View report page

30
19311

NOTIFICATION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE.— PROSECUTION OF
PARENT.
In March, summonses were issued by the Islington Borough Council against
a restaurant keeper, and a doctor practising in the Borough. The restaurant
Keeper was summoned as the head of the family on the charge that " being aware
that his boy was suffering from an infectious disease, Diphtheria, he failed to send
notice to the Medical Officer of Health under the provisions of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891." The doctor was summoned as a medical practitioner
attending a patient suffering from an infectious disease, for failing to send forthwith
to the Medical Officer of Health the certificate required under section 55 of
the same Act. The circumstances were that the doctor, being called in to see the
child, took a swab from the throat and sent it to the Medical Officer of Health.
On receiving the report, he saw the parent at the home and informed him that the
child was suffering from Diphtheria. He gave him a certificate addressed to the
Medical Officer of Health and told him to take it to the Town Hall. Four days
later the child was seen in the streets, and the Medical Officer of Health received a
complaint, and an investigation was made. The Sanitary Inspector called at the
parent's house, and finding no one at home, went to the restaurant, where the
child was found playing with other children. The parent admitted having received
a certificate from the doctor and to having failed to forward it to the Medical
Officer of Health, as directed. He appears to have consulted another doctor, and
omitted to tell him that the child had already been medically seen or that a swab
had been taken and a cerificate already issued. The second doctor thus in
ignorance of the facts said the child had tonsillitis.
The Islington Borough Council considered that it was not their function to
apportion the blame, but simply to lay the facts before the Court for the
Msgistrate's decision. It was admitted that certificates were sometimes sent to
the Public Health Department by the parents and that this procedure had the
advantage of getting the department in personal contact with the parents, thus
preventing delay. The parent pleaded guilty to the charge and was fined 40/.
and costs. The Magistrate expressed surprise that this was the maximum penalty
he might inflict. The doctor pleaded not guilty on the ground that the words in
the Act were " send a certificate to the Medical Officer of Health." No method
of sending the certificate was laid down, and he submitted it was sufficient to send
by the parent. The Magistrate ruled that the handing to the parent was not
sufficient sending of the notice within the terms of section 55 of the Act. There
was a definite responsibility laid upon the practitioner. He dismissed the practitioner
from the case under the Probation of Offenders Act, remarking that the case
had been properly and fairly put forward and public attention called to the matter,