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

View report page

Malden and Coombe 1909

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Malden and Coombe]

This page requires JavaScript

18
SCARLET FEVER.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
In July, the Sanitary Inspector, when investigating a case of
scarlet fever, discovered that a child infected had been in contact
with children living in Sussex Road; he called at the house ; the
mother, whom he first saw, denied that there was any illness in the
house, but her husband admitted that three children had been
suffering from a rash with sore throats; he treated the matter
lightly and stated he had not called in a medical man. The
Inspector suspecting scarlet fever offered to bring the Medical
Officer of Health or any medical man at the Council's expense,
but this was flatly refused. He then consulted the Medical Officer
of Health. Fourteen days after, I with the Inspector, called
at the house and after some hesitation was permitted to inspect
three children, all peeling from scarlet fever; printed instructions
as to disinfection and isolation was left at the house, the children
were not isolated, nor had any medical man been called in. The
Council had no alternative but to take proceedings against the head
of the family, under the Infectious Diseases Notification Act 1889,
and the Infectious Diseases Extension Act, 1899, which provides
(inter alia): "The head of the family to which such patient
belongs shall as soon as he becomes aware that the patient is
suffering from an infectious disease to which the act applies, send
notice thereof to the Medical Officer of Health of the district."
The case was tried before the Kingston Bench of Magistrates;
the defence was that the defendent and his wife did not know it
was scarlet fever, and that the Sanitary Inspector did not inform
them of its presence in the house.
The defendent, was convicted in the maximum penalty with
costs, including costs of the Council. The chairman commented
severely on the case, and asked:— "Wherein was the use of Public
Authorities doing their utmost to eradicate infectious disease, when
an obstinate man like the defendant deliberately went and spread
it about; the case ought to be a warning to people to act with
more common sense."