Dr. S.W. Wheaton's report to the Local Government Board on diphtheria in the Enfield Urban District and on sanitary administration by the Urban District Council.

  • Wheaton, S. W.
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Dr. S.W. Wheaton's report to the Local Government Board on diphtheria in the Enfield Urban District and on sanitary administration by the Urban District Council. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    32/36 (page 30)
    of the salary from county funds, and pointed out that since Mr. Warren was a district medical officer their sanction was necessary, apart from the question of re])ayment, under the third paragraph of section 191 of the Public Health Act, 1875, • They stated that, before deciding whether they would permit Mr. Warren to hold the post of medical officer of health, they would instruct one of their medical inspectors to enquire into the sanitary circum- stances and administration of the district. They also added that section 18 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1888, prescribed the qualification necessary for the post of medical officer of health in a district which contained at the last published census a population of 50,000 or more, which qualification Mr, Warren did not possess, and that it was advisable that the council should make an appoint- ment which would satisfy these requirements, since the census of 1911 would probably show that Enfield had a population in excess of this number. The post of medical superintendent to the Enfield and Edmonton Joint Hospital, which had been held by the late medical officer of health of Enfield, and which it is most desirable should be held by the medical officer of health of one of the two districts comprising the joint hospital district, Avas also filled up by the appointment of another Enfield practitioner. Dr. R. H. Cook, M.D,, Aberdeen, at a salary of £200 per annum. It will thus be seen that three appointments, the duties of two at least of which might advantageously to the public interest have been performed by one individual, were distributed among three, none of whom has any public health qualification, and judging by the amount of remuneration, the post of medical officer of health Avas thought to be of the least importance. It will be obvious that an individual performing the duties of district medical officer and police surgeon in such a Avide district as Enfield, and having also a large private practice, cannot carry out the multifarious and responsible Avork of the medical officer of health of such a district. The fact that he has a practice extending nearly all over the district must tend to prevent his taking an unbiassed attitude, and his giving perhaps unwelcome advice to the council, members of Avhich may be his patients. The inspection of slaughterhouses, dairies, milkshojAS, and cowsheds, and of bake-houses, must necessarily bring him in conflict, on occasion, Avlth their owners, Avho may be his private patients. Under the existing arrangements the medical officer of health has no control over the inspection of school children in his district, or over the hospital for infectious diseases. The inspector of nuisances is Mr. A. J. Munro, Associate of the Royal Sanitary Institute. He receives £280 per annum, of which a half is repaid from county funds. There are also tAvo certificated assistant inspectors of nuisances and two office clerks. The InsjAectoi' of nuisances is responsible for the removal of house refuse, the flushing of seAvers and the emptying of cesspools. Mr. Munro has a very good knowledge of his distilct and is an active and energetic officer. Systematic inspections of the district are made and about 1,000 dwellings are examined yearly under ordinary cii’cumstances, but in 1908 OAving to the extra Avork required in dealing with the outbreak of diphtheria the sanitary statf has not been sufficient to allow of this Avork being continued.