View report page

80
removed and had given a Finsbury address. During the next
few days this patient was notified from this Finsbury address
from three different hospitals. Enquiry showed that the patient
had never lived at the Finsbury address, but was known to the
occupier. They had been at school together, but had not met
since that time for 20 years. The patient was eventually traced
to another Wandsworth address. He had used the Finsbury
address without the occupier's knowledge or consent.
3. A patient had lived in Stepney for a year, in Edmonton
for five weeks, and then moved into Finsbury. She had had
phthisis for years. She entered the Holborn (Finsbury) Infirmary
and was notified as a Finsbury case.
4. A patient was homeless. He gave a fictitious Finsbury
address "to satisfy the Guardians." He was admitted to the
Infirmary.
5. A woman and her daughter, both suffering from phthisis,
were notified from a Finsbury address. They had never lived
at the address given, but had a permanent residence in Shoreditch.
The occupant stated that the patient came to her and
asked to be permitted to use the Finsbury address so that the
patient might obtain admittance to the Holborn Infirmary. She
did not want to go into the Shoreditch Infirmary. Both cases
had been previously notified in Shoreditch, and were well known
in that borough.
6. A patient was notified from a Clerkenwell address. He
had attended a Finsbury Dispensary. Enquiry at the address
he had given failed to discover him, and a note to this effect
was sent to the doctor concerned. At the patient's second visit
he was asked to give his correct address. He asserted that he
still lived at the false address first given. Further enquiry was
made and it was found that he had a sister-in-law living there.
Meantime, becoming alarmed, his wife wrote to her sister in
Finsbury a letter from which the following extracts have been
made. These show the attitude adopted by poor patients towards
preventive measures. The names have been altered to prevent
identification:—