Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council to consider the working of the Midwives Act, 1902.

  • Great Britain. Midwives Act Committee.
Date:
[1909]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council to consider the working of the Midwives Act, 1902. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    309/336
    19 May 1909.] Mr, J, T. DoDD. [Continued. 7054. Would you discoui-age that P—Not in the least if they like to do it. 7055. But there is no moral obligation to do it. Would you say a man was under no moral obligation to pay F—I think if a man can provide properly for his wife and children he ought to do so distinctly, but there are a good many that cannot do so. 7056. They are so poor that they cannot find the few pence a week necessary ?—Yes. 7057. Those ought to be paid for by the boards of guardians, do you say ?—Yes, under the present law. 7058. How would the boards of guardians find out those who could pay and those who could not ?—We have the assistance of our relieving officer, and also some of us have knowledge ourselves. 7059. I understood you to say it would require information ?—We can get information sometimes also from employers, and so on, where there is any real doubt in the matter. 7060. But I understood you to say that you thought the enqiiiry of the relieving ofiicer was a deterrent ?— I have no doubt that is so. 7061. And they are disliked by the poor folk ?—No doubt. 7062. You would not have a relieving ofiicer there then, would you?—I would appoint a special person for that purpose; or, if they had to come to the relieving olficer, I should give him instructions which would lead him to encourage those who ought to come, and only discourage those who ought not to come. 7063. But he must form his judgment after some enquiry ?—There must be some kind of enquiry, I admit. 7064. That would be a necessary evil ?—Yes. 7065. How is the board of guardians constituted at Oxford ?—We are 39 in number. We have the Vice- Chancellor and two members appointed by Convocation. 7066. Convocation is not resident, is it?—No, all Masters of Arts whose names are on the Books are members. Then eight are appointed by the heads and bursars of the colleges (excluding Merton, Corpus, and Keble,) and two are appointed by Christ Church. 7067. That is 13 nominated so far ?—Then there is the Mayor ex-oflicio. Ten councillors or aldermen are elected by the aldermen and councillors representing the city of Oxford, and 15 by the parishes. 7068. Fifteen are direct representatives ?—Yes, 15 are direct representatives elected by the parishes. 7069. That is, 24 are nominated by various bodies and 15 are directly elected ?—Yes. 7070. There is no qualification for the direct election, is there ?—There is just the same qualification as everywhere else. 7071. They are elected on a franchise?—The 15 are elected as in other places in England. 7072. Is there any public opinion to compel these gentlemen to do their duty ?—There has been a good deal of public opinion expressed upon the subject. The Oxford guardians were formerly extremely reluc- tant to give outdoor relief, but now they do better. 7073. They give more ?—Yes. 7074. Quite freely ?—Do you mean give relief quite freely ? 7075. Yes.—No, not to a large amoimt, but they do give more. But the board was considerably modified before they would do that. We had two Acts of Parlia- ment to assist us. 7076. What were they?—One to enable the town council to send aldermen and councillors instead of only aldermen to the board of guardians, and the other was to enable the large parishes to elect more members. Many of the aldermen formerly elected had not attended the meetings of the board at all regularly. Parochial representation was increased from 11 to 15. 7077. Followed by an increasing enlightenment in the board of guardians ?—Perhaps. 7078. (Mr. Fremantle.) In your precis you say that they, the mothei-s, will be afraid to send to the re- lieving officer for help in emergency lest they should be prosecuted for illegal practice ?—Yes, there is a danger there, I think. 7079. Why should the mothers be prosecuted for an illegal practice ?—I am speaking of the case of the unqualified person who, alter the 1st April 1910, takes these cases for gain habitually. Supposing she does this •' habitually and for gain, if she sends for a doctor, and it is found out that she is attending cases, she may be prosecuted. 7080. You mean to say the mothers will be afraid to send to the relieving officer lest the midwives should be prosecuted? — That the Gamp will be afraid. The mothers are in the hands of the G-amps. The Gamp would put ofi sending as long as she possibly could, lest there should be any risk of prosecution. Unfortunately, even now, they do often put off sending for the doctor far too long. I have found that out at Oxford. 7081. (Chairman.) We have been told they often send for the doctor when it is unnecessary to do so ?— There are cases where just the reverse is the fact. A case will be two days in labour before a doctor is sent for sometimes. They are reluctant to send for the parish doctor. 7082. (Mr. Fremantle.) Then, further on in your precis, you say: the county borough councils tre therefore in this invidious position : they are the sani- tary authority responsible for the health of the com- munity, they have been specially charged with respon- sibilities as to midwifery, and they are not only unable to supply the necessary help in confinements, but it may become their duty to prosecute women who, though not midwives, are the best and most competent helpers the poor can procure. Will you explain the invidious position in which you consider the county borough councils are placed ?—It is in this way. It would be the duty of the borough council to prosecute women who practise habitually and for gain, but yet at the same time they may be really people who are doing good to these poor mothers. These uncertified women are most available, and they do the best they can do in fact to assist the mothers. 7083. But the councils would use their discretion in the matter and only prosecute where there was no alternative, would they not ?—Do you mean that they would accept the excuse that the woman was so poor that she could not afford a midwife? Because that would be awkward. 7084. No, not in that sensw at all?—That is the case I am thinking of; the case of poor people who are attended by one of these Gampd, and then accidents are likely to occur, and the doctor is not sent for till late. 7085. Then with regard to youi* suggestion that the Local Government Board should require the board of guardians in every union to appoint a midwife, how would you suggest they could get a midwife in outlying districts ?—In the villages do you mean ? 7086. Yes, and in comitry districts?—I do not say appoint one for every parish, but every country district could no doubt get one by paying enough; obviously that is so. 7087. But would you suggest paying her a retaining fee ?—Yes. 7088. That would have to be rather a large fee, would it not ?—It would all depend upon circumstances. They must pay a fee. 7089. Sufficient to keep her ?—Yes, with what she received from the guardians for each confinement, and from her private practice, if any. In some cases it might be more and in some cases less. In out-of-the- way districts no doubt it would have to be rather more. 7090. How much do you consider, roughly speaking, would be necessary to induce a midwife to practise in an outlying district where there are no other attractions ?— I could not say. It depends upon the circumstances. It is impossible to guess. 7091. (Mr. Davy.) Are you a nominated or elected member of the Oxford board of guardians ? — I am appointed by the city council. I am elected to the city council by the West ward of the city, and I am sent to the board of guardians by the city coimcil. The witness withdrew.