View report page

18
I, of course, drew the writer's attention to the illegality
of his action in withholding certificates, and carefully
investigated the circumstances of the case referred to.
The mother denied that she was warned by the doctor as
to the infectious nature of the complaint from which her
child was suffering, and I was unable to obtain sufficient
confirmatory evidence to take the case into court.
Undoubtedly the exposure of persons suffering from
infectious disease is a punishable offence under sec: 68
of the Public Health (London) Act 1891, but it is
extremely difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a
Magistrate, that the person in charge of the sick child
is aware of the infectious nature of the disease from
which it is suffering.
That it is possible to obtain a conviction in cases of
this kind the following extract from a local paper will
shew:—
CASES OF SCARLET FEVER EXPOSED
IN A TRAMCAR.
A mother, named Emma Cohen, was convicted at the Thames
Police Court on October 29th, and fined 40/-, with 44/- costs, for
an offence which richly deserved the penalty inflicted. A medical
man had been called in by her to attend her little boy, aged four
years, and had found him to be suffering from Scarlet Fever. He
had informed her of this and had forbidden her to take the child
out, notwithstanding which she had conveyed him to the London
Hospital in a tramcar and had there remained with him for some
time in the reception room where other patients were awaiting their
turn for attention. The recklessness and selfishness of persons
who can claim not to be "aware" of the presence of a notifiable
infectious disease are not punishable, but in this instance the fact
that a medical man had informed the defendant of the nature of her
child's illness and had warned her as to her conduct disposed of any
difficulty on this score. Another woman was fined at the same time
for a similar offence.