THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1907. THE INFECTIOUS DISEASES HOSPITAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13834, 22 February 1907, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1907. THE INFECTIOUS DISEASES HOSPITAL.

The discussion yesterday, at the conference of representatives from local authorities to consider the basis upon which it is proposed to levy contributions towards the erection of an infectious diseases hospital in Dunedin would have been unnecessary if the delegates themselves aud the bodies they represented had more fully appreciated the actual state of affairs. It was no part of the business of the meeting to decide whether there should or should not be an infectious diseases hospital or whether the local authorities' outside Dunedin and the suburbs immediately surrounding the : city, should or ghould not tear

a portion of the cost of erection and maintenance of the institution. Those are points that have already been settled by the Chief Health Officer, in exercise- of the powers conferred ou him by law, if by nobody else. It was consequently a mere heating of the air to debate solemnly the question of whether this borough council and that county council should be excepted ■ from the scope of the scheme. It was, nevertheless, interesting to hare the arguments of the local bodies in the country marshalled, as they were by the Mayors'of Milton and Kaitaugata, the chairmen of the Bruce and "Waihemo County Conn, cils, and others, against their being rated for the provision anil upkeep of the hospital. The main ground of objection is that in the event of a case of infectious disease arising in a country district the patient cannot, under the existing law, he. removed to the hospital in Dunedin for treatment: the case must, as the Chief Health Officer readily admitted, be isolated and treated iii the country. And since the country patients would not occupy beds in the hospital itself the representatives of the country districts urged that it would bo unjust to require their local bodies to contribute to the Hospital Board any proportion of the cost of tho maintenance- of the institution. This argument rests), however, upon a misapprehension. Whother the case of infectious disease is conveyed to tho hospital and treated there, or whether it is made the subject of local treatmeut, the authority responsible by law to the Public Health Department for the isolation and care of tho patient is the Hospital Board. Even if it were possiblo for any local authority in the country to secure exemption from the liability to contribute towards the maintenance of an infectious diseases hospital, still, as the Chief Health Officer said, the'onus of looking after a case arising in the district over which the jurisdiction of thatlocal authority ordinarily extends- would rest on tho Hospital Board. Tho country delegates all made a point- of the fact that their local bodies have been providing in the past for the treatment of the cases of infectious disease arising within their respective bounds. Whether the treatment has always been as effective as it might have been to prevent the spread of infection is a point concerning which, Dr Ogston seemed to imply, a certain amount of doubt may exist. But all this attention on the part of these bodies to the cases of disease occurring at their doors, has involved them in an expenditure which probably has never been less than £5 per case. From this liability the law has relieved them. It has become the duty of the Hospital Board to provide the accommodation and the attention for these cases. And seeing that the cost of isolating and treating patients in country districts must be much greater per head than the cost of treating' patients in the hospital, the urban ratepayers really have more legitimate cause than tho country residents have to complain of the arrangement which makes the care of the sufferers from infectious disease a duty of tho Hospital Board. But they recognise, we hope, as tho people of Bruce, Clutha, and Waihemo should also recognise, that- there must bo some central authority which shall bo charged with the responsibility for the treatment of cases of infectious disease as they arise in the hospital district. The matter is not one that can always be effectively handled hy independent local action. Upon an entirely different point Dr Batchelor expressed an objection to the Health Officer's proposals. The scale of allocations that wero submitted to the conference was based on the assumption that the cost of the erection of an infectious diseases hospital on the site near Lake Logan would be £2500. Dr Batehelor offered the opiuion that there would not lie half a dozen cases in a year necessitating hospital treatment. The view he took that it is far better to isolate patients in their own homes than in hospitals is not one., we are sure, which he would advance as a general proposition. Everything depends upon the class of the homes and of tlie facilities available in them for isolation. But it is a reasonable contention that a small scheme will suffico to meet the requirements of the district, and it may be that the estimate of cost tentatively laid by Dr Mason before the meeting will admit of reduction.