View report page

27
properly isolated, and the removal of them to hospital was
deemed unnecessary; but proofs were not wanting that, even
when the sufferers had what might be fairly described as "proper
lodging or accommodation," due care could not have been taken
to prevent spread of the disease; unless, indeed, it be the fact
that no amount of care suffices to prevent it from spreading
when once it has found admittance into a family of susceptible
persons. In not a few instances, when removal was obviously
necessary to security, the greatest difficulty was experienced in
obtaining the parents' consent, but in no case was recourse had to
the compulsory powers of removal, such as they are, which the
Sanitary Act of 1866 confers. The cases were generally of
children of school age. No child was knowingly allowed to go
to school from an infected house. The existence of the disease
was revealed occasionally by the registration of a death, and its
spread was not seldom the result of keeping patients at home
under circumstances that rendered nugatory any attempt at
isolation.
The following cases are cited as illustrations of modes of
spread of scarlet fever, and as evidence of the necessity for an
Act providing for the notification of Infectious Disease:—
A child fell ill in November, 1884; the illness was concealed
with the result that, one after another, every member of
the family, man, wife, and three children, were attacked;
but the illness was not disclosed until the middle of
January, and then only upon the registration of the
death of a child, the fourth case in order of attack.
A death was registered in January from Laryngitis. It
turned out that the child had really had scarlet fever,
and six other cases in the same family immediately
following were removed to hospital.
Seven cases occurred in one family, all of the children save
one, at ages ranging from 24 downwards. The first
case was that of a child who had attended a day school
in another parish. Two of the seven cases proved fatal