[Report 1959] / Medical Officer of Health, Liskeard Borough.

  • Liskeard (England). Borough Council.
Date:
1959
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1959] / Medical Officer of Health, Liskeard Borough. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    5/26 (page 2)
    were entertained that with more effective remedies and methods of treatment coupled with improved techniques for discovering cases and a more enlightened attitude to the disease the days of tuberculosis as a major communicable disease were numbered. These hopes have proved to be over-optimistic, and we now know that the problem although it will be eventually reduced to insignificant proportions cannot be expected to resolve and disappear rapidly. More efficient methods of treatment are in sane cases a two-edged sword. In the majority of cases quick and effective cures are achieved, but in a certain minority of cases the drugs do no more than keep alive as potential or possible sources of infection persons who would otherwise have died of the disease, and thereby ceased to menace others. The more enlightened attitude to this disease which has been more and more in evidence since the war has not unfortunately been effective in the older section of the community who are very unwilling to accept any suggestion that they might be sources of infection. It is a common finding that elderly contacts of cases are unco-operative or frankly unwilling to attend contact investigations designed to find the source of infection, and they seem very reluctant to attend mass radiography sessions when these are held in a locality. As far as the No. 7 Health Area is concerned there has been a moderate increase in the number of new cases of tuberculosis discovered over the past two years. After a progressive steady fall from 1953 to 1957 the incidence of new tuberculous infection discovered in 1959 was back to the level of 1954» Whereas up to 15 or 20 years ago the main impact of this disease wan on the young adult there has in recent years been a shift in the incidence to those in the middle-aged and elderly section of the population and in 1959 the percentage of cases aged 45 years and above at the time of notification was as high as 38%, If any lesson is to be learned from this it is surely that people, who because of their age might have regarded themselves as being safe from the risk of tuberculous infection, should not hesitate to seek advice and should submit to necessary investigation when any chest condition shows a tendency to become chronic or even slow to clear. This is particularly important if as grandparents they have contact with and possibly charge of small children. Last year I wrote at some length about noise and the role it probably plays in helping to bring about mental strain and fatigue, I was gratified to see that not long after I had commited my sentiments to paper a lively attack on the problem and menace of loud and uncontrolled noise got under way in the correspondence columns of at least one national daily newspaper. This resulted in the formation of a Noise Abatement League or Society, and subsequently a Private Members Bill on the subject was brought before Parliament, and received general support. I sincerely hope that this and any future legislation which might be found necessary will deal firmly and effectively with the increasing volume of unnecessary and unpleasant noise which is such an unwelcome feature of our modem life, I have on many previous occasions referred to the important, almost indispensable part which members of the general public can and indeed must play if a really satisfactory standard of food hygiene is to be achieved in this country. Those of us who are charged with advising on clean methods of food handling, and on suitable equipment to help achieve this, can do no more than exercise a general supervision of personnel and premises concerned in the handling of food. My own impress ion is that the greatest danger to clean food stems not from inadequate premises and equipment, but from unhygienic practices by those handling the food. These exist and continue partly because those concerned see no need for high standards in handling food, partly because owners, managers and employees in premises handling food know little of the simple rules for avoiding the transmission of infection through food, but most of all because the great mass of the British public are not really interested in the way in which their food is handled. We have known for some time that our neighbours from Europe, and especially from the Scandinavian countries do not think highly of our attitude to food hygiene. I was interested to read recently an account by a very experienced senior Public Health Officer of a visit to America during which he found amongst the general body of United States residents a much keener appreciation of the need for cleanliness in food handling, and a much less tolerant and laissez-faire attitude toward those who fail in their duty to the customer in this respect. Whilst it is probable that some of this attitude arises from the knowledge that in America illness presents a serious financial problem to the individual or family, it also shows a more critical and more enlightened view of the problem. I do not believe that even the most apathetic of consumers likes the idea of eating dirty and perhaps dangerous food, but until customers take a stronger line with employees and managements, real progress to the goal of really clean food will be slow and discouraging. I think the final word on this subject might rest with our transatlantic cousins whose slogan Protect yourself yourself is to the point and makes good sense. For some considerable time the Cornwall Branch of the Association of Public Health Inspectors has been engaged in the formulation of standard conditions which - 2 -