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

View report page

London County Council 1926

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]

This page requires JavaScript

79
at the scholarship examinations children whose parents have neglected to obtain
treatment for the ailments which have been pointed out at school medical inspection.
There remains, however, a certain number of parents obstinately refusing to take
the necessary steps to obtain treatment. Head teachers and care committee workers
do their best to persuade and many cases are referred to the special officer, but too
often no result of intensive following-up is obtained. In the last resort, such cases
are referred to the N.S.P.C.C., and prosecution may follow. 714 cases were reported
to the Society in 1926, including 354 vision and 319 dental cases. In practice,
however, prosecution can only be successfully carried through when children are
already suffering by the development of a disease, and great care has to be exercised
in submitting cases for prosecution.
For it is not by threats or coercion that lasting good can be brought about.
All is hopeless unless the whole-hearted interest and co-operation of the parents
are engaged. It is the slow process of enlightenment which alone will eventually
solve the problem. It is most encouraging to note that the younger mothers who
were still at school when the school medical service was instituted are much readier
than the older ones to agree to medical and dental treatment when required. As
these replace the present generation of mothers the efforts of the school medical
service as a preventive force will at last be rewarded.
It is in regard to the treatment and prevention of dental decay that the greatest
ignorance and prejudice still exists. Six months after pointing out the need of
dental treatment at medical inspection there are still 41.7 per cent. of children
needing treatment in respect of whom no steps have been taken by the parents
despite all efforts to induce them. Even less notice is taken of the dental inspections.
The following is an example of the replies received:—
"I desire my daughter's teeth to remain as they are; the same Power
that placed them there will make due change when necessary."
Other reasons given by parents to the visitors for not obtaining dental treatment
are the following: "Second teeth never come if the first are removed," "Shock was
so great in another child that it brought on scarlet fever," "Bad teeth run in the
family," "When the teeth ache they can come out," "His father has had toothache
all his life, so the child will have to put up with it," "As the teeth never ache and the
child does not complain, the treatment cannot be urgent," "He won't go and I
can't make him," "Is the child mine or the L.C.C.'s?" "Won't have the child's
mouth pulled about," " I do not agree with stoppings," " What was our teeth given
us but to eat with, and you wants to draw them," " I'll take her to a proper dentist
when her teeth ache."
The formal reinspections in school of children previously found defective
in any way make it possible to compile a statistical record of following up.
During the year 192,035 reinspections were made, being 28,308 more than in
1925. 121,228 of these were primary reinspections and 70,807 were second reinspections
of children not discharged at primary reinspections. (The London
system is to allow a term to elapse between the discovery of the defect before the
primary reinspection is made, and to earmark the unsatisfactory cases at the
primary reinspections for a second reinspection after the lapse of another full
school term.)
Combining the results of the first and second reinspections, it is found that
in 1926, 75.4 per cent. of the children needing treatment eventually obtained it.
This is practically identical with the figure of 1925 which was 75.5 per cent.
Ignoring dental defect, the proportion of children treated works out at 80.7 per
cent., which is again practically identical with the figure of the previous year (80.3).
Of the cases treated, 78.1 per cent. were dealt with under the Council's scheme,
7.1 per cent. were treated by private practitioners and 14.8 per cent. at hospitals
and institutions not coming within the Council's scheme.
14172 F 2