THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1881. THE HEALTH OFFICER.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2314, 3 September 1881, Page 3

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1881. THE HEALTH OFFICER.

When any official does his duty fearlessly and conscientiously he may rely on meeting with more or less opposition. There are, in the first place, the individuals whose Incites he exposes, then there is the vis inertia ? of official routine which he disturbs, and lastly there is the petty jealousy of the small minds to whom his success is as gall and wormwood. And when this official happens also to be a professional man, it may bo taken for granted that, in most cases, the bitterness of the jealousy that obstructs him will be increased tenfold. Webavebeea led into making the above platitudes by a consideration of tbe means adopted in a certain quarter to injure tbe Health Officer “by hoot or by crook.” The violence of those endeavors has been increased by the very apparent fact that the public are aware of, and value, the exertions made by Dr. Nedwill in the discharge of his duties. The public know full well that, ever since the Health Officer took office, the business of the Board of Health has been conducted with an energy and success which have called for the attention of the colony at large. The public find that useful reforms are being initiated in head quarters from data, and suggestions furnished by Hr. Nedwill. In fine the inhabitants of this, by nature, somewhat unhealthy town, are satisfied that its sanitary interests are well looked after under the present regime. We do not deny that the Health Officer may, on occasions, be somewhat hasty, hnt we say this, without fear of contradiction except in one quarter, that he is a thoroughly efficient, energetic and painstaking officer. But the worm of professional jealousy is a worm that refuses to die under any circumstances, and hence the Health Officer has been subjected to a series of attacks which have astonished those who are unacquainted with the manner in which wires are pulled on such occasions. Numerous letters have been written to the papers inveighing against Dr. Nedwill, but the public are hardly likely to observe the strong family likeness that exists between these various productions. Then, again, a certain evening paper in this city periodically devotes its leading columns to abuse of the

Health Officer, but, again, the public are not likely to know the intimate relations that exist between the management of that paper and the party or parties in possession of the worm that refuses to die. That the affair is exceedingly well managed no one will deny. The Health Officer is apparently attacked from several directions at the same time. But the trick is as old as gueiilla warfare itself. The leading idea may be said to be that if mud thrown from a certain angle does not stick, it may possibly do so if thrown from another angle. It is hard to place any limit as to what one active man, with plenty of appliances at hand, may perform on the boards. Ho may be actor, scene-shifter, general manager, and cashier all in one, and a careless public would hardly find it all out. So a man in possession of such an active worm as the above alluded to, may inspire letters, dictate ideas for leading columns, and generally make himself so übiquitous in his attack on any official against whom he has an animus, that the work may appear to bo that of a number of hands. In l point of fact the attacks against the Health Officer from the source indicated are already growing up into a nice little literature. The last addition to it consists of a pamphlet, entitled “ A Few Notes Respecting the Public Notification of Infectious Diseases. By a Practitioner.” This cheerful production is kindly printed for the enlightenment of the members of the Legislature, and its evident intention is to deprive the Health Officer of all private practice. This is its main and highly charitable object. But there are other reasons mentioned in the preface for the production of the pamphlet. The “ Practitioner” states that he bases the position he maintains on nine data, and he says he has approached the general subject of sanitary inspection from every avenue in order to give a fair general idea of the peculiarities of the subject. If the “Practitioner” has in reality done this, the avenues loading to the subject must be remarkably few, because in reality there is nothing in the; pamphlet except, firstly, &■ number of' quotations given to prove that the notification of infectious diseases should bo made by the householder, and not by the medical attendant; secondly, a table of opinions as to the anomalous position of a public health officer engaged in private and public practice; and thirdly, a list

of the duties of a medical as ordered by the Local Government Board, March, 1880. Let us take the first section. The pamphlet, as wo have said, gives a number of quotations purporting to show that the notification of infectious diseases should bo made by the householder, and not by the medical attendant. The “ Practitioner ” has been at great pains to cull from all sources extracts agreeing with his particular view of the case. It is needless to say that opinions on the subject differ most considerable, and the question is quite an open one. The pamphlet would have led it to be inferred that the arguments lay all on one side, if it had not been for one amusing but unfortunate slip. A letter from Mr Orossley, President of the Sub-Committeo of the Leicester Medical Society, is inserted, quite taking the flew held by our friend the “Practitioner.” But an answer to that letter by Francis T. Bond, M.D., has inadvertently crept into the pamphlet, very considerably annihilating the devoted Orossley. Dr. Bond wonders that any body of medical men such as the Leicester Medical Society, should set themselves avowedly to obstruct a measure which is in the highest degree necessary in order to maintain the public health, and he adds; “ the resolution of the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the Association, which yon quote, so fully expresses the views which have been urged again and again in your columns, in the reports of medical officers of health in all parts of the kingdom, and a host of competent authorities in various other ways, that it 'is to be hoped the Leicester Medical Society will retire from a position in which they have so inconsiderately placed themselves.” It is unfortunate for the “ Practitioner ” that ho allowed this little letter to slip in—but then a man cannot be manager, cashier, and scene shifter all at once without occasionally making a mistake.

And then we come to the second point endeavored to be made by the pamphlet. It is entitled “ Opinions from ‘ Practitioners’ re anomalous position of a Public Health Officer engaged in private and public practice.” Now it may be observed that, in the previous section of the pamphlet, chapter and verse were given with most scrupulous care. But a delightful vagueness now creeps over the source of the opinions brought forward. Chapter and verso are carefally eschewed, and it is merely the “ Opinions of Practitioners.” In fact, not to put too fine a point upon it, the opinions are in reality those of the “Practitioner” himself —of the manager, cashier, scene-shifter; and ho gives no chapter and verse because, for the life of him, he cannot find any ! The third section of the pamphlet consists, as previously mentioned, of a list of the duties of a Medical Officer as ordered by the Local Government Board, March, 1880. Such is the latest addition to the literature devoted to the abuse of the Health Officer. Our space will not allow of ns going further into the subject at present, but we have thought it best to call public attention to the tactics which have been adopted in abusing a valued public officer.