The Attorney-General and others -v- The Mayor, aldermen & citizens of the city of Nottingham. Minutes of evidence (February 10 - February 15, 1904).

  • Great Britain. High Court of Justice. Chancery Division.
Date:
[1904?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The Attorney-General and others -v- The Mayor, aldermen & citizens of the city of Nottingham. Minutes of evidence (February 10 - February 15, 1904). Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    255/284 (page 251)
    as small-pox being spread around a hospital by these means ?—I Kebi uaiy 15; iyo4 should not say it was very difficult. One would hardly be justified in placing these hospitals anywhere if it was veiy difficult. ^' '^'''^ Mr. Justice FARM^ELL : He quahfies it by saying that at A least it would seem so. 2824. Mr. UPJOHN: I read that my Lord. -'In selecting, therefore, a site from the isolation of this disease it is well on these grounds to choose one some distance away from a densely populated area. Do you agree with that ?—^Yes. B 2825. In selecting a site for the hospital the object should be to minimise every risk ?—Certainly. 2826. I am sure if you were selecting a site—whether yon agree I do not know and I am not going to ask you, because 1 am not going to ask my Lord to decide the point whether you do or do not 0 agree with this view as to the atmosphei'ic dissemination of infection, you would probably agree with me that no gentleman in selecting a site ought to let that view - which is held by a very large body of eminent persons—out of sight Of course they f)ught not to over- look that view, but at the same time the difference of o]jinion is so H gieat and the preponderance of opinion in my opinion being the other way, it ought not to weigh very heavily with an authoi-ity and involve an authority in large expenditure for that reason only. 2827. So far as reported cases go, the conclusion on the part of the investigators in every case T have seen, except Warrington - E —because in Warrington the hospital was so much in the centre of the population that you did not want any theory to account for it. It was that the hospital had acted as a centre for the dissemination of the disease ?—I do not think Dr. Bridges agreed with that in the case of Fulham. I beg your pardon, I was there thinking of aerial E convection. 2828. Dr. Bridges did agree ?—Yes, he did, I beg your pardon. 2829. I will not trouble you about it, because we know his views ?—Yes. 2830. But in every case, except Warrington—where, a.s 1 sciy, Cr it is Dr. Savill's report—Dr. Savill says that it is not necessary to consider it at all, but in every other case others who investigated it on the spot did come to the conclusion ?—You are talking now of the investigations conducted by the Local (jovernment Board. 2831. Sometimes by the Local Government Board, and some H times by independent persons being medical officers of health ? — Then I cannot say by any means in every case.