London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Poplar 1910

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Poplar, Metropolitan Borough]

This page requires JavaScript

22
might be visited by the Health Visitor and the voluntary workers
who would urge parents to carry out the doctor's instructions, or in
suitable cases to seek institutional treatment for the child. Notification
is the only certain means of ascertaining to what extent the
measures now in use are effective in saving eyes.
"Notification should be carried out within a certain number of
hours after the baby's eyes have been observed to be red or to run
with matter, and the responsibility of reporting the disease should
devolve upon the medical practitioner, head of family, nearest
relatives, any person in charge of patient, or, in default of those,
the occupier of the building. Any failure to comply with the law
should entail an adequate penalty, monetary or otherwise.
"Figures as to frequency in this country are not at present
available, but a conjecture of the probable prevalence of the disease
may be made from these returns
Breslau in 2.35 per cent. of births.
Stockholm 2.27 ,, ,,
Valladolid 2.933 ,, ,,
Switzerland 0.45 ., ,,
"At a similar rate Poplar, with 6,000 births per annum, might
furnish some 120 cases in a year at a cost of £15 for notification
fees.
"One Chester boy, who is being educated at the Liverpool
School for the Blind (Wrexham Branch) under the Elementary
Education Committee (Blind and Deaf Children) Act, costs the City
£19 16s. per annum.
"In the Borough of Stoke-on-Trent the notification apparently
only relates to patients suffering from Ophthalmia Neonatorum or
inflammation of the eyes, who are under two weeks old; but in
Chester no age limit is imposed, as in leaving the age limit
undefined the duty to notify lies on the persons concerned, otherwise
the defence might be made that the case did not come under
notice till the child was over the age limit.