View report page

32
ination of the patient, might lead to a condition of false security, or
the questions put to the friends as to the possible nature of the
illness might lead to a feeling of uneasiness on their part, with
consequent distrust in the Medical Practitioner, which would
naturally lead to resentment. It has been argued that because
small-pox has been mistaken for chicken pox, therefore the latter
should be made notifiable. Undoubtedly these diseases, being in
some instances similar, may be mistaken, but every practitioner is
alive to the fact, and other diseases such as Eczema, Scabies, &c.,
have been mistaken for small-pox, but I do not think anyone would
suggest that these should be included under the Notification Act.
Further, this argument would make it appear advisable to make
even influenza notifiable, as the history of the two following cases
will show.
Investigated. Case A.—(No. 2 on Table, page 28). A young lady, aged
by the Medical 16, feeling ill, came to her parents' home in Richmond,
Officer of February 21st. Called in doctor February 22nd.
Health. Patient was feverish and complained of headache,
backache and aching of limbs. Diagnosis, influenza.
February 23rd, symptoms easier. A few small spots came out
on forehead and face like a sweat rash. February 24th,
temperature normal. February 25th, temperature normal.
February 26th, temperature normal. As doctor realised spots
were increasing and suspecting small-pox, requested Medical
Officer to see patient. Diagnosis, discrete small-pox. Patient
removed and all occupants vaccinated.
March 8th. Two sisters of above who had been in contact
with patient between February 21st and 26th were found
feverish.
March 9th. The above two and a brother, who had not
been confined to bed nor complained of feeling ill, found with
rash coming out on face, chest and arms. Diagnosis, small-pox.
None of the above had been vaccinated in infancy.
Dirty clothing from this house had been sent to a laundry
on February 24th. All occupants of laundry vaccinated on