View report page

Discussion.
The system described has proved to have many advantages.
The special form which gives general practitioners
accurate information on overcrowding and sanitary circumstances
was appreciated by them: its introduction was
followed by a marked reduction in the number of "medical"
applications; indeed, in a number of cases the form was
returned with the recommendation "no priority". This
was hardly possible previously when the doctor handed his
certificate to the patient.
Many "medical reasons" given by patients themselves
were groundless. However, a fair measure of agreement
was found between the assessment of the family doctor and
that of the Panel using this method of arbitration.
There was also some progressive diminution in the
number of applications in which the Panel gave a lower
recommendation than the general practitioner.
In addition to the personal medical category, the
description of the environmental conditions found by the
public health inspector (see Form, Part III) was of great
benefit in arriving at the final priority.
Many remediable housing defects were discovered pari
passu and appropriate action taken.
(a) Dampness was cited in support of some 159 cases
(10%). After public health inspectors' visits
confirmation was obtained in 137 of these.
(b) Overcrowding. The family doctor gave evidence of
this in 305 cases. Confirmation by public health
inspectors was made in 280 of these and notification
of statutory overcrowding was then sent to the
housing authorities concerned. However, the limits
of statutory overcrowding are by no means liberal
and many border-line cases are seriously affected.
It is natural that family doctors should deem overcrowding
to exist, even though by reason of the age
of the children the legal limits are not exceeded.
(c) Friction. This was an aggravating factor in 75
applications. The problem of young couples sharing
houses and flats with "in-laws" or of two women being
forced to use a common kitchen occured frequently.