View report page

75
ception has become more and more common. In some cases
prevention is practised because the people concerned do not
want to have children. In other instances the practice is
adopted by people who desire to have children but who cannot
afford them. With the former class I do not know that
you as representing the State in the area of Willesden are
particularly concerned, but the latter class probably merits
attention. The State requires children, and it has therefore
been suggested that the State must assume an even greater
responsibility in the future in respect of them by way of
encouraging large families and rearing the children in a
healthy manner under good environmental conditions. In
some quarters it has been suggested that State subsidies
should be given for every birth or for every birth after the
first, second or third. I do not propose to examine the
merits or demerits of these proposals but would leave them
with you for reflection and consideration.
Now 1 come to the second method, the conservation of
human life by the reduction of infant mortality. I would
particularly emphasize that infant mortality is a highly
complex problem and that the full benefit of special measures
directed against this evil can be obtained only if they are
coupled up with general measures for sanitary and social
improvement. You have already had before you to-night
the fact that 38 deaths of infants occurred in Willesden
during the eight weeks ended 3rd November, 1917. Everybody
knows that there is much loss of infant life—before
birth, at birth, and after birth—but the causes of these
deaths have not yet been fully investigated and revealed.
Venereal diseases account for a large number of abortions
and miscarriages, but further scientific research is necessary
to elucidate the particular physiological and pathological
processes which go to determine the death of a child before
birth, the birth of a child of low vitality and consequent