Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Bethnal Green Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
40
invites the question whether we are justified, in the
absence of scientific proof of the efficacy of light treatment,
in making provision for its use at our Welfare
Centres. Unquestionably, I think, its provision is
justified.
With the bulk of our children in Bethnal Green
living under the insanitary conditions associated with
an intense urbanisation and, for whom a properly
balanced dietary is not available, it would appear only
reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt. The
administration of artificial light must, however, be carefully
regulated. Opinion is conflicting upon its
optimum dosage, and its physiological effects; that
there is danger in its unskilled and injudicious exhibition
cannot be gainsaid. It is, in short, unsuitable for
indiscriminate use by the general public. But, under
the conditions it is administered at the Borough
Council's Welfare Centre, where the dose is adjusted
under medical supervision, there appears every reason
why we should continue to make available this form of
treatment pending such time as a balanced opinion and
judgment upon all the facts available can be expressed.
PROPHYLACTIC LIGHT CLINIC.
There are now two ultra-violet ray lamps (one
suspension type and one of the standard type), thus
enabling light treatment to be given as a prophylactic
measure for expectant and nursing mothers and children
as well as the children previously treated in connection
with Dr. Mackay's clinic. Treatment is also given to
children from the Bethnal Green Day Nursery, Somerford
Street. I append some extracts from the report
of Dr. D. I. Mart, who conducts the Prophylactic.
Light Clinic:—
I have to report that the year's results of the
Prophylactic Ultra-Violet Light Clinic have been very encouraging.
Our attendance numbers have grown steadily.