On the importance and practicability of a standard classification of impaired lives / by S.W. Carruthers.

  • Carruthers, Samuel Williams, 1866-
Date:
[1905]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: On the importance and practicability of a standard classification of impaired lives / by S.W. Carruthers. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    19/26 page 15
    in that direction by one large company, though a long time must elapse, possibly years, before the results of such an elaborate investigation could be worked out to a practical conclusion. It would add materially to the value of the results if other actuaries would likewise obtain experience from the records at their disposal. It might even be suggested that now that the Institute had practically completed its laborious researches into the rates of mortality amongst healthy assured lives, it would not be an inappropriate task for them to enter upon a similar research into the comparatively untrodden ground of impaired lives. Dr. Light thought that both actuaries and doctors must feel grateful to the author for his valuable paper on so important a subject, which especially called for the co-operation of the actuary and the doctor. The Melville Dewey scheme of notation and classification of under-average lives seemed to him a most excellent method if elaborate detail were needed, but from his experience in the classification of those lives he could confidently say that minute sub-divisions were not only unnecessary, but they were impossible for the purpose of an investigation such as the author suggested. What was required was a simpler system without elaboration, or the Melville Dewey scheme of notation much simplified. The one he had adopted, although by no means perfect, was that described by Mr. Rusher, in which the letters of the alphabet represented the main headings and the suffixes the classifications. It was simple, easily memorized, and rapidly worked. He considered that more than one letter on the subject of a heading would be liable to much confusion. For instance, there were five recognized reasons for rating up a life; (1) blemished family history ; (2) blemished personal history ; (3) distinct personal defects ; (4) personal conditions of doubtful medical significance ; (5) unfavourable conditions of life. He thought the great majority of those cases would fall under one working heading—some would fall under two, some would come under three—but in those compound cases the one heading would be of greater importance as compared with the others, and be the principal reason for rating up the life. He would suggest, to prevent confusion, that such a life be classed under its most important heading, and any less important flaws worthy of record entered somewhere else than under that heading. With regard to the first heading of blemished family history, be would like to point out that, apart from consumption and cancer, the other headings were of minor importance, and would not require any sub-divisions, such as those given by the author under the heading of family history of bronchitis. As far as the result of his own investigations went, it seemed to him that all lives rated up for personal blemish—for instance, bronchitis—would have to be placed under their main heading, irrespective of family history and other minor flaws, in order to get sufficient data to produce reliable results. For the same reason it would be found impracticable to split up the data for pleurisy; but even if it were practicable, he failed to see where the information was forthcoming to enable such a division to be made. What they must hope to obtain were reliable average mortality tables for the different classes
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3