SCARLET FEVER.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17288, 2 October 1916, Page 3

SCARLET FEVER.

'«« THE OTHER SIDE."

DR FGSTER T S COMMENT& Dr A. Foster, when lecturing on Saturday evening at the Workers' Educational Association rooms, referred to the recent scarlet fever outbreak in Ohristchurch, and Baid that only one side of the case had appeared in the newspapers. There were, he said, two sides to this question. Doctors did not know what germ was responsible for scarlet fever, as it had never been definitely identified, i Scarlet fever was a disease that mainly attacked very young children or very old people. Between the ages of three and fifty years thero was much about the same risk of catching the complaint. It was not really known bow the infection was conveyed or whether tho germ responsible existed outside the human body, nor how long tho germ could survive. He believed that scarlet fever was a disease that must be transferred directly, that was, from the patient to another person. Many early theories had been discarded. At one time it was thought that the risk of infection was greatest at the time a patient was " peeling," but it was now accepted that the small flakes of skin were not carriers of infection. Scarlet fever germs infected clothing to a very small extent; indeed this risk was almost negligible. That belief was held by the leading authorities in England, France and America. WHERE EXPERTS DIFFER..

Continuing, Dr Foster said that a lot of controversy had taken place recently in Ohristchurch, and, summed up, the views of the two schools of thought were as follow:—(1) The adherents 1 of one school declared that tho scarlet fever germ existed for all time, and could live apart from the human body, and if it got into clothing could survive for twenty years, so tenacious of life was this incorrigible and impracticable germ. (2) The other theory—and he was the author of it—stated that scarlet fever was a very common disease, and frequently the attack was so very mild that the patient did-not know he had the disease. He became a little feverish, but after a few hours irness ho seemed to be all right again. Such patients were not laid upandiwcnt about their duties, passing the disease on That was the only satisfactory exp'anation of the sprccd of the recent epidemic. The scarlet fever gorm was rarely carried by clothing. If it were, doctors and nurses would always be in trouble. They had heard a great deal of evidence as to the precautions medical men took when visiting scarlet fever patients, but speaking from thirty

years' experience he would say that it was not possible to.J:now always when scarlet fever was,present. Frequently, as in the mild capes he had referred to. the patient showed no sign of the disease, and the-medical man would not know what he was dealing with. Scarlet fever was not a disease easily conveved by a third person. BRITISH AND NEW ZEALAND LAWS. The interpretation of the law in New Zealand, ackicd Dr Foster, is different from that in.ether parts of tho world. In England if the clothing of an infected person is bought or sold, that is a

breach of the law. Nothing is said about visitors to a patient having their clothing disinfected, and ho had never heard of a prosecution taking plßce for neglecting to disinfect 6uch clothing. The New Zealand law—and such law was purely New Zealand—was unjustified from cvery-day experience. He. of course, was not advocating carelessness. Leading authorities in England said that the disease could not be conveyed by a third person, but the New ZeaJairid law said otherwise. The. Health Department, to carry out the matter to its logical conclusion, should issue permits to doctors and nurses to break the law. DR PAIRMAN'S APPOINTMENT. At the conclusion of Dr Foster's address Mr L. U. Whitehead, in moving

p. vote of thanks to the lecturer, said chat in giving the address l>r Foster nad not only been courteous but courageous. It. appeared that there was a sort of inquisition in Christchurch 'to restrict scientific discussion. An instance had open the attitude adopted by the Hospital Board at its recent meeting towards the appointment as surgeon of Dr J. C. Pairman, simply, because that doctor had opinions opposed to thoso of the board's He (the speaker), thought a public protest should be made, and he would movo that this meeting expresses its regret that several members of the Hospital Beard voted against the appointment, of Dr Pairman, on the grounds of the difference of opinion on a scientific question. Dr bymes supported the motion, and criticised the attitude adopted by some members of the Hospital Board. He said that such action was very regretable, as many a medical man in Christchurch was dependent for his success in life on the Hospital Board, which could make or mar a doctor's career. To go against a doctor simply because ho would keep his oath to speak the truth and nothing but the truth, and would not say that black was white was a serious matter. To damn a man because ho would not speak except as his conscience directed him was very terrible. (Hear, hear.) He knew that Dr Pairman and Dr Foster had both attended the recent Police Court proceedings against their will. They were not anxious to attend.

Dr Foster said that the question resolved itself into whether a doctor should have true liberty of conscience. The motion was carried unanimously.