London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Kensington 1884

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Kensington]

This page requires JavaScript

106
Medical Association, the Society of Medical Officers of
Health, the Social Science Association (Public Health
Section), and the National Health Society.
"The Kensington Yestiy have resolved to address the Local
Government Board on the above subject, and I am instructed to
request your Vestry to take into consideration the desirability
of supporting their representations in favour of throwing the
entire cost of the hospitals on what may be called a Sanitary
Common Fund.
"By direction of the Vestiy I forward print of a report on the
subject by their Medical Officer of Health, with whose
views generally they coincide."
" I am, Sir, &c."
I had previously brought the subject under the consideration
of the Society of Medical Officers of Health, and it was referred
to the Council, whose report, unanimously adopted by the Society,
reads as follows :—
"The Council having taken into consideration the Special Report of the
General Purposes Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, with
the knowledge of the fact that in some parishes and districts, from
want of co-operation between the Poor Law and the Sanitary Authorities,
difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the removal to the
Asylum Board's Hospitals of cases of infectious disease, cannot but
approve the plan of contracts suggested by the Managers under the
provisions of the Poor Law Act, 1879, section 15. At the same
time the Council are of opinion that, as relief in the hospitals
no longer entails pauperisation, cases should be admitted upon the
certificate of any medical practitioner, that the expense of treating
cases in the hospitals should be defrayed out of a Common Sanitary
Fund (the Metropolis being treated as a single district for the purpose),
and that no compulsory payment should be exacted from persons
removed to hospitals for the purpose of isolation."
In my second report for the current year (March 2nd, page 13),
I stated that " the Managers having on February 17th taken into
consideration the Local Government Board's letter," (intimating
that their Order was not necessary to empower the Managers to