[Report 1955] / Medical Officer of Health, West Sussex County Council.

  • West Sussex (England). County Council.
Date:
1955
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1955] / Medical Officer of Health, West Sussex County Council. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    26/56 page 22
    CANCER Cancer was responsible for 839 deaths (539 being persons over 65 years of age). This shows a decrease of 26 as compared with the previous year. This is the second highest number of deaths recorded, though this rate is the lowest since 1949. The provisional death rate for England and Wales from cancer for 1955 was 2,o6, so that the rate for the County is above that for the country as a whole. It iri.ll be seen Iron the chart on page 10, shewing causes of death, that cancer was responsible for 17.9% of the deaths during 1955* The following Table shews the number of deaths and death rate from cancer recorded in the County during the last ten years;- 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 — 1953 1954 1955 Admin. County No. of Deaths 691 673 68l 774 7 66 817 784. 812 865 839 Death Rate per 1,000 pop. 2.38 2.25 2.19 CO r-n CM 2.42 2.57 2.45 2.48 2.56 2.41 With the increased facilities for diagnosis and treatment now available for many types of cancer, the aim of public health propaganda should be to educate people to seek medical advice as soon as sus¬ picious symptoms or signs appear. The mortality rate can be lowered by this means, for the earlier treatment is instituted the more chance there is of complete recovery, and the most promising line of attack is on these conditions which are easily observable by the patient in the early stages - cancer of the breast, the uterus, the skin, the lips, and the tongue. i No. of Deaths from Cancer Sanitary Di stri ct Malignant Neoplasm Total Cancer Death Rate Stomach Lung, Breast Uterus Other Bronchus Organs Urban Districts;- Arundel (M.B.) 2 1 3 1 3 10 3.8 Bognor Regis 8 11 9 6 30 64 2.5 Chichester (M.B.) 3 6 6 4 26 45 2.4 Horsham 5 10 2 4 17 38 2.2 Littlehampton 4 10 2 — 17 33 2.3 Shore ham-by-S ca 4 7 5 3 15 34 2.4 Southwick 2 5 3 l 14 25 2.3 Worthing (M.B.) 17 44 26 8 133 228 3«3 Total Urban Districts 45 94 56 27 255 477 2.7 Rural Districts;- C hanc tonbury 6 9 7 1 29 52 2.4 Chichester 5 26 8 2 47 82 1.8 Horsham 7 12 14 1 48 82 1.7 Midhurst 7 9 3 1 25 45 2.7 Petworth 2 5 2 1 7 17 ■ 1.8 Worthing 10 12 8 4 50 84 2.7 Total Rural Districts .37 67 42 10 206 362 : 2.1 Administrative County 82 161 CO ca 37 461 839 — 2.4 L
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3