IS THERE DANGER?

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 119, 16 November 1933, Page 9

IS THERE DANGER?

DIPHTHERIA CARRIERS

QUESTION OF ISOLATION

Some concern'was expressed at a meeting of the Lower Hutt Borough Council in October that a diphtheria carrier had not been immediately sent to hospital when discovered, and that ho had been sent only when several cases had developed in tho same home.

The Chief Officer of Health assured; the . council ■at its meeting on Monday that it was not considered dangerous to allow a carrier to remain under proper supervision in the home. Writing on the particular case he stated:—"With reference _to the carrier at Mudie Street the routine circular which' outlines the precautions desirable was gjven to the guardians ot the child. These people should have been able as well as anyone else to carry out what was required, especially as the boy was about twelve years old. When the subsequent easo developed it was not on the instructions of anyone iv this Department; that the carrier was sent to the hospital;'however, no doubt in view of the apparent failure of the parents to adhere to the precautions advised we would have followed a similar course. It should be recollected that the carrier was not permitted to attend school. While ; it ia impossible, unneces-. sary, as shown, by general experience, and even inadvisable, to admit carriers as a routine to hospital, yet discretion is shown in the matter by medical officers, and soinetinies, if' the circumstances are exceptional,' the medical superintendent of, a ' hospital is apr; proached to admit a carrier. In the case under discussion there /were really no reasons • why, the'■. precautions desirable should not hav.e been carried out just as well as they are successfully carried out in many other homes of the same typo. I can assure.you that whero circumstances obviously contra-indicatc a carrier remaining at' home, such will continue to b© sent to; hospital ,as in the past, and that .this point is always considerod. Where, however, there is no apparent contra-iri'dication, tho guardians must accept responsibility for the proper supervision of the child at home, as set out in. the circular of instructions which is always issued." Councillor Campbell: Generally speaking possibly tho course taken by the Health Department is all right, but in this case it was all wrong. I think'good has been'done by drawing attention to the matter, ''.'.. .' ■.■.'