SEPTICAEMIA CRUSADE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18949, 21 February 1925, Page 10

SEPTICAEMIA CRUSADE.

FAILURE TO NOTIFY. WAIHI DOCTOR CONVICTEDA "REASONABLE SUSPICION." tB V Tl-: I.EC! 11A Pit. —OW X con It ESI* ON DEN T. ] HAMILTON. Friday. Tho ease in which the Health Department proceeded against Dr. W. Fulton, of Waihi (Mr. Fergusson), for failing to notify a reasonable suspicion of a case, of septicaemia at Waihi in August, 1924, was resumed at, Hamilton before Mr. 11. A. \ oung. S.M., to-day. The case was previously adjourned to enable medical evidence to bo called from Waihi. .Mr. H. T. Gillies appeared for the department. Addressing the Bench, Mr. Gillies said Iho question was whether there was any reasonable suspicion which Dr. Fulton should have notified to the department. Ho submitted that, defendant's actions and precautions showed that ho suspected septicaemia. The medical profession was loath to make a notification of a ''Tom fool" case. The doctors apparently thought that, they should make certain that tho case was one of .septicaemia before notifying tilt; department. That was a wrong impression. When any suspicious symptoms arose it -was the doctor's duty to notify the department that there was a reasonable suspicion. The department, had been pleased with the steps taken by Dr. Fulton to prevent tho spread of the trouble when it had been finally diagnosed, but the charge against him was of failing to r.otifv a "reasonable suspicion" that septicaemia was present. Strict observance of the regulations was necessary for the health of the community iu general, even though it might entail considerable trouble to medical men, and also make ,'■ likely that "mares nests" might be raised, 'flic department was prepared, 'to take the "mare's nests." so long as all the genuine cases were discovered. In delivering judgment the ma cist rate said defendant, had professionally attended a woman at a maternity home. After (he confinement a certain sickness had arisen, and from the evidence called it had been shown that there were, reasonable grounds for suspicion of an infectious disease. Defendant would be convicted. A fine of £5 was imposed, and defendant. was ordered to pay £8 17s costs.