FIGHT AGAINST V.D.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16943, 18 January 1923, Page 4

FIGHT AGAINST V.D.

VALUE OF EDUCATION. (Per Press Association-.) WELLINGTON, .Tanoary 17. j Education as a factor in tile contnl ot venereal disease, was the subject of a paper by I>r E. Sydney Morris director of Public Health, Tasmania, read before the hygiene section of the congress. In J>r Morris’s opinion legislation uas really a subsidiary factor in the control of venereal disease. The good effects issuing from the law were due more to consequent public education and facilities for treatment which did not require legislation than to any inherent virtue in the law itself. Hr .J. K. Elliott, in opening the discussion on Hr Morris’s paper, said he would like to sav a few words to counteract any tendency likely to throw unwarranted discredit on the effects which might accrue from notification as one of the partial remedies for the eradication ‘of venereal disease. Hr Morris, in discussing a question which bristled with difficulties had glossed over tile difficulties inseparable from every method of combating venereal disease, with the notable exception of acting as a special pleader to unduly emphasise the difficulties in the wav of legislative eontroPby means ol : conditional notification. Education and facilities for treatment had their own special difficulties which should faii-Iy have equal prominence with legislative difficulties if Hr Morris’s pa per were in perspective aud drawn to scale. ‘ I had the privilege.” said Dr Elliott, of being a member ot the Committee of the New Zealand Board of Health, which recently investigated very exhaustively the question of venereal disease. This committee made numerous proposals, including education and increased facilities for treatment and among other recommendations included provisional notification, therefore we do not come into the category of those who. to quote Ih M orris, ‘ rely entirely on legislation, contending that it is capable of controlling the source of these diseases.’ l>r Morris in his desire to give prominence to education and facilities for treatment, had stated that notification legislation had had the good effect of educating the public and facilitating treatment. Tim logical conclusion, winch I.’r Morris fails to see, could only be that anything which led to good resists must of necessity be good m itself. It Dr Morris had realised this at the beginning of his thesis he would not have proceeded to stir up prejudice and opposition against notification. In any case this, work con 1-1 not have been a congenial one for the diiect-or of public health, for notification was essential in the control of all contagious diseases, and veneieal diseases from a public he alth point of view could not logically be treated differentK from such less important diseases :h scarlet lever and diphtheria. His objection to notification was really an attack on a section of the medical profession. These doctors the author had said were too careless in their methods or too lazy to attend to the duty of notification, or they feared that they might lx* subject to the abuse of recalcitrant patients, i e.. of vile people who thought they were free to remain infective and a danger to the community- But the cup of humiliation is not yet full, for Dr Morris prophesicthat this decline in public spirit. or shall I say honesty oi the medical profession. will continue until the Jaw of notification becomes a dead letter. This is I think, as great an error as his prognostication that if the best treatment is given free and no questions asked of patients 4 the vast majority of patients would proceed with treatment and be guided by their medical advisers I he weight of evidence is against Dr Morris, for in our venereal disease clinics in New Zealand wc have, the conditions postulated by him and venereal disease medical officers find that the majority of the patients d-> not proceed with the treatment. Of these doctors all favour notification of Dr EJliott‘quoted figures to show the percentage of cases attending clinics at the four centre** till thev Mere noninfective, and in no single instance wa‘ the percentage of those who remained under treatment Terr large Dr Wilkins, director oi the division of School Hvgiene. Mas the next speaker. He said not in a position matter of non-notification, but ho would sav lie was in agreement with Dr Morris as regarded the question of education. It was a difficult thing to deal with, as there were a tremendous number of points requiring attention. He held very strongly that we would have to begin on general linos and begin early, and to deal in a frank and straightforward manner with the child, and he thought it should ho treated rather as an educational matter than a medical one. Dr Harvey Sutton (president of tho section) said he felt sure Dr Morris’s attitude was simply due to considerable pessimism, as the basis of tho medical profession in Tasmania was not on all fours with that in other cities of the Commonwealth, and particular]y New Zealand. Personally, he conld not see how the principle of dealing with infectious disease could be given up *:i regard to syphilis, and he instanced the opposition which occurred in regard to notification of pulmonary tuberculosis some years ago. There was no doubt the general consensus of opinion was in favour of notification, and it needed a very thorough trial before one got to the stage which apparently l>r Morris had reached. Tn his opinion was questionable whether education on spx matters given by an outside person would not give a prominence to th-3 subject which was undesirable. He gays Tustances of --"hat was being dono at the present time in Australia, notably by the Church of England, who, through the memr.-fi of the had issued a booklet which consists-1 of instruction to parent#* on the best method* of imparting tbi* knewledyi on children, and also the preparation of three sets of lectures L? Secondary school authorities in manv of the larger schools. Those two measures seemed to have been well accepted, and practically no complaints had been heard from paveiits on tho taken with a view to imparting knowledge to their children. In conclusion Dr Sutton said that to a gre.iu extent lie agreed with Dr Morris about the question of education, but on tho other band he agreed with Dr Elliott had said a* regarded tho importance of romnulscrv notilicat ma.