View report page

35
such cases, in order to impress upon the public and upon
midwives that puerperal fever is a preventable disease, and
that it is somebody's fault if it is not prevented. The case
raises the question as to the efficacy of abstinence from
practice as a means of purification. It is the opinion of
many leading obstetricians (as may be seen in the discussions
of the Obstetrical Society) that without disinfection
110 mere lapse of time will prevent conveyance of infection ;
and, if thorough disinfection is carried out, it is not necessary
for a doctor or midwife to discontinue practice for a
longer time than that necessary for the disinfection. No
lapse of time will sterilise a septic dress or syringe, nor
will it change the habits of & woman who never uses a
nailbrush. On the other hand, if the midwife will burn
her infectious garments and put on clean ones, will scrub
her nails till they are spotless, make a practice of boiling
her syringe, catheter, etc., and of carrying about and using
antiseptics, it is not needful that she should abstain from
practice. This, we may believe, is the current teaching
of those who are best qualified to form an opinion on the
subject."
A report on the method of certifying puerperal fever was laid
before the Sanitary Committee, and after discussion the following
recommendation was sent up to the Vestry and by them adopted :—
The Committee find that considerable uncertainty exists as
to what diseases should be reported to the Medical Officer
of Health under Section 55 of the Public Health (London)
Act as " the fever known as puerperal " ; they have also
ascertained that owing to its indefinite meaning the term
''puerperal fever" has been expunged from the Official
Nomenclature of Diseases, and therefore recommend
that:—
The London County Council be requested to take the necessary
steps under Section 55 (6) of the Public Health (London)
Act, to add to Section 55 (8) of the same Act the names of