Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18512, 24 March 1922, Page 4

SECRET DISEASES. The extent of the prevalence of venereal disease in New Zealand is, from the operation of conditions which a great many well-meaning people shrink from disturbing, more or less uncertain. It may, however, he taken for granted that it is considerable. The North Canterbury Hospital Board, which exhibits a concern regarding the matter that should be shared with it by every board and authority charged with the duty of, so far as it is able to do so, conserving the public health, is urging the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the prevalence of the disease and to suggest the best means of combatting the disease. It is questionable whether the expense that would be incurred in conducting the investigations that would be made by a Commission would really be justified by the results. There are no reliable data upon which accurate information as to the incidence of the disease could be based. Such imperfect data as are available might be collected by the Board of Health, and it is desirable that' they should be so collected. But it is more important that the machinery should be created whereby data upon which reliance may reasonably be placed should be provided. The argument that notification of venereal disease should be made compulsory is one that is strongly supported by the consideration of the grave effects of the disease upon tho community, not for one generation pnly but for succeeding generations. It may be suggested, therefore, that those who realise the importance and the need of checking the spread of the malady should concentrate their efforts upon securing the amendment of the law necessary to put the disease on the list of notifiable ailments. A Commission cannot accomplish more in the direction of ascertaining the extent of the prevalence of the disease than is at present possible at less expense and with less delay by the utilisation of other agencies. Such information as it secured on this point, moreover, would not be more accurate than that which is procurable otherwise. Nor would any recommendations which a Commission might make as to the best means of combatting the disease be more valuable than those offered in the report of the Royal Commission on the subject which was published at Home a few years ago. Whatever the recommendations might be, they would not be generally accepted. Medical opinion itself would be divided on the question. At the present time the question of the efficacy and merits of prophylaxis is being learnedly and warmly discussed in England. Men whose names rank very high in the medical profession are in serious controversy with each other on the matter. The issue between them is one that may yet vex the minds of practitioners and the public in the dominion. But the first requisite is that particulars which may be regarded as more or less authentic shall be obtained regarding the extent of the prevalence of the disease. These particulars can not be secured in any way other than through the process of notification. Those who are opposed to notification are placing obstacles in the way of the adoption of measures for the curtailment of the ravages, by which the disease affects innocent people not less surely and not less cruelly than it affects guilty.