View report page

42
Secretary wrote a letter pointing out the parent's liability under
the Children's Act, 1908. In March, 1913, a final registered letter
was sent, announcing that proceedings would be taken, and in
May, 1913, the case was taken into Court. The father was fined
10s., and finally glasses were obtained for the child from Moorfields
Hospital.
The value of a personal interview, to which reference has
been made before, was shown very clearly by the sequel to this
case. Not long after a notice was served for a second child, who
suffered from high myopia. The father came down to the offices
to sign a consent for treatment, saying he could not afford another
fine or journey to Moorfields Hospital. For the first time it was
possible to explain the necessity for treatment, what the treatment
really was, and what the effect on the child's future would be, if
the condition was neglected. As soon as this had been done he
signed readily, explaining that he thought the Medical Officer
meant " to take the eyes out, tamper with them, and put them
back," and that if he had understood at first he would not have
raised any objections.
Otorrhœa.
Treatment in these cases has been unsatisfactory. 55 per
cent. had treatment, but treatment in these chronic cases is not
synonymous with cure, and frequently when the stimulus of the
nurses' visits is withdrawn, there is a speedy relapse. This is
a difficulty which we find with other chronic and disfiguring but
neglected diseases, such as blepharitis and skin disease. Now
that a second nurse has been appointed, it will be possible to
arrange for children with ear discharge to come up daily for
syringing. Apart from the unpleasantness of a neglected
discharging ear, it may at any time lead to an acute and dangerous
condition, which needs instant operation.
Tonsils and Adenoids.
This heading shows a large percentage of untreated cases.
This is partly due to difficulty in obtaining treatment, but also