View report page

92
area in making provision for all types of maternity cases needing
admission either on medical grounds or on account of unsuitable
home circumstances.
The Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality and
Morbidity advocated "as likely to give the optimum of safety,
hospitals providing from 50 to 60 maternity and five to 10 antenatal
beds." It was considered that to meet the needs of those
women for whom the Council, as maternity and child welfare
authority, had concern, a minimum of 20 beds would be required.
In addition it was surmised that full use would be made of a further
20 beds, or a total of 40 for the district.
In May a conference was held between representatives of the
Wembley and of the Harrow Councils at which was considered the
question of providing a joint maternity hospital for the combined
districts. After further meetings the Councils of both districts
agreed to a report of which the following is a very brief summary :—
1. That shortly 70 maternity beds will be required to meet
the needs of Harrow and Wembley.
2. That it would be to the advantage of both Councils to
provide a joint hospital to provide such accommodation.
3. That the arrangements and control of the establishment
should be delegated to a Joint Committee.
These proposals were submitted to the Minister and forwarded
to the County Council. The following are extracts from a report
of the Public Health Committee of the Middlesex County Council
submitted to and confirmed by the County Council in December,
1935:—
The County Council has a legal obligation to provide beds
for necessitous women in their confinements, and in fact, has
maternity wards at each of its general hospitals. These,
however, are hardly adequate to satisfactorily deal with its
obligations, and extensions to all the maternity departments
either have been approved by the Council or are under consideration.
When these extensions are complete it is anticipated
that the County Council will be in a position to
accommodate for their confinements all financially necessitous
women and all women who require hospital accommodation
for medical reasons. The County Council's proposals should
also enable the majority of cases of women living in surroundings
unsuitable for confinement to take place therein
to be dealt with, but will not be adequate to accommodate
the very considerable and increasing number of women not
included in the above classes who themselves desire admission
to hospital for their confinements. The problem under
consideration, therefore, is whether the additional accommodation
required should be provided by the County Council