View report page

As this matter is being taken up and will presumably be considered
by the Ministry of Health in due course, there would seem to be
little point in discussing it further here. I would merely mention,
once again, the anomaly which exists in regard to scarlet fever.
As has been said, it is thoroughly illogical that a legal distinction
continues to be drawn between a streptococcal infection which
includes a rash, i.e. scarlet fever, and a streptococcal infection which
does not include a rash. It may be that until everyone concerned
is completely satisfied that the present mild form of scarlet fever
is here to stay—and this is by no means certain—notification should
continue. On the other hand, one cannot see why notification
should be necessary so long as scarlet fever retains its present mild
form, since steps could be very quickly taken to reintroduce the
notification of scarlet fever if and when there was any indication
that its virulence had changed. In the meantime, we continue to
carry out the instructions which govern the notification of infectious
diseases, so far as lies within our power. The fact that quite a
number of especially mild cases of scarlet fever never seem to
come to our notice, and the fact that an even greater number of
cases of food poisoning and dysentery never even reach the doctor's
surgery, does not seem to have made any appreciable impact upon
the occurrence or spread of these diseases.
42