TUBERCULOSIS BILL

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25549, 17 July 1948, Page 2

TUBERCULOSIS BILL

SUPPORT URGED BY DOCTOR CRITICISM OF AUCKLAND REPORT “We should back up the bill to the full, for it will provide a solid foundation on which a real start can .be made,’’ said Dr. W. Gordon Rich, president of the New Zealand Federation of Tuberculosis Associations, yesterday, when commenting on a report in the “New Zealand Herald” of an Auckland specialist’s views on the Tuberculosis Bill which has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The Auckland specialist, who was not named, said in the report that he could see nothing revolutionary in the legislation. It reaffirmed certain regulations that already existed, but it did not get away from the fact that there were not enough nurses to nurse the people who were suffering from tuberculosis in hospitals. “Legislation or no legislation, the whole tuberculosis control programme of the last 15 or 20 years is breaking down because there are more cases of open tuberculosis at present being looked after in their own homes, instead of being segregated in hospitals,” he added. “No matter what odd quirks may be picked up by this new legislation, it is not very far in advance of what exists at present. April 1 is a good day to make it effective.”

Dr. Rich said he thought it was quite safe to support the bill. It did reaffirm many regulations and prohibitions which already existed, but, of necessity, these were naturally included in it. There was nothing in it to find fault with, and several clauses would have an important effect in the prevention and treatment of the disease. “One of the most important clauses is the one dealing with provisions for warning those living with a patient, and another is the proposed isolation up to three .jnprjths, on a magistrate’s order, of people who would not submit to treatment and were likely to spread infection,” he said.

The bill was criticised because many patients had to be nursed in their own homes, continued Dr. Rich. The shortage of nurses and hospital accommodation, however, was not the fault of the Government. There was a worldwide shortage. The immunisation of nurses would be of value, and it was to be hoped that more staff would be recruited in the near future. Nurses caring for patients suffering from tuberculosis received an extra £25 a year and considerable improvements Lad been made to conditions.

Great hopes were being entertained that the B.C.G. vaccine would be of great benefit in reducing the incidence of new cases, added Dr. Rich. The vaccine, the full name of which was Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, was prepared from bovine tuberculous bacilli, which by special treatment had lost their power to produce the disease, but which retained the power of producing tuberculosis immunity when injected into the human body.