View report page

104
of the infectious diseases mentioned in the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891. The fees paid in Lambeth Borough are for
first notifications only.
The disinfecting work done in connection with Tuberculosis
during 1902 throughout the Borough is interesting— 488 houses
as comared with an average 299.6 during 1897-1901.
The systematic bacteriological examination of all doubtful
caes of consumption is of the greatest importance, and in this
connection 212 such examinations have been made during 1902,
as compared with 145 during 1901. Full particulars will be
found on page 182.
Open-Air Treatment in cases of Consumption.
The Council approved, on June 5th, 1902, the principle of,
and need for, open-air treatment for Consumptive patients, and
the Local Government Board was communicated with, with a
view to the necessary provision of Sanatoria for that purpose
by the various Metropolitan Sanitary Authorities. It is felt that
the Metropolitan Asylums Board, as the Hospital Authority for
London for dealing with infectious diseases, might be entrusted
to provide such Sanatoria, or to use some of the existing Smallpox
accommodation (Gore Farm) for such a purpose. Great
difference of opinion was found to exist amongst the different
Metropolitan Sanitary Authorities, so that, for the present, no
further action was taken in the matter by the Board— a decision
to be regretted, as the value of fresh air and sunlight are now
admitted as remedial measures, more especially in, the early
stages of the disease. By such measures, the disease can be
arrested, if not permanently eradicated, and Sanitary Authorities
would be wanting in their duties if they did not supply Sanatoria
for the use of their respective districts, thereby preventing much
suffering, ill-health, and monetary loss. To be successful,
Sanatoria should be provided in conjunction with farm-colonies,
where patients, after treatment in Sanatoria, may be placed, to
get accustomed to open-air employment, with a view to such
being followed ever afterwards. It is clear that for patients to
return to their crowded, and often unsatisfactory, homes after
open-air treatment, would be courting disaster. This view of the
matter cannot be too strongly enforced in dealing with this subject
of open-air treatment.