View report page

9
Hospitals would not be sufficient for the infectious sick of nearly
four million people during an epidemic. It might be sufficient, and
more than sufficient, during ordinary times, but the events of the
past few years should teach us that we should not be satisfied with
such accommodation, but should be able to grapple with emergencies
such as an epidemic of infectious disease. The objections urged
against the first and second alternatives apply to the third, viz., the
combined action of two or more Local Authorities. Some few years
ago, when Sanitary matters began to occupy the attention of our
Rulers, and the necessity for the isolation of the infectious sick
became apparent, a number of Hospitals for the treatment of such
cases were built, and a Board of Management—the Metropolitan
Asylums District Board—called into existence. Now many people,
I dare say, thought that these Hospitals, which had cost much
money, would be available for the infectious sick of all classes; that
any person suffering from an infectious disease, and who so wished
it, would be entitled to admission, and that he would be able to
pay for the accommodation; but no, these Hospitals were for
paupers only; to be eligible for admission, one must be a pauper,
and forfeit one's civil rights, and undergo all the pains and penalties
attaching to such a condition. In other words, the persons who
paid for these establishments were not to be admitted to their
benefits; the ratepayer, who had the misfortune to be laid
down with Small Pox or Fever, must stay at home, and become
a centre of infection to his wife, little ones, and neighbours, or consent
to become a pauper. It is true that he might be removed to