The universal practice among apothecaries of refilling prescriptions indefinitely, without the sanction of those who wrote them is frequently the subject of adverse criticism by physicians. “But,” says the pharmacist, “is not the prescription mine?” Probably the reply will be affirmative, though this is a question not entirely settled in the minds of those concerned. Granting, however, for the sake of the argument, that the apothecary is the rightful owner of the prescription, he triumphantly asks, “May not one do as he chooses with his own?” Not always, by any means, unless he elects to use his property in a way which will not imperil the welfare of others. The law puts many restrictions on the natural rights of ownership, for the purpose of shielding society from the ignorance, the malice, and the cupidity of proprietors. In the matter of prescriptions there are no such limitations; but in this, as in so many other affairs, we should be controlled not merely by considerations concerning our legal rights. The unwritten, but greater, law regards the question from a higher plane; and from this point of view one sees that there are moral reasons which should restrain the apothecary in these premises. Let us look at prescription-refilling in its remote as well as its immediate bearings. The physician writes his prescription for one occasion and for one only. He designs it to fulfil the indications in a particular case at a given visit. It is often in the highest degree improbable that the conditions of the case will remain the same for a given length of time; and, when they change materially, another prescription is needed to satisfy the altered requirements. Of these things many patients and apparently, all apothecaries are accustomed to take no note; and, therefore, the prescription is refilled for the same person on many occasions, when something very different ought to be furnished, the expected improvement does not occur, and the physician is blamed for the failure. The prescription, intended for the treatment of a certain condition afforded relief and changed the state of affairs. Thereupon, further advice should have been sought by the patient, his physical condition investigated anew, and another recipe given by the physician, if he deemed it desirable. To hold the doctor responsible for the ill effect or lack of effect of his prescription in circumstances unlike those for which it was designed is obviously unjust. Yet this is done habitually, both in the case just supposed and in those other instances, quite as common, in which the recipe is compounded, not for whom it was written, but for some other person, who supposes (on what slender evidence it is appalling to contemplate), that his ailment is identical with that of the original patient. The refilling really amounts to the apothecary’s abetting the patient in self-treatment. There is a trite remark to the effect that he who undertakes to be his own lawyer is sure of a fool for