probable, that during the next fall and winter terms there will be introduced into the legislature of nearly every State in the Union, a regulative patent medicine measure-bills which have a vital interest to every physician in the United States; and my object in this letter is to draw to the attention of every physician and particularly every medical association, not only the need, but the necessity, for their co-operation in this legislative work. I shall be in a position to know of the introduction of these legislative measures in any state where they are presented, and if in each state the leading medical association would appoint a committee, and a similar committee be appointed by county and city associations, and the full name and address of the chairman of each committee can be forwarded to me between now and October 1st next, it will afford me pleasure to communicate with such party immediately on the introduction of such a measure in the legislature of his state and supply him with printed material, now being prepared, containing arguments, etc., etc. Shortly after this letter was issued Editor Bok revealed to an expectant public the bill which he had incubated, and appealed to his readers to get this bill passed by every State Legislature without the change of a single word. He instructed them as follows: First-Cut out the first page of this issue of the magazine ("Ladies Home Journal") containing the bill, and give it or mail it to the state assemblyman or senator from your district, and ask him to introduce it in the legislature Once the bill is introduced, then see to it that your assemblyman or senator votes for the bill so that it shall become a law--and that it shall become a law just as it stands. The Bok Bill. * * * During the legislative sessions of 1906 and 1907 this bill appeared in various legislatures. In some instances several copies were introduced "by request," each apparently having been sent to the senator or member in conformity with the instructions above quoted. It was entitled "A bill to regulate the sale of patent and proprietary medicines," Among other things this bill proposed to require upon the label of "every patent and proprietary medicine" a complete formula of the contents. It further provided that if any such medicine contained more than eight per cent of alcohol it should be labeled "Poison" in red letters a quarter of an inch high. It exempted from its operation all the powerful drugs prescribed or handed out personally by doctors, also all the vast number of medicines in the drug stores and in country groceries which are not "patent or proprietary." Any person familiar with the subject knows that, in the great majority of liquid medicines, alcohol is absolutely necessary to dissolve the drugs and to prevent fermentation and freezing and that in many cases the amount required is much more than 8 per cent. In liquid medicines prescribed by physicians the average amount of alcohol is said to be about 40 per cent, and some contain from 60 to 80 per cent. But under this Bok bill, the best proprietary medicine in the world, if it contains even 8 1-2 per cent alcohol, must be labeled poison, while every non-patent or non-proprietary medicine-no matter how much alcohol it contained-and such household articles as vanilla (which contains 61 per cent of alcohol) could be sold without any label whatever! The statement that a proprietary medicine is poison if it contains over 8 per cent alcohol would be a falsehood pure and simple. Instead of conveying useful information to the public it would convey the grossest misinformation. Yet to gratify a personal prejudice against certain proprietary medicines, Bok has for two years been seeking to persuade legislators to require the publication of this glaring falsehood upon every bottle of such medicine. Other provisions in the bill are equally ridiculous. For instance, it would require every patent or proprietary medicine containing "any quantity" of belladonna to be similarly labeled poison. This would include even homeopathic remedies in which belladonna is often an ingredient. But whoever heard of anybody being poisoned by homeopathic pills? Yet, while putting this ridiculous proposition into his bill, Bok forgot all about strychnine tablets which kill and injure a greater number of people every month than all the patent medicines combined! What Bok Forgot. He also forgot such drugs as Jamaica ginger, lemon extract, etc., which contain 80 or 90 percent of alcohol and which are constantly utilized as beverages. He would allow them to be sold without any formula or poison label whatever, while the most reputable proprietary medicine in the world (containing only enough alcohol to dissolve the constituent drugs and prevent freezing) must be labeled with the "complete formula" and branded as poison! Consider for a moment this requirement of the "formula." Why should every "patent or proprietary" medicine be required to have the formula printed on the bottle or package, so that every fraudulent imitator and commercial pirate can manufacture the same article and injure if not destroy the business of the originator? In such a case the better the article the greater the temptation to imitate it and the more certain the injury to the manufacturer. There is some reason for requiring (as in the National Pure Food and Drugs Law) a statement upon the label of the quantity or proportion of any "habit producing drug" which the compound contains; but, as a common sense proposition, why should the property right in the formula of hundreds of harmless proprietary medicines be destroyed by legislation? What possible reason is there for requiring the formula upon Acid Phosphate, Carter's Pills, Brown's Troches, Seltzer Aperient, Perry Davis' Pain Killer, Schenck's Pills, Humphrey's homeopathic remedies and hundreds of such articles? It has been shown conclusively that strychnine tablets alone, which are dealt out by the doctors in large quantities all over the country without any poison labels whatever, are the cause of more than three times as many deaths as are caused by the misuse of all the patent medicines combined. (See pp. 3-5 of this pamphlet.) Yet strychnine tablets and all other death dealing medicines of like class are exempted from this bill, while it is cunningly designed to injure or destroy the sale of many of the most valuable and reputable proprietary medicines. Nothing could more effectively disclose the animus of this would-be reformer than the poison label feature, and nothing could better show the uncontrolable prejudice and the selfish interest of some of the medical profession than the fact that (knowing as they do that this production of Bok is equally ridiculous and unjust) they are willing to go to the legislatures either as members or as lobbyists and advocate such a measure. There are hosts of honorable and able physicians who are entitled to the confidence of the communities in which they live. But there are vast numbers of a dif |