View report page

56
insert a clause in the agreements with their tenants that all
infectious patients shall be removed forthwith to Hospital.
The case referred to in Lambeth was finally removed to a
private Convalescent Scarlet Fever Hospital, and the necessary
disinfection carried out. No other case arose.
Another interesting case was connected with the removal of
a scarlet fever infected boy from a well-known Southern
watering-place to London (Lambeth Borough) by train. The
boy had been examined by a Medical Practitioner at the
watering-place and declared to be suffering from scarlet fever.
Despite this fact, the mother took her boy by train back to
London, and in so doing was guilty of exposing an infectious
person, contrary to section 126 of the Public Health Act,
1875. She was summoned before the Magistrates who fined
her £5 and costs. The Railway Company also took out a
summons against the mother for infringing the Company's
Bye-laws, and she was fined £2 and costs.
After much difficulty, the train (section of carriages) in
which the boy had travelled was traced and disinfected.
The Council decided, on March 5th, 1908, to ask the Local
Government Board to hold an enquiry into the cause of
Scarlet Fever, and as to the further means (if any) that can
be adopted for its prevention. The question of hospital
isolation in London is important. There are, at present, 14
Hospitals provided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board for
the reception and treatment of fever and diphtheria patients,
with a total of 8166 beds. The costs of the sites of these
hospitals is returned at £234104, and the cost of the buildings
and equipment to Michaelmas, 1906 (the latest official
return), as £2905659. From 1890 to 1906, the cases of
scarlet fever admitted into the hospitals yearly has risen
from 6537 in 1890 to 17983 in 1906—the percentages of
admissions to notifications received being 42.6 and 88.5
respectively. The annual revenue expenses have gone up
proportionately during the same period, viz., from £112420