View report page

31
With regard to general practitioners and the authorities, there is no doubt
that notification of these cases does give rise to considerable unpleasantness,
despite the absence of direct affirmative evidence to that effect.
This friction may be in part possibly lessened by the Health authorities
deferring or postponing indefinitely a visit to the patient, on the request of
the medical man in attendance.
Consent of Patient.
In 3 Boroughs this is not considered necessary, but in two others it is
assumed.
In one Borough (Stoke Newington) the patient's consent is formally given
on the notification form. In one it is said to be left to the discretion of the
Medical attendant, and, in another the patient's consent is obtained by the
doctor notifying.
In Greenwich, the patient's consent is not asked; if a visit from the Public
Health Authority is not desired, the practitioner attending, so endorses the
certificate.
On the main question, a matter affecting the patient so closely, it is
obvious that his consent ought to be obtained in writing, if possible, on the
notification certificate. Finsbury alone has issued a special form.
Attitude of Patient.
Seven Boroughs replied that there is no resentment, the rest
have no information on this score. It is, as stated above, generally conceded,
that the better class patients resent notification exceedingly, and, therefore,
are not notified, but the lower class patients in humble life regard it as
something partaking of the absolute and irremediable, and do not voice their
annoyance.
Disinfection.
Six Boroughs use formalin by spray or fumigation, and one
of these resorts to this expedient once a week. Three use sulphur fumigation;
in others the walls are sprayed with cyllin, corrosive sublimate, or
carbolic, and then stripped. The bedding is steamed.