View report page

103
[1904
moment that such a contract will be kept? Of course not, because it is
entirely contrary to the natural ties that bind humanity. No mother, unless a
most unnatural one, could resist the maternal call if her sick child desired her
presence, with the result that she would be at one moment in the sick room and
at the next in the shop, duty alternating with business, which in these cases is
not permissible. It must be either all duty or all business, which is a
hopeless proposition under these circumstances.
It is a serious matter for a case of scarlet fever to occur on premises
where clothing is made, for the Factory and Workshop Act in its 109 section
prohibits the making, cleaning, or repairing of wearing apparel in any
dwelling house whilst an inmate is suffering from scarlet fever.
In consequence of this enactment one or two things must be done when a
case of this disease occurs, either the patient must be removed or the business
must be stopped. To stop the business would mean utter ruin to many
persons, especially to those poor women, so many of whom are widows, who are
home-workers endeavouring to earn the merest pittance for the support of
their family by making blouses, shirts, ties, and the thousand and one small
articles that are worn by ladies.
The question is not has the presence of scarlet fever been lessened by
hospital isolation, but rather what would have happened in these modern
days under the circumstances that have been detailed if there had been no
isolation? The disease will more than probably never be stamped out, but it
can be, and is, kept within due limits by isolation in hospital. But why this
recent endeavour to belittle hospital isolation of this disease? It is because
a certain number of what are known as "return cases" of scarlet fever have
arisen among brothers and sisters soon after the patients' return to their
homes. In Islington, as elsewhere, such cases have occurred, but they are
more or less unavoidable. Only recently, for instance, a child who had been
in hospital for about nine weeks returned home. She seemed quite well; skin
in good condition; no discharge of mucous from the ears, nose or throat.
She had been at home, however, for only four days when one from the
nose commenced, with the resuit that in a few days her sister was attacked.
More frequently, however, cases have arisen shortly after the arrival home of
the patients from hospital, although they have been apparently entirely free of
disease on their discharge.
But surely it is no reason because these cases now and again occur that
hospital isolation should not be practised, but that on the contrary the patients
should be allowed to remain at home, for the most part, living in tenement