Hospital Boards Seeking Stricter Hydatids Control

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28866, 10 April 1959, Page 12

Hospital Boards Seeking Stricter Hydatids Control

(Mew zeaiana Press Association)

NAPIER, April 9. Neither the present Government nor its predecessor had seen fit to institute any control of hydatids and the conditions today in New Zealand were deplorable, said Mr J. B. Barnett, chairman of the Marlborough Hospital Board, speaking to a remit sponsored by his board at the Hospital Boards’ Association conference today.

While some organisations in New Zealand, notably Federated Farmers, had endeavoured to institute control they were concerned at the results because many dog owners just laughed at them, said Mr Barnett.

The conference passed an amended remit seeking to make it an offence to feed raw offal to dogs and to make regular dosing of dogs compulsory. The Marlborough remit, in its original form, contained a third clause seeking a “stiff” fine for owning or controlling an undosed dog. This clause was deleted.

Mr Barnett said that, so far, there had been no adequate control of the disease. “The scientists tell us how to control it and have recommended control measures for the last two or three yedrs, but still we have no compulsion,” he said. “But we know the extent of the suffering in New Zealand as the result of the disease.”

Mr H. Caldwell (Inangahua): To talk about destroying a dog is wrong. It is control of the dog that is wanted. We want the cooperation of the townspeople with what is being done by Federated Farmers and others.

Mr C. M. Talbot (South Canterbury): Prevention is better than cure. The Government should

make it compulsory. All local bodies are trying to get the Government to do this.

Dr. G. F. Smart (Marlborough): It is a relatively simple matter to test a dog. If it has hydatid worms, then the owner has been feeding it offal and is guilty of neglect. If a man neglects the brakes of his car, he is a menace to the community. If he neglects a dog, he should be penalised. Dr. Smart said it was necessary to get at those who neglected their dogs and there should be a stiff penalty on owners of dogs which were found to be harbouring the disease. He opposed the deletion of the third clause in the remit.