THE PUBLIC HEALTH.

NZ Truth, Issue 91, 16 March 1907, Page 4

THE PUBLIC HEALTH.

INFECTIOUS CASES ON { PUBLIC VEHICLES. , \

A Woman Charged— Case

Dismissed.

There are some excellent pro- , visions m the New Zealand HeattoAct which .deals with persons, who suffering from any infectious disease ride m any public conveyance, without informing those m. charge or without taking any precautions against the spread of that disease. The wisdom of such provisions need not be dealt with, but the frequency of prosecutions for breaches of this law show how utterly it is disregarded and the danger travellers m train, tram, cab, coach or any vehicle run through this disregard is the best reason why the Health Department sihould persist m .hauling offenders before the police court. Either a doctor's error m diagnosing a suspicious throat as a case of diptheria or the Health Department's hastiness m safeguarding tfie public health was responsible for the prosecution of a respectable married woman, named Clara. Wachner, at the S.M.s Court last Monday, .before Dr. McArthur, S.M., 'for a. breach of the Health Act for travelling ; on a tram, while suffering from ' dipthe'ria, and not notifying- the conductor that she was so suffering, and taking any precautions against the spread of that disease. '-■ ■-„:■

Mr M. Myers prosecuted, and the defendant, for whom -Mr Wilford appeared, pleaded not guilty.

The facts were rather curious, inasmuch as on Feb. 21, the defendant was attended by' Dr. H. A. G-ilmer. He examined her and his opinion was that she was suffering from diptheria. He communicated the fact, , per telephone, to the Health Department that Mrs Wachner was suffering from diptheria. He considered, he said to Mr Myers, that the symptoms were consistent with diptheria, and he told the patient that his suspicions were that she was suffering from that disease, and that the wisest thing she could do would be to go to Ijtie hospital, and that he' would make arrangements for her removal.' Later on she said she had changed her mind re going to the- hospital, and the doctor told; her that unless she got another medical: opinion she must go, and thesbther doctor would have to accept the respohsi'btility. When questioned by Mr Wjlford, Dr. Gilmer said he knew nothing of the subsequent course of the case. Are you prepared to take your oath that it was diptheria ?r-No ; my opinion ' was that it was diptheria. •.",'■■

A doctor could not be run m for giving his opinion if /he was wrong ? -I would not take my oath that it was diptheria. The woman, it seems, had told Dr. Gilmer 'that months before she had been treated by Dr. Alexander for an affection of the throat, and she had < ! told Dr. Gilmer that she knew a little" better than he what was wrong with her, and that she had hot got diptheria. The doctor adhered to his. opinion about the disease and mentioned such symptoms as patches on the throat, and it was safer for everybody that she should have ;gone to the hospital.' ... , v. ■ .... ■ ■ •

' '■'* 'Even though ? otrmight. foe w ( rong , " asked MrWilford, to which the 'doctor replied, "Yes.. 1 ' ' In submitting, that the case should be dismissed Mr Wilford contended that before any individual ( could be convicted of suoh a charge, it was required that .the individual should possess the knowledge ,that he had diptheria, and that' it should be proved that he had . diptheria I—otherwise1 — otherwise the prosecution 'was ridiculous. He himself had been told that he vhad | : A CANCEROUS GROWTH

m his throat and he had to travel all the way to s England, to' have it attended to, but fofaid that he had been wrongly advised m New Zealand. If he was told, that he was suffering from traumatic rieuresthenia or cerebral meningitis by- any Wellington doctor he would,' want to know more about, it. .He suffered every year from hay . fever , and if a doctor told him he had , asthma he would say no, and that the doctor was wrong. . ■ • . Dr. Ewart, m charge of the Wellington Hospital, i wa's called. He said Mrs Wachner had come to the hospital and was suffering from throat trouble. He would, not .take his oath that it was diptheria. y In answer to Mr Myers, Dr. -Ewart said he treated \her as for a diptheric throat. He whs inclined to think that she was not '"suffering: from diptheria. He had informed the Healt) 1 Department l that it was a doubtful case. i

In diagnosing the case, would you have taken. the same course as Dr. Gilmer ?— Yes. ;

The. defendant then went into the witness box anil told the same story as -Dr. v Gilmer. She said she told him that on a former occasion Dr. Alexander had treated her for < ulceration of the throat.

Dr. McArthur dismissed the information, and Mr Wilford asked to be allowed the same fee (£3 3s) that would have been awarded Mr Myers had he succeeded.

Mr Myers : My friend knows that the Health Department . only did its duty.

Mr Wilford : It seems to be a case of beads they win and tails we lose.

Dr. McArthur : I say this : it was her bounden duty to have walked to the hospital. Mr vuford : Just because a doctor said it was bis opinion' that she was suffering from diptheria ? i Dr. MoArthur : Yes. ' Mr Wilford : You have more faith m doctors than- 1 have.