View report page

21
that measles is such a trivial disease, that the sooner the child gets it, the
better it is for him and all concerned. Whereas, it is an admitted fact, that
beyond the age of two years, the older the child becomes, the less liable
he is to the disease; and if contracted, children over five years of age rarely
succumb.
In 1903, the London County Council made an order that all the sections
of the Public Health Act, 1891, relating to notifiable diseases, should apply
to measles, with the exception of that section which would make it obligatory
on the nearest relative, or the doctor in attendance, to notify the patient so
suffering to the Public Health Authorities. The Order was approved by
the Local Government Board, and came into force on April 1st of that year.
A person is liable to heavy penalties if he exposes infected clothing, or
allows a person suffering from measles, whilst under his charge, to be in a
public place. The premises must be disinfected when the patient has recovered
from measles, and is presumably free from infection.
It was assumed by the London County Council that information would be
given to us by the school authorities, as well as by the parents themselves. It
is true that we receive information from teachers that certain children are
absent from school, and that such children are supposed to be suffering from
measles. As a rule the teachers' notifications are based upon the report of the
school attendance officer, or upon information given by children in the
same house, or neighbouring houses. To that extent the information is unreliable.
When visits are made by officials of the Sanitary Authority for
the purpose of enforcing isolation and disinfection, the mothers of the children
in question often deny the statement made to us by the teachers. They usually
state that the patients had suffered from an illness other than measles, and
pointed to the children as being quite well at the time of the visit.
Unreliable as the information from the school teachers is, it is rendered
even of less value from the fact that the child has been absent from school for a
considerable time, when the inquiries by the Sanitary Inspector are made.
In some cases, we are able to persuade the parents that the disease may
have been measles, and it is to the interest of the other children that the
premises should be disinfected. In such circumstances it would be useless
to attempt to insist upon the premises being disinfected, if the parents refuse to
have it done. If police court proceedings were taken, the evidence of the parents
could not be controverted, if they stated that the child had not suffered from
measles, and the case would probably be dismissed. If teachers refused to