[Report 1939] / Medical Officer of Health, Derbyshire County Council.

  • Derbyshire (England). County Council
Date:
1939
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1939] / Medical Officer of Health, Derbyshire County Council. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/34 (page 5)
    The intention to my mind was- that such a number of midv/ives should be appointed as, taking into consideration the independent midwives, v;ould be reasonable in view of the population of the area, upon broad coramonsense lines. It is clear that the original proposals as approved by the Minister had been carried out by the Authority and were being acted upon on the 21st Feb. 1939 and it has not been suggested that there has been any material increase in the population. Under these oix’cumstances and upon the evidence placed before me I find as a fact that the Derbyshire County Council had not failed to secure an adequate number of midvirives for the area of part Ilkeston. As to the question, of a relief fpr.lTurse Fisher, I'find no negligence on the part of tpe, Derbyshire County Council* It was certainly unfortunate - which might happen in cases of sudden emergency. - The Council had done all they could do, their instructions had been carried out but unfortunately the free nurse got a very late call, and immediately went over. My judgment is strengthened in that at the hearing a file of correspondence was disclosed v/hich shov/ed that the Corporation of Ilkeston had made a complaint to the Minister upon the matter involved in this Action when it v/as recognised by him that the Council appreciated the circumstances of the Borough of Ilkeston and had regard to the maintenance of o. c5omici].iary midwifery service adequate to tb.e needs of the Borough. I have dealt with the facts but another defence ¥/as raised viz., that the breaches, if any, were non-feasances upon the part of the Council for Y/hich an Action would not lie. A number of cases were cited by both Counsel and I need only add 1. That the Statute Imposed a nev^r obligation upon the Authority. 2. The obligation was to render assistance to women at time of child-birth, 3. Such obligation was to do something for the public generally or for so large a body of persons that they could only be dealt Y/ith '*en masse”. 4. That the Statute discloses no intention to give a private right of action in addition to the remedies provided in case of f ail'ore. 5. The Statute itself provides in v/hat v\ray any breach of its provisions may be enforced viz., under. S. 104 L*G.A. 1929. JUDGLSirr. The Action be dismissed Y;ith costs Scale C« The plaintiff to have the costs of Defendants application to the Registrar to strike out the claim also,upon their appeal to the Judge, (Signed) TIITSLEY LIllDLEY.