View report page

38
hospital, provided that effectual steps were taken (such as the
Commissioners recommend in pars. 14 and 18) for the proper
isolation of the wards. Restrictions on the movements of
nurses, &c., will, I am satisfied, be found imperatively necessary
to success. ( Vide Abstract of Evidence, in Annual Report for
1881, page 52.)
The Commissioners, at page xiii. of their report, draw attention
to the question " whether the general superintendence of vaccination
should not be transferred, with that of the hospitals, from
the Poor Law to the Sanitary Authority ?" and state that their
opinion is " distinctly in favour of such a transfer," a conclusion
with which I entirely concur, having in a letter to the Asylums
Board (March, 1877), " on grounds of public policy," proposed
to " transfer the execution of the Vaccination Acts in the
Metropolis " to a proposed new Hospital Authority, which was
to be a purely Sanitary Authority.
It is satisfactory to note that the Commissioners speak with
no uncertain sound on the subject of "compulsory removal,"
which I have always insisted on as the corollary or complement
to "compulsory notification." They say that, "in default of
isolation (at home), the Hospital Authority should be bound and
empowered to remove to the hospital any patient capable of
removal without risk to life or serious aggravation of the
disease and again—" without the power of removal the
compulsory notification of disease would be of little avail."
(Report, Page xi.)
Speaking for myself, it is with no slight satisfaction
that I find in this weighty Report the justification for
nearly every principle in dealing with infectious diseases
that I have advocated, chiefly in reports to your Vestry, at one
time or another, during the last ten years, including, inter
alia :—
Compulsory Notification in all cases.
Compulsory Removal in suitable cases.