View report page

27
time throughout the duration of the illness is legally bound (as soon
as he is cognisant of the infectious nature of the malady) to despatch
the specified certificate, and is equally entitled to the complimentary
fee. So be it.
But no one will deny that the intention of the Act was to secure
(1) that every case of infectious disease included in the schedule
should be notified: (2) that this notification should be made, once
for all, as promptly as possible by a medical practitioner, and this
whether pathognomonic symptoms of infectious disease be developed
uring the course of his attendance on a patient, or whether he finds
those symptoms already patent when he happens to be "called in to
visit the patient" for the first time. Few will contend that—as
seems to be inferred by Professor Corfield—the Legislature intended
this notification to be multiplied indefinitely by every practitioner
who may susequently or jointly see the case, and arrive at tne same
conclusion as to its nature; such a rain of certificates would be as
embarrassing to the medical officer of health as the consequent increase
of expenditure would be objectionable to the local boards. I
submit that the clause in question was conceived, and is intended to
be construed, rather in this sense. As soon as any medical
practitioner who is attending on, or who is called in to visit, a
patient, becomes aware that the patient is suffering from an infectious
disease to which this section applies, he shall (unless this has already
been done) forthwith send a certificate stating etc. ; but only
one such certificate shall be sent to the medical officer of health in
respect of each patient. Thus each case of infectious disease is to be
at once notified by the practitioner, or by one of the practitioners in
attendance, as soon as its nature is recognised, once for all.
So recently as 1850 a special Act was passed permitting, for the
first time, the use of more than one full stop in each Act of Parliament.
Hence, perhaps, arose the notion of the proverbial
permeability of these enactments. Professor Corfield's inference
that the traditional coach and six may, in the present instance, be
replaced by an indefinite number of medical broughams at 2s. Gd.
a-piece, appears to be doubtful law, and is clearly opposed to the
common sense and equity of the question.—I am, etc.
Hertford, Oct. 3rd. C. E. Shelly.
Sir,—It is quite unnecessary for me to answer in detail Dr.
Goodhart's letter in your last issue, or Dr. Shelly's either, as I find
that in a letter from the Local Government Board to the Town Clerk
of Uppingham, under date December 29th, 1890, the following rule is