Healthy England.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17118, 13 April 1921, Page 6

Healthy England.

in Mr. G/ K. Chesterton,; at the outsetof his feoent lecture tour in 'the United States, asserted had a conscientious objection to the term paradox, that lie never indulged in paradoxes, and that he "stated the most weari- " some and obvious common sense." And, tnth that; he began a lecture on " the perilß of health." ;Anyone who took his remarks seriously could come to no other conclusion thaivthat he is violently opposed to all Government at-' tivity onWialfof the: public''health. He ridiculed the idea that' doctors should be' the health advisers of the community, though for doctors as doctotSc he professed profound; respwt. "'The doctor was to be. called upon ex- •" tpaordinary occasions to deal tfith abnormal situations. Suppose he ([Mr Chesterton) were to precipitate hiin- " self into the audience and ,bi%ak his. "leg. A doctor would set ( the leg, or' " perhaps, with ill-concealed enthu- " siasm, would ataputate .it. He would '' his work as a doctor, but "the modern idea, seemed to be that "ie was to take-charge of unbroken' "legs, to say when they were to _he '''ufied' to' walk and when they were "to be used to dance." Ho drew; a parallel between the doctor • and the policeman. "When you and I. indulge ,"in murder, hq (the policeman) takes "charge of-us and deals with us ac"cording to the law. But just imagine '"what you would v say if told that tho " policeman was there to encourage vif- " tue. "What would happen' if you aild "j were always followed by a police"man and we heard his Voice over our "i shoulder telling us when to do this " and not to do that. T'think we should ; begin to look up<m it as rather . a bove." Naturally,, after this, Mr Chesterton had a fling at the British Ministry of Health, whose agents, he were endured in English cities " with the incredible politeness that ,is •" characteristic of the English' poor, in " Edinburgh and other places where "Scotchmen-live were kicked *down- " Btairs, and iii Ireland were not allowed *at all." . All this was very amusing, in Chostcrtonian vein. But if Mr Chesterton really thinks that "the worship "of health is being carried to fantastic "extremes," if he really believes the Ministry of Health is a useless and meddling department, he was unfortunate in saying so just when the pro-' visional vital statistics for England and Wales for last year were published. Theqp showed, among other things, that the birth-rate and the number of birthß | were tlje highest of the decade, that the | death-rate was the lowest even recorded and the number of deaths the lowest'recorded since 1862, when the population yras only 20 millions, and that the infant mortality, under one year, was also the lowest ever recorded. During the period 1871-80, the death-rate per 1000 of the population was 24.4, last year it wa8"12.4, while in the s&me time the infant' mortality declined from 149 per 1000 births to 80, and to'7s in London. It is pointed out that. this decline is no new feature of the vital statistics; it is but the continuation to a very satisfactory point of a processj that has been eou«« on for years. Some

English papers, which have no love for the Ministry of Health, assert that the decline is due in great part to the mothers and the family doctors of the country. That may be so, to some extent, but there remains a good deal to be said for the work of the Ministry, which is by no means entirely occupied, as suggested, with "fantastic "schemes of State-controlled healing." The official supervision of the public health effects no miracles, but it undoubtedly for wider knowledge of the common-sense laws of health, to Borne extent it compels obedience to and .none but possibly a professional humourist would deny that it had had its share in reducing the death-rate at Home.