Page 4 - Pharmacy History 22 Mar 2004

riposte from Sir Stanley Argyle MP: But nobody seems to object
to them.6
The Stock Medicines Act 1938 set
up a Board consisting of government officials and one non-departmental veterinary surgeon to register stock medicines. Manufacturers wishing to put a stock medicine on the market had to make application to the Board. The Act created an offence for a person to sell a stock medicine that had not been registered by the Board.
Health (Patent Medicines) Act 1942
Increasing concern about advertisements on the radio for medicines for human use, the existing restrictions notwithstanding, and questions about quality and lack
of conformity to official standards
led the Victorian Government
to introduce the Health (Patent Medicines) Act 1942. In introducing the Bill, the Minister of Health said: Throughout the State there are being sold patent medicines for which extravagant and impossible claims are made for the relief of a great variety of human illness.7
The model proposed was much
the same as that operating for
stock medicines. It struck trouble immediately. One member was concerned that Victoria was passing a law that had no precedent anywhere in the British Empire. Then there
was the war; the Department of
Public Health would not have been able to establish the mechanisms for implementing and administering the Act, let alone enforcing it. Parliament would not agree to the creation of another Board and this objection was the basis of lengthy argument even though the principle of registration was supported. Only three people were intended to form the Board and the Opposition’s most vocal speaker,
Mr Barry (later a Health Minister) wanted to know the names of the dead beats who will be appointed
to it.
The judicial appeal principle was criticised; a member asking how a judge could determine whether a patent medicine is good or bad’.8
The Government agreed that a Board was unacceptable and instead, vested control with the Chief Health Officer of the Department of Public Health who would be advised by
an advisory committee of now four experts, including and chaired by a departmental medical officer. Other than that, the model was similar
to stock medicines. It had been intended to exempt from registration any substances that were scheduled under the Poisons Act 1928 but the Pharmaceutical Society of Victoria objected to this because it believed that all patent medicines should
be registered and the Government agreed.
The 1942 Act came into operation in 1948 but was faced with objections almost immediately. The Australasian
Journal of Pharmacy said, The introduction of measures such as this in one State, however, is far from
the ideal method of tackling the problem. The matter is one which should be considered on a Federal basis with a view to introduction
of Commonwealth legislation or alternatively, uniform legislation in the States.9 In retrospect, it was fortunate that the other States did not operate a similar scheme.
Objections continued.10 The committee was too small and insufficiently representative; the
term patent medicine,11 was wrong
in law and should be replaced by proprietary medicine; and there were soon complaints that the committee was nit-picking. In fact, what the new registration system exposed was poor compliance with poisons regulations and repeated mention on labels and advertisements of claims already prohibited under existing health regulations. Industry sought to have the whole Act repealed but successive governments had resisted this demand.
There were advocates for the new law.12-13 A committee member, Frank Shaw – a pharmacologist – said the legislation was successful because worthless medicines would not be registered; most medicines would
be registered but with wild claims eliminated; and it forced contact between industry and the government. Shaw agreed that the committee was too small and that the legislation did not provide a mechanism for products to be removed from the register.
The application fee in 1948 was £1.0.0 ($2.00) and committee members received £2.2.0 ($4.20) but were not permitted to receive more than £105 ($210) in any one year.
The 1953 and other amendments
Arising from the many complaints, the Minister of Health appointed
a small committee in early 1949 to discuss the Act with industry. The discussions continued intermittently until 1951. Industry continued to pressure the government. It wanted British Pharmacopoeia formulations exempted irrespective of any therapeutic claims made on the label, and the committee to be expanded to nine members with a preponderance
A selection of patent medicines.
4 ■ Pharmacy History Australia
volume 2 ■ no 23 ■ July 2004