View report page

18
Case 4 (B).—Male, aged 76 years. A letter was received
from the son complaining of the father's condition and habits.
The family doctor stated that he was suffering from osteo-arthntis
and carditis. Hospital admission was advised but refused. On
visiting the patient he was found dirty in person and clothing,
and had no fire even in mid-winter. He was previously the tenant of
the house but had passed the tenancy to the son who provided
food only. The daughter-in-law had five young children and was
expecting another and was at variance with her father-in-law.
Domestic help was refused by the patient. The services of a male
Home Nurse were provided, together with bed linen and night
clothing through the National Assistance Board. The son later
requested a Compulsory Removal Order, and the wishes of the
other children were then ascertained. Subsequently a visit was
paid together with the Area Welfare Officer and an application
for a Compulsory Removal Order was threatened. Arrangements
were made for inclusion in the incontinent laundry service, and
domestic help was also commenced.
At a later visit in April, some improvement was noticed and
it was thought better to defer application to the Court for compulsory
removal. No further difficulty arose during the remainder
of 1954. Home Nursing, Domestic Help and laundry facilities
continued.
Case 5 (M).—Male, aged 80 years. The husband and wife
were living in squalor in a small room behind an unused shop.
Both declined hospital admission but the wife's condition worsened
so much that she finally agreed to enter hospital and died shortly
afterwards. The husband remained at home and was provided
with domestic help and home nursing, but refused hospital
admission throughout 1954.
Case 6 (H).—Female, aged 75 years. Reported by Old
People's, Welfare Committee since the voluntary helpers of the
' Meals on Wheels ' service had refused to deliver meals owing
to living conditions. Domestic help had continued for some time,
but reported the bedding to be very dirty. Patient lived in one
room on the first floor of a house where all four rooms were let
off to elderly persons. Alternative arrangements were made to
provide ' Meals on Wheels ' and visits were paid from time to
time by the staff of the Health Department. The patient continued
to refuse admission to an institution. She insisted on
locking herself in her bedroom and owing to her shuffling gait,
there was considerable risk of fire. Authority was obtained in
July for application for a Compulsory Removal Order, but application
to the Court was deferred pending further persuasion. A
visit was paid by the Consultant Geriatrician who considered
patient a Part III case and that chiropody was needed. Domiciliary