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

View report page

Haringey 1966

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Haringey]

This page requires JavaScript

Malaria
There was one case only, a visitor from abroad infected before arrival. People visiting countries
overseas where the disease is endemic, including North Africa, should take a suitable prophylactic drug
regularly while there, and for a full month after returning to this country.
Leprosy
Under the Public Health (Leprosy) Regulations 1966, cases ceased to be directly notifiable to the
Ministry of Health, and became, like many other infectious diseases are, now notifiable to the Medical
Officer of Health.
The Health Department keeps a register of all cases known to be in the borough, and informs the
Ministry regarding them.
Although the word "leprosy" has strong emotional overtones, it is not highly infectious, and the
five cases of the disease in Haringey are satisfactorily controlled.
Infective Hepatitis
Largely due to the enthusiastic co-operation of general practitioners, we learnt of 51 cases of this
disease. Apart from a few close contacts who were infected, they were all sporadic cases, and there
was no concentrated epidemic. Since early notification is of great value in the control of this insidious,
and in many respects obscure, infection,the Ministry of Health was consulted regarding the possibility
of making the disease statutorily notifiable.
Leptospirosis
One case occurred during the year. The disease is associated with contact with dirty water and
rats. The patient had not been swimming recently, and inspection of his home and also his place of work
in another borough failed to show any cause for the infection.
Since this tends to be an occupational disease, discussions were held with the Ministry of Health
with a view to its becoming statutorily notifiable in Haringey.
Brucellosis
Sometimes known as Undulant or Malta Fever, brucellosis usually affects people working with
animals, I ike farm workers and veterinary surgeons. The organisms are found in milk from affected cows,
ano people who drink the milk are liable to get the disease. This is a fact often not appreciatea by
those who believe that milk from a herd tested for tuberculosis is safe. It probably is, but only as far
as tuberculosis is concerned, and there is often no way of being sure that it has no brucellosis germs in
it. It is safer to keep to pasteurised milk; the process destroys the germs of both diseases. Otherwise
it should be boiled.
An example of this kind of infection occurred during the year, and demonstrates a possible risk of
farmhouse holidays. The patient had developed a remittent fever lasting four months, which developed
six weeks after a holiday in Cornwall. When brucellosis was diagnosed the Medical Officer of Health
of the area in which the farm was situated was notified. Investigation revealed that the herd was
infected with the disease. On veterinary advice, the farmer decided to go out of milk production and
dispose of his milking cows.
Section 172, Public Health Act 1936
It is occasionally the lot of a public health department to become involved in something which
results in little but frustration and waste of time and energy.
In June a letter was received from a consultant in a local hospital regarding a man in his early
thirties suffering from open pulmonary tuberculosis. This man, although aware that he had an infection
which was highly dangerous toothers, had left hospital against medical advice, and was known to frequent
public houses. The consultant asked that the utmost rigour of the law be invoked to restrain him until
such time as he became non-infectious. It emerged in subsequent discussions that two to three months
treatment in hospital would result in the disease becoming quiescent. Since it is the policy of the
department not to apply legal sanction until reasonable persuasion has been tried, an officer of the Council
visited the patient, who expressed his regret and agreed to return to hospital. He had only been back
four days, however, when he left again. Another visit was made, and again the man said he was sorry.
The next stay in hospital lasted eleven days. Readmission was once more arranged, and the result was
the same.
10