[Report 1949] / Medical Officer of Health, Cork County Borough.

  • Cork (Ireland). County Borough Council.
Date:
1949
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1949] / Medical Officer of Health, Cork County Borough. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    8/180 (page 2)
    figure of 6.4 per cent. Meanwhile the population of Dublin has increased by 7.0 per cent, while that of Limerick and Waterford also increased (4.6 and 1.1 per cent, respectively). Let us hope that it will eventually be found that our citizens have only passed out into the surrounding areas and that the city (and country) is not the poorer of their loss. I think it is perhaps worth while directing attention to the relative congestion of this city. Reference to table 2 shows that there are over 3,000 persons to the 100 acres (as compared with 2,300 in Dublin, 2,000 in Limerick and 1,400 in Waterford). No doubt this congestion has been determined by the terrain of the city, so difficult from the building point of view. The contours of the locality present great difficulty to siting of houses (this became acute in recent years when it was a question of finding suitable places for hospitals and other large institutions). I think Cork must be unique in this respect, certainly so in relation to the other Irish county boroughs in which the terrain lends itself much more readily to building. In the past our vital statistics have compared somewhat unfavourably with those of the other cities (in tuberculosis, for example), this difference would be readily accounted for by greater congestion of the population in houses. It seems somewhat incongruous that a city like Cork should be confined within an area of 2,500 acres while Limerick (with considerably less population) extends to 2,000 acres). Whatever the cause of the decline in our population we may take heart from the fact that other figures show no real decline in vitality. The marriage-rate at 9.5 per 1,000 remains the highest of the four county boroughs, while the birth-rate remains undiminished at 23.4 and the natural increase is 7.2 per 1,000 of the population. I feel sure that there is a mine of useful and interesting information in the Report of the Director of Statistics if one only knew how to extract it. The death rate at 14.0, while slightly above that of 1948 (at 13.2) is well below the average for this locality (15.2). The principal cause of death was heart disease, with cancer second and cerebral haemorrhage third while, for the first time in our records tuberculosis deaths recede to fourth place. The number of such deaths was the lowest ever recorded. In the case of infant mortality I remarked in last year’s report that “ the fall for 1948, however, is too sharp to be attributed to administrative action and, accordingly, we must expect a somewhat poorer showing perhaps for the next year or two.” This prediction has been justified by the event. The figure for the current year is 68, as against 4/ tor 1948. By ordinary standards 68 is a very high figure tor infant mortality (it was only 34 in England and Wales for 1948) but again it was well below the average for this area. The great bulk of infant deaths came undei the heading of gastro-enteritis an eminently preventiblc condition which is due almost entirely to the institution of artificial feeding. Its prevalence is a poor tribute to our hygienic standards. For years I have been in- veighing against the practice of bottle feeding and now feel that until such time as the medical and nursing professions become alive to their responsibilities in this matter, we will make no substantial headway in reducing infant mortality.