View report page

27
as the Vestry suggests. To do so, moreover, would in effect be
merely to define the meaning of the term "puerperal fever" for the
purpose of the section, which the Council has no power to do.
It seems to us unfortunate that the Vestry did not appeal against
the Magistrate s decision, and we have thought it well, before
coming to a conclusion on the question, to obtain the highest
possible opinion as to whether the diseases mentioned are properly
covered by the words "puerperal fever." We have accordingly
addressed a letter to Sir Samuel Wilks, Bart., M.D., F.R.S., President
of the Royal College of Physicians, asking him whether in his opinion
the various diseases in question are included in the term "puerperal
fever " and notifiable as such.
Sir Samuel Wilks has been good enough to lay our letter before
a committee of the Royal College, who have devoted very careful
attention to the matter, and have now unanimously passed the
following resolution—
"That this committee is of opinion that, with a view to the
limitation of dangerous infectious diseases, the London County
Council would be acting rightly in adopting the view that the
expression "puerperal fever," as contained in section 55 of the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, should be taken to include
septicaemia, pyaemia, septic peritonitis, septic metritis, and other
acute septic inflammations in the pelvis occurring as the direct
result of childbirth."
In forwarding this resolution for the information of the Council,
Sir Samuel Wilks adds that he entirely approves of it.
It thus appears that the highest medical advice is to the effect
that the term "puerperal fever" does cover the diseases mentioned,
and it is therefore unnecessary for the Council to make any such
order as that asked for by the Vestry of Bethnal Green. We think
that the Council should so inform the Vestry, and should, at the
same time, forward a copy of our report on this question to all the
London sanitary authorities.
It will, we are sure, be the desire of the Council to express to Sir
Samuel Wilks its appreciation of the courtesy with which he has
received our application for his advice on this question, and of the