Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Kensington]
This page requires JavaScript
21
four of these cases were hardly to be called small-pox, so trivial were
the symptoms, and 19 out of the 24 required no treatment. Since
the opening of the hospitals in 1877 there have been employed on the
staff 157 officers, nurses, servants, and porters, of whom 23 had
previously had small-pox. One house servant, whose word was taken
for her re-vaccination, contracted the disease. Of 133 who were revaccinated
two only suffered from small-pox, and that in a very
mild form.
The report by the Medical Superintendent contains much further
interesting matter to repay perusal, but for which I cannot find room
here. I shall only add that the Hospital "Pavilions" are singlestory
buildings, well ventilated, with abundant light and air, being
surrounded by nicely laid-out gardens. The hospital site has an area
of 6½ acres.
"THE HAMPSTEAD SMALL-POX HOSPITAL CASE."
The opposition to the continued existence of Fulham Small-Pox
Hospital was not a little stimulated by the apparently successful result
of the action brought by Sir Rowland Hill and others against the
Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, in respect of the Hampstead
Hospital—the verdict having been adverse to the Managers on
all points. Mr. Baron Pollock, who tried the cause, left the following
questions to the jury:—1. Was the hospital a nuisance occasioning
damage to the plaintiffs, per se? 2. Was the hospital a nuisance
per se, or by reason of patients coming to or going from the hospital?
3. Assuming that the defendants were by law entitled to erect and
carry on a hospital, did they do so with all proper reasonable care and
skill with reference to the plaintiffs' rights? 4. Assuming that the
defendants were by law entitled to erect and carry on this particular
hospital, did they do so with all proper reasonable care and skill with
reference to the plaintiffs' rights? 5. Did the defendants use proper
care and skill with respect to the ambulances? And on all these
questions the verdict was adverse to the defendants, though the jury
admitted that everything had been done that could have been done
relating to the internal management of the hospital.
c2