FIGHT AGAINST V.D.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 January 1923, Page 3

FIGHT AGAINST V.D.

j Till'. VALUE OF EDUCATION

j AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. ; WELLINGTON. January 17. Education as a factor in the control of venereal disease, was the subject of paper by Dr E. Sydney Morris. Dir- • i-tiir of Public i lealtli. T asmania, read before Hie hygiene .section of the enn-gtc-s. In In'. .Morris’s opinion legislai inn w'iis really a sulisidiary factor in i lie control of venereal disease. The rood effects issuing from the law were doe more to consequent public education and facilities for treatment which did not require legislation than to any inherent virtue in tile law itself. Dr. J. S. Elliott, in opening the discussion on Dr. Morris’s paper, said lie 1 would Ii Ist* to say a few words to counteract any tendency likely to throw unwarranted discredit on the effects which might accrue from notification as ! one of tin* partial remedies for the j eradication of venereal disease. Dr .Morris, in discussing a' question which bristled with difficulties had glossed over the difficulties inseparable from every method of combating venereal disease, with the notable exception of acting as a special pleader to unduly emphasise the difficulties in tile wav of legislative control by means of conditional notification. Education and facilities I'm- treatment had tlieir own special difficulties which should fairly have equal prominence with legislative difficulties if Dr. Morris’s paper were in perspective and drawn to scale. •']

had flip privilege,” said Di Elliott, “of being a member of the Committee oi tile New Zealand Board of Health which recently investigated very exhaustively tile question of venereal disease. This committe made numerous pm* nsjils, including education and . increased facilities lor treatment, and j among other recommendations included ! provisional notification, therefore we do not come into the eategorv of those "tin. lo quote Dr At iris, ‘rely entirely mi legislation, contending that it is capable of controlling tin* source of these diseases.’ Dr Morris in bis de- | sire to give prominence to education j and facilities for treatment, bad stated I that notification legislation had bad the good effect of educating the public j and facilitating treatment. The logij cal conclusion which |)r Morris fails i to see. would only be l bat anything which led to good results must of necessity he good in itself. If Dr Morris had realised this at tile beginning of his thesis he would not have pioceeded to si:i- up prejudice and opposition against notification. In any case thiwork could not have been n eongeni.il one for the director of public health, tor m i ili-.it ion was essential in the control oi all ■ nlagion- diseases, and venereal disease:, from a public health point id view could not logically he ticntml different l\ front sm-h less important diseases as scnilet lever and diphtheria. 11 is objection to imtificati’nn was really an attack on a section of the medical profession. These do.tor- (lie author had said were too oare-t"-s in their methods or too lazy to attend to the duty ot notification, or they fered tint they might he sub,l''d lo lie abuse of i veil lei t rant patients, i.e.. o! vile people who thought (hey were tree to remain infective end :i danger to the community. U"t the nip of humiliation is not yet full, for Dr Morris’s ptopbesies Hint this decline in public spirit. or sbal! I s-a.v honesty of the. me li-at pru-le-sj,ii. will continue until tin law of not alien I ion becomes ;v tie,ad !e;f >*•. Tins 's- I think as great an error as Ins prog link I halt ions that if tile Inst trc.itmeui is given tree and no quosHoii.s n-Teil of patients ‘the vast majority ot putmuts would proceed v’tu ircatan and he guided hv their ncdm.-il advisers.’ The weight of evidence is agaiii.-t Dr Morris, for in our v.'tn rt : ! disease clinics in New Zealand we ban* Hu* conditions postulated by him and ' cneiv.il dis.nse medical officers find 1 h:t! the majority oi the patients Jo not proceed with the treatment. Of •Lose all favour notification of recalcitrant patients.” I Dr Elliott quoted figures u> show 'he percentage ot cases attending clinics at the four centres till they were noninlective. and in no single instance was tm* purcelitagi* ot those who remained under treatment very large.

Di Wilkins, director of Die division ol Sclml Hygiene, was the next speak- (’■’■ lie said be was not in u po-ifimi to expiv-s a definite opinion on the mati or ol non-notitieatimi. but he would sa.v he wa.s in agreement with Dr Morris as regarded the question of (■(location. It was a difficult thing to deal with, a- there were a tremendous number of points requiring attention. I !<( held very strongly that we would have, to begin on general lines and begin only and deal in a frank and .straightforward manner with the (hikl. and he thought it should be Lrcntcd rather as an educational matter than a, medical one. Dr Harvey Sutton (president, of the section) said li< felt sure Dr Morris’s attitude »;i, .simply due to ((insiderable pessimism, as the basis of the medical profession in Tasmania was not on all lours with that in other (itie.s of tlu Commonwealth, and particularly New Zealand. Personally, be could not see. bow the principle of dealing with infectious disease, con Id be given up in regard to .syphilis, and be instanced the opposition which e; curred in regard to notification ol pulmonary tuberculosis some years ago. There was no doubt the gene! a I consensus of opinion was in favour ol notification, and it needed a very Dinning!) trial before one got to the ,'-uteri, which apparently Dr Morris had reached. In his opinion it wax qin : linnahle whether education on sex matters given by an outside person would not giv: a prominence to the subject which was undesirable. He gate instances of what was being done 1 the present tints in Australia, notably b.v tlie ( hnrcli of England who through the medium of bishops had i'-ued a booklet which consisted of instruction to parents on the best methods of imparting this knowledge to tueir children, and also the preparation of three sets of lectures by secondary school authorities in many of the b. schools. Those two measures - : nil! to have been well accepted, and practically no complaints had been heard from parents on the steps taken with :> view to imparting knowledge to their children. In conclusion Dr Sutten -aid that to a. great extent he £o. d v.lth Dr Morris about the question of education, but on the other band lie agreed with everything I)r Elliott had said as regarded the importance of compulsory notification.