978

this medical practitioner, orders isolation. But the fatherof the child finding it convenient to doubt the diagnosispartly on account of the expense of prolonged isolation andpartly in consequence of interference with the holidayarrangements, ceases to call in A, and consults B and C

independently, both of whom see the child when the mem-brane and other clinical signs of diphtheria have pre-sumably disappeared. Without any attempt at bacterio-

logical examination the child is proncunced by them not tobe suffering from diphtheria and, consequently, in a fortnightfrom the onset of the illness the father, so far as we can

gather from our correspondent’s communication, takes thechild home by train, where the medical officer of health,who it is to be assumed has been informed of the circum-

stances, makes an independent examination and finds thata swab taken from the throat yields a positive result

quâ diphtheria. Having regard to the recent successful

prosecution in the North London police-court to which wereferred in our issue of Sept. 23rd our correspondent askswhether the urban district council and the railway companyconcerned ought to prosecute and, if so, whether a convictionwould be probable, and finally, whether if the districtcouncil declines to prosecute the Local Government Boardis likely to compel it to do so. In our view much

depends upon what was the attitude of the child’s fathertowards B and C. Did he inform them of the previousnotification or of the results of the bacteriologicalexamination ? If he suppressed both these facts we are

inclined to think that it might go badly with him in a courtof law. If, on the other hand, he apprised B and C of allthe circumstances B and C themselves would seem to us to

have failed somewhat in their duty alike to the patient,the public, and to A in not procuring a bacteriologicalexamination. At the same time it is an open questionwhether the law would regard it as incumbent upona practitioner to secure such an examination ; indeed,in the case of persons too poor to pay for it or

when there was no provision made by the local authori-ties for such examination it would obviously be impractic-able. But this fact hardly absolves B and C from their moralresponsibilities in this case. In our own view, no medicalman in face of the facts was in a position to assert that thechild was not suffering from diphtheria without a bacterio-logical examination. But we are not quite clear from ourcorrespondent’s letter whether when the second medicalofficer of health made a bacteriological examination of thethroat with a positive result there were also clinical signsof diphtheria. It is, of course, conceivable that in the intervalbetween the first and second bacteriological examinationthe throat may have been for a time free from the organismof the disease and the defence would probably develop thispoint. But as regards the chances of a successful prosecu-tion we think all depends upon the father’s attitude towardsB and C and we doubt whether the Local Government Boardwould regard the case as one in which it could usefullyintervene.

____

SIGHT TESTING.

WE have received from the secretary of the British OpticalAssociation a copy of a Bill which the association proposes" to present to Parliament " next year and which, if it everbecame law, would establish a recognised profession of

"sight testers " presided over by a body formed on the linesof the General Medical Council and, like the Council, havingsome control over the education and qualitications of the newlicentiates and some power of withdrawing licences in caseof misconduct. The Bill is avowedly framed as a countermove to one proposed by the British Medical Associa-tion and described as containing a clause which providesthat " testing the sight for spectacles must not be

practised by any person but a qualified medical man. We have no sympathy with either proposal because thesuggested prohibition could not pos6ibly be carried out inpractice. The spectacle seller would deny that he was

" testing sight " and would hand the customer any commonoptometer and would tell him to test " himself. We haveso often dealt with the dangers which would attend upongiving any appearance of ’’ qualification

" to spectacle sellersthat we need hardly now repeat ourselves upon the subject.There are many shoals and quicksands in Parliament andsufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. If the crazyscheme appeared at any time to be in danger of realisationwe should, of course, be bound to show cause against it and toask Parliament seriously to consider the consequences likelyto follow from the course proposed. In the meantime

nothing can be better for the promoters than a littlewholesome neglect. The Bill of the British MedicaAssociation has not yet become law and there is thereforeno immediate prospect that an "enormous number" of

"fully qualified (?) and certificated opticians" will be

deprived of their livelihood before the advent of winter.While waiting for the session of 1906 they may take comfort.in the thought that public attention is being seriouslydirected towards the misfortunes of the unemployed.

STRANGLED BY RED TAPE.

UaF of our Scottish correspondents informs us of an

unpleasant incident which has occurred at Burntisland inconnexion with the fifty-fifth section of the Licensing Act,1903, the particulars of which have just come to light.On a Sunday evening recently a medical man advisedthe parents of an infant that a mixture of brandyand water should be administered, the condition of the

patient being considered precarious. The practitionerwrote out a certificate to procure some brandy and

addressed the letter to a licence-holder in the town. The

father of the child requested that the immediate attentionof the licence-holder should be given to the order asthe matter was urgent but in view of the strictnessof the law the latter went to the police-office to obtain

the consent or assent of the police-sergeant to the order.

The latter declined to give the sanction on the ground thatthe certificate would require to be signed by the medicalofficer of health, as he could not recognise the medical man’ssignature as sufficient. It was found, however, that the

medical officer of the burgh was not at home and the

sergeant was again asked, in view of the urgency of the

case, to grant his consent to the order, but he declined andasked the parties to obtain the signature of the procurator-fiscal. This was in the end obtained and the brandy wasprocured after one and a half hours had elapsed. The childdied two hours afterwards. The cause of death might notinappropriately be described as "strangled by red tape."

HERB CALOMEL.

FROM an account which appeared in the Morning Post onSept. 23rd it would seem that some remarkable statementswere made last week at Hanley county court, when awholesale druggist named George Rowley, trading as Jamesand Co., sought to obtain an injunction against Cecil Pricewho, it was stated, imitated Rowley’s labels on his boxes.The labels alleged to have been copied bore the inscription"Dr. Astbury’s pure herbal pills, worth their weight ingold ; price two and nine per box." His honour JudgeMulholland elicited from the plaintiff that there never was aDr. Astbury, that the pills were made in London, and that theleading ingredients were soft soap and calomel. ThereuponJudge Mulholland seems to have taken a very definite line.He said that it seemed to him that the plaintiff’s description