THE PUBLIC HEALTH.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12401, 15 January 1901, Page 4

THE PUBLIC HEALTH.

The discussion at the meeting of the City Council last evening concerning the supposed case of leprosy served to show how unsatisfactory is the position in Christchurch with regard to the care of the public health. It was obviously necessary that the patient should be isolated, and that she should have proper attention and treatment, and the City Council is originally the local body responsible for the arrangements. But the Council, like the other local bodies in the district, ihas practically contracted with the Hospital Board to arrange for the care of the sick, and the* Board, we know, draws a considerable portion of its revenue from these local bodies. Naturally the Council was under the impression that it had ceased to be responsible for the health of individuals, and quite reasonably it looked to the Hospital to take charge of this troublesome ease. Morally it is the duty of the Hospital to make prevision for such emergencies, but legally.it can ignore the duty, and the Council, as Dr Mason pointed out, is bound to do the work itself. There is just a suspicion in the minds of the public that the Hospital authorities are not very willing to look after troublesome cases, and that they are a little too ready to raise objections to the reception of patients sent to them by the Charitable Aid Board audi the police. During the past few years there have been altogether too many differences of opinion between the Hospital Board and other public authorities, and the result has sometimes been disastrous to the unfortunate patient. It is high time the duty of the Board was clearly defined and the contributing local foodies should come to an understanding on the question without delay. With regard 1 to the present case, Dr Maeon has been forced to exercise the powers vested in him by the Health Act, and) we are (beginning to realise the value of that measure. If the City Council had refused to carry out his recommendations the Chief Health Officer would simply have made the necessary arrangements himself at the expense of the Council. The public cannot be allowed to suffer through the disputes or the apathy of local bodies, and we hope that Dr Mason's firm attitude will always be imitated by the district officers. That some friction would occur-as soon as the neW> Act was put 'into force was inevitable,.'but no doubt the present proceedings will lead to a better understanding between the Health Officer and the City Council. It would be well, however, to make permanent arrangements for the treatment of infectious and dangerous diseases that cannot be safely received into the general hospital, and to our mind the Hospital Board lis the proper authority to deal with the matter.