View report page

28
Take another case:—
Two lads, who had the disease very mildly, shared a room on the ground
floor with their father and sister. The father was persuaded tolet the
boys go to the hospital that they might be out of harm's way and not
spread the disease ; but when he found he would have to pay he refused.
The boys being, in one sense, scarcely ill, though still infective and
dangerous to others, is it to be wondered at, that their father, an artizan,
should have been unwilling to go to a considerable expense merely for
the sake of the health of other people when he had, as he thought, no
reason to fear any further ill-consequences to himself or his family from
" keeping his children at home? He was, however, subsequently attacked
by the disease himself.
Another case, illustrating the danger of keeping patients at
home, may be cited:—
A young woman was reported ill on the 28th December, and her family
refused to let her be Bent to the hospital. Four or five weeks after
this, three other members of the family were stricken and removed
to Hampstead. The isolation, by removal, of the first case, even within
a fortnight from the commencement of the attack would have saved the
other members of the family.
The following outbreak was a peculiarly painful one :—
Two children were lying ill in a kitchen at a house in Grolborne-terrace.
Living and sleeping in this room were three other children, as well as the
mother and father. The latter was following his usual avocation daily.
As he refused to allow the children to be sent to the hospital, a magistrate's
order was obtained for their removal, on the ground that they
were " without proper lodging or accommodation." The father having
disobeyed and obstructed the execution of the magistrate's order, he was
summoned to appear before Mr. Bridge at the Hammersmith Police
Court, by whom, on his continued disobedience, he was sentenced to two
months' imprisonment in default of paying a fine of five pounds, for he
had none but infected goods, which could not be distrained * The magistrate
directed that bis order should be read to the wife, and that if she
disobeyed it she should be brought before him. She did disobey and was
summoned accordingly, Inspector Langman supplied a nurse to take
charge of the children in the mother's absence, and provided them with
much-needed food and firing. Husband and wife appeared together at
the Court, the former having found means to pay the fine; and expressed
contrition for their disobedience and gave consent to the children being
sent to the hospital, where they did well. Subsequently two other persons,
a mother and her recently born infant, were attacked in the same
house and both died. Another case in an adjoining house was traced to
the same source of infection.
The following fatal case excited a good deal of stir at the time,
and was the cause of a sharp local outbreak :—
The deceased, a single woman about 34 years of age, and apparently ®f
morose and eccentric habits, lived alone in a first floor front room in a
state of extreme squalor. On Sunday, March 18th, 1877, a female friend
called to see her but was not admitted into her room. She opened the
*I believe this was the first case in which the additional powers to enforce the removal
of cases of infectious diseases had been put in operation. These powers
conferred by the Sanitary Acts Amendment Act, 1874 (37 and 38 Vic. cap. 89, sec
51), were rendered necessary by the incompleteness of the 26th section of the
Sanitary Act, 1866, to which, at my instance, your Vestry called the attention of the
Local Government Board.