View report page

147
DELAY IN NOTIFICATION.
A more serious matter than that of dual notification is
the delay on the part of medical practitioners in forwarding
certificates which occasionally happens. I do not suggest
that this delay is intentional ; but as the Act requires the
certificate to be sent " forthwith," i.e., immediately the medical
attendant has diagnosed the disease, a sanitary authority
would be justified in taking proceedings for the recovery of
the statutory penalty in every such case of default. It might
be thought harsh to do so, and I would not recommend such
a course, excepting in case of repeated neglect, and after
caution. But, on the other hand, is it quite fair that the
Authority should be called upon to pay for a service which
has not been duly rendered, " forthwith," as the Act requires,
and which by delay may have been deprived of the greater
part, if not all of its value ? For in some instances many
days elapse before the certificate is sent, the result being that
no steps can be taken to see that the patient is properly
isolated so as to prevent the spread of the disease. In my
humble opinion, the medical practitioner who neglects to
comply with the requirements of the Act in this respect,
would have no reasonable cause for complaint were the
Sanitary Authority to decline to pay the fee. In any such
case, however, it would still be necessary to send a copy of
the certificate, when received, to the Asylums Board ; but if
the fee were withheld from the certifying practitioner, it would
not be charged to the Board. In several instances I have had
to apply to the medical practitioner for a certificate of a case
of the occurrence of which I was aware, but which I could not
report to the Asylums Board, it not having been notified.
No service can be said to have been rendered by the practitioner
in such a case, and no fee should be paid ; but hitherto
in all such cases the fee has been paid, and no proceedings
have been taken against the practitioner in default, save in