woolwich and sandhurst
Embed Size (px)
fee for the burial of the bodies of all newly-born infants,whether they shall have been stillborn or survived theirbirth. In the Portsmouth case, the midwife present at thebirth was the person charged. Though she saw the childborn living and surviving its birth one hour and a half, shegave a certificate of stillbirth, and succeeded in getting itburied as such. It would also appear that this was a usual
practice with her, and that the official in charge of theMile-end Cemetery at Landport was entirely ignorant of theprovisions of the Act of 1874. According to his own state-ment he buried, at a rough guess, from 100 to 120 bodies ofinfants every year without medical certificates oi the
requisite declaration. This is a circumstance calling for aninquiry from the Home Secretary. It is needless to pointout the terrible effects of such a loose system of burial, andwe note with satisfaction that the defendant was fined £3,or in default a month’s imprisonment. The magistratesalso expressed great dissatisfaction at the entire ignoranceof the provision of the Act shown by the official of thecemetery, characterising this loose manner of burial as mostreprehensible. Copies of those clauses of the Act whichrelate to the burial of infants ought to be in the hands ofevery official in charge of a burial-ground, and should alsobe placarded on the office wall, for the benefit of midwivesand others who are ignorant of the Act and its penaltyclauses.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CEMETERY AND POSSIBLEWELL POLLUTION.
THE proposed extension of the cemetery at West Hartle-pool has given rise to fears that pollntion of the public watersupply might result if it were carried out; and Dr. Gourley,the medical officer of health, has expressed apprehensionsas to this. He has explained that the water supply is drawnfrom a well in the magnesian limestone, situated about400 yards to the eastward of the proposed extension, thedepth of the well being some 200 feet, and the level of the ’’
water having been reduced by pumping ; and he has statedthat there are apprehensions of danger of the infiltrationof putrid animal matter into the well, and hence seriousrisk of dangerous contamination of the public water source.Amongst other matters, he has further pointed out that theland between the proposed cemetery extension and the water-works has been made up with refuse material, in itself
dangerous to health. Mr. R. E. Middleton, Mem. Inst. C. E.,has in consequence dealt with the matter at some length,and he has arrived at a number of conclusions in the mainadverse to this view. He points out that the proposedcemetery site consists of a band of clay varying inthickness from 26 ft. at its eastern end to 17 ft. at its
north-western end ; that bore-holes show it to be im-
pervious to water ; that burials can be so arranged as toleave a bed of clay not less than 10ft., which shallnot be pierced; that the waterworks do not draw theirwater from any of the upper strata, but from beds below,and hence that pumping produces no scour in the upperstrata; and he draws the conclusion that the proposedcemetery extension is not liable to produce contaminationof the water supply. At the same time, lie urges the con-struction of certain drains around and in the cemetery, andhe points to the risk which is incurred by the deposit oftown refuse where the stone crops out, and by reason ofcesspools. The report which he has prepared seems toexonerate a cemetery in the proposed situation from doingpossible harm; and as we believe that Mr. Middleton’sservices have been called in as an independent expert, thegreatest weight should be attached to his opinion. Butthere has recently, in more cases than one, been a tendencyto construct cemeteries for the dead without proper regardto the enormous interests of the living in the important
matter of water supply; and if, locally, doubt is still held asto the possibility of danger arising from a cemetery in theintended position, the present is the time for exhaustiveinquiry by some skilled geologist who has made the subjectof water supply a special study. Under any circumstances,Dr. Gourley will have the satisfaction that his attitude hassecured the consideration of a number of reasonable doubts,and that it has enabled those doubts to be dealt with beforeit had become too late.
SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.
A REPORT of Dr. Mumby, medical officer of health for
Portsmouth, has met with some local criticism for thereason that it contains photographs illustrating the appear-ance of a vaccinated and unvaccinated person respectivelywhen suffering from small-pox. Distasteful as the illus-trations may be, they honestly show the disease in its twoforms. The opponents to vaccination undoubtedly meetwith success because small-pox is rarely seen at the presenttime by the majority of English people, and its terrors havetherefore ceased to have the influence which they possessedin pre-vaccination days. If opponents of the VaccinationActs could be made to see in small-pox hospitals the terribledisfigurements from this disease which result when unvacci.nated persons are attacked, their objections to vaccinationwould receive a rude shock. What small-pox can do in anunvaccinated community may be learnt from the story whichis told concerning Morocco. It is stated that some twentythousand people have fallen victims to this disease; in asingle town, Rabat, thousands are believed to have died, thepanic-stricken people flying in all directions from theinfecteddistrict. When it is considered how gladly these poorcreatures would avail themselves of the protection affordedby vaccination, it is painful to read that at Luton theguardians are refusing to enforce vaccination, and havereturned a discourteous reply to the Local Government
Board, who had called their attention to the fact that lessthan half the children had been vaccinated who had beenborn in that district during the period from July to Decemberlast year. Unfortunately, the Luton board are not excep-tional, for we learn that the Gloucester board of guardianshave also adopted a resolution that there should be noprosecution of nearly five hundred persons who had neglectedto have their children vaccinated.
WOOLWICH AND SANDHURST.
THE Reports of the Board of Visitors upon these twonational military schools have just been published, andaflbrd as little information as possible respecting the healthof the cadets. It is true we are told that at Woolwich theBoard " observed with much satisfaction their bright andhealthy appearance," but it would have been much more
satisfactory if the usual numerical details respecting theamount and nature of the sickness which had occurred
among them had been furnished. The number of cadets atthe date of inspection was 252, "being 50 over the establish-ment." The report states that "the total number whohave been admitted to hospital was 130, or an averageof 1’61 per cent."; we should rather have been disposed tosay it was 51’6 per cent. On the inspection day therewere 8 sick in hospital, or 3’17 per cent., which appearsto us a very high ratio. No information is given as tothe diseases for which they were under treatment. It isalso stated that during the year eight lost a term throughsickness. Of Sandhurst, the Board report that the healthof the cadets during the year has been good, and their
appearance and physical condition all that could be desired.At the date of the examination the number was 306, ex-cluding one rusticated. The admissions into hospitalduring the year were 112, or 36’6 per cent., which contrasts
favourably with the proportion at Woolwich. The averageconstantly sick was in the proportion of 1 ’23 per cent.; onthe day of inspection the number in hospital was three, or’98 per cent., as against 3’17 at Woolwich. At Sandhurst
only one cadet lost a term through sickness. We have onprevious occasions called the attention of the authorities tothe marked difference in the health of the cadets in thesetwo schools, and suggested the propriety of an inquiry intoits causes, but the only result of our suggestion appears tohave been the suppression of the reports of the medicalofficers. It is no doubt unpleasant to the military autho- i
rities to have such matters discussed, but we feel satisfied ’,that the best course they could adopt in the interests of thearmy would be to give full and satisfactory information onthe subject, and take advantage of any criticisms, favour-able or adverse, to improve the sanitary conditions of theestablishments, even although that might involve an in-creased expenditure.
THE SANITATION OF POOR DWELLINGS.
THE Mansion House Council on the Dwellings of thePeople are steadily persevering in their efforts to improvethe sanitary condition of London districts, and, thanksespecially to the attention which their representations tothe Home Office have received, they are meeting withconsiderable success. At a meeting held last week at theMansion House, it was stated that the inquiry recently heldin Bethnal-green had led to the most satisfactory results,while in some other parishes the local authorities had shownmuch willingness to remedy any defects pointed out to themby the Council; in Shoreditch especially evils found toexist had been promptly remedied. Special inspections hadbeen made in Woolwich and portions of Plumstead andBromley, showing the need for more active sanitary ad-ministration in those areas. The next Home Office inquirywill be held at Rotherhithe, and the Council have appointedtwo gentlemen to represent them thereat. A strikinginstance of overcrowding was brought to light by an inquestheld last week in Spitalfields concerning the death of a childaged four months. The baby, who had died from suffoca-tion, had shared a room about twelve feet square withsix other children and its parents-that is to say, each
person had but a little more than a hundred cubic feet ofair space; and for this miserable accommodation a charge of4s. 6d. was made. The jury returned a verdict censuringthe sanitary authorities, and the case affords evidence ofthe need for continued watchfulness of bodies like theMansion House Council over the interests of the poor.
GASTROSTOMY IN THE PROVINCES, AND THEFEE FOR IT.
A SUCCESSFUL case of gastrostomy is reported, in con-nexion with a County Court action for the recovery of feesfor the operation, in the Hereford Journal of Sept. 1st.The surgeon, Mr. Thomas Edward Williams, of Talgarth,had to sue the patient for £36 15s., a balance over andabove fifteen guineas paid by the defendant. The operationwas done for malignant disease of the cesophagus inDecember last, and at the time of the trial the patient wasalive and well, being fed through the opening made byMr. Williams. The operation was performed, as usual, intwo parts. The first was done on Dec. 13th, the second onDec. 18th. The patient lived twenty miles away, andthere were several intermediate visits. On two occasionsat least Mr. Williams remained for the night. After thefirst operation there was distressing thirst, which wasassuaged by rectal injections of warm water. The plaintiffcharged five guineas for his journeys-three for himself,and two for his assistant. When he stayed the night, hecharged seven guineas. For the prolonged absence from
home on the day of operation seven guineas were charged,and ten for the actual operation. The whole charges were,in fact, extremely reasonable, and all the medical witnessesbut one thought so. The jury found for the plaintiff for£28 3s., and the judge allowed costs on the higher scale,adding that he thought the verdict a most proper one. Itis not often that a man has life saved for him so directlyand palpably as in such cases as this. The reluctance to
pay was remarkable on any supposition but that of poverty,which was excluded. We regret that one medical manshould have given any support to the defendant in hisopposition to paying fees really inadequate to the servicerendered. The defendant’s lawyer is privileged to de.nounce the plaintiff and all his ways, and much im-
portance does not attach to his censure. But when amember of the profession does well and makes a reason-able demand for his service, he should be supportedheartily by all his professional neighbours.
NATIONAL PENSION FUND FOR NURSES.
THE process by which the prospectus of the NationalPension Fund for Nurses is getting pieced together isa highly curious one. A scheme is formulated andmade public. In due course it is criticised and foundto be conspicuously defective. Thereupon, with muchangry expostulation, its constructors announce that theyhave the remedy in reserve, and that if the critics onlyunderstood the scheme they would be perfectly satis-fied. The latest instance of this method has grownout of the notice of the newly issued prospectus, whichappeared in our impression of the 25th ult. We there com-mented on the disparity between the premium chargeableto a pension policy-holder of the age of forty-eight years anda fortnight and to another of the age of forty-eight yearsand fifty weeks, and showed that it amounted, for what ispractically the same benefit, to the difference between
£270 and 500. This has elicited the answer that " whena nurse is asked to pay a premium of £20 a month it isunderstoood she will pay a definite number of premiumsand no more." This is a very important proviso, andit would be curious to learn why it should have beenleft to be understood instead of being distinctly statedat the first. But now that it is made public we mustask some further questions about it. In the first placethe nurses will want to know how far this principleapplies. If a nurse when asked to pay £20 a monthis understood to be about to pay a definite number of pre-miums, we presume that a like understanding will holdwhen she is asked to pay £10. Will it hold when she isasked to pay £1 a month, or when she is asked to pay 3s. 3d.?In a word, we shall be glad to learn whether the
premiums quoted in Table A of the prospectus are
payable from the date of the policy until the datewhen the benefit commences, or are payable only in
every case for the definite number of undivided yearswhich would be obtained deducting the age at entry fromthe age of commencing benefit. Or, if some of the pre-miums are chargeable on the one method and some on theother, we want to know where the line is drawn. A similarpoint, about which we invite the managers to give somefurther information, arises under Tables E and F, whichprovide combined sick pay and pension. Is a nurse
who is asked to pay a monthly premium of, say,£16 5s. 8d. to understand that she will not be called
upon to pay more than twelve premiums? If so, will shebe secure of sick pay during the whole time that she isa member not entitled to pension, whether that timebe barely twelve months or fully twenty-three ? The
premium above quoted apparently contains a contributionof 3s. 5d. towards the sick pay fund. Is she to pay only