Preventive hygiene : the International Conference at Brussels, September, 1899 / by an English member of the Conference.

Date:
1901
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Preventive hygiene : the International Conference at Brussels, September, 1899 / by an English member of the Conference. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    6/26 (page 6)
    all foreign doctors—condemned the existing system. The first, Dr. Blaschko, of Berlin, struck the keynote of many later speeches by pointing to the age of the women as a factor in the question of contagion. The French writers, he said, drew an argument in favour of Regulation from a comparison of the condition of the registered and unregistered women— disease being more frequent among the latter. But this was accounted for by the fact that the unregistered women were the younger women, who were always the most dangerous. It was not Regulation that rendered the courtesan less dangerous; it was Time. Besides, comparisons as to the women proved nothing. The only true test of the value of Regulation was the increase or decrease of disease among the male population. A careful study of all the reports and statistics showed that it was impossible to establish any general rule as to things being better under Regulation and worse in its absence. “ There is not one of us,” he said, “who is content with Regulation as it exists to-day.” Finally, he warned the Conference against approaching the question from an exclusively medical standpoint. Hygienic Utopias might be very attractive in theory; but methods which ignored the complex interests of the community—economical, social, ethical—would always defeat themselves. If the Conference was to have enduring results, they must build on a broad foundation.* 1 Dr. Augagneur, of Lyons, said doctors were beginning to see the uselessness of Regulation; its partisans complained of it almost as much as its opponents.2 In common with Prof. Neisser3 and others, he pointed to the worthlessness of military statistics for purposes of comparison, whether between army and army, station and station, or even regiment and regiment, the question being complicated by incalculable differences of other kinds. Dr. Fiaux, of Paris, followed on the same side. Dr. Barthelemy, one of the medical chiefs of St. Lazare, the great Lock-Hospital prison of Paris, replied (that disease was due to immorality, not to Regulation ; that passion was an eternal and imperative factor in human life ; and that Regulation was a means of combating its attendant evils. If it had not yet succeeded in eradicating these evils, that was not a reason for abolishing, but for improving it. He agreed that there was much room for improvement, and recommended gentler methods.4 He joined with Dr. Fiaux in begging Prof. Fournier, the head of the French delegation, to give them his views. Thus appealed to, l See “ Compte Rendu des Seances de la Conference Internationale pour la Prophylaxie,” &c., pp. 17—20. 2 Ibid. p. 21. 3 Ibid. pp. 35,36. 1 Ibid. pp. 22—27 (see also pp. 126 & 213).