- Email: [email protected]
Journal of the society
October 1955 cern, because their concept was as bold as Beveridge and they would have needed little urging to see Social Medicine as Ryle and Ren6 Sand saw it. In fact, Social Medicine has been described as Public Health released from the prison of the drain and re-finding the " Sanitary Idea." But we must be realistic. John Doe and Jane Roe always have loved and always will love the Great Lavatory Joke and Sanitary Ware, Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Institutes will be associated by their common adjective rather than distinguished by their differing nouns. In at least one sense the R.S.I. is throwing off its chains and we wish it well in its new liberty. Of one thing we are sure--its work as a uni~que federation of all persons interested in health matters, in Britain and overseas, will not be one jot less efficient under the new title. " J o u r n a l of the Society" READERSwho have penetrated as far as this willhave already realised that this month's PUBLIC HEALTH has a re-designed cover, a new type-face, some changes in lay-out and an improved paper. No doubt we shall hear from some conservative members of the Society who feel that the changes a r e a pity and from some progressives who welcome the changes but could have done better themselves, but we expect that most readers will agree with the Council of the Society that changes were desirable, that these changes are an improvement and that the beginning of the Centenary Year is an appropriate time for their introduction. There are certain less obvious changes the effect of which will not be immediately manifest. After much debate about the cost of publishing a journal a substantial charge on the Society's resources--it has been decided that the journal is an essential service to members and one of the more tangible returns for their subscription, so that it should be treated generously. Not only will there be a paper of better quality but there will be more of it. Most issues will be rather larger than has been the custom since the war and it is hoped to publish considerably larger issues for special occasions. But perhaps the greatest change is in the editorial mechanism, for the tradition of a single Editor is to be broken by the institution of an Editorial Board. In 65 years PUBLIC HEALTH has had nine Editors, all gentlemen of distinction in the public health field. The longest period of tenure of office by a medical man was that of Dr. Charles Porter, who was Editor from 1925 to 1936, except for the session 1933-34 when he was President of the Society and Dr. James Fenton relieved him as Editor. By 1936 it was becoming clear that the Editorship was too demanding an office to be left to the scanty spare time of a single busy M.O.H. and in that year Mr. G. L. C. Elliston, the Executive Secretary of the Society, became also the Editor of the journal. He has held that office continuously to the present time, though during his absence on active service during the war Dr. Hugh Clegg, of the British Medical Journal, nobly put the Society in his debt by acting as editor. Mr. Elliston's commitments have greatly increased in recent years and he is desirous of reducing them. Accordingly, the Council of the Society has set up an Editorial Board of five, with the addition of an as yet unspecified number of " c o r r e s p o n d i n g " members, to take responsibility as from
this issue. Mr. Elliston has generously agreed to join the Board, so that the specialised experience he has built up over the past 19 years will still be at the Society's disposal. He and the other four principal members will be the active Editors, the corresponding members serving primarily as expert advisers. Members of the Society are warned not to expect any swift revolutionary changes. We conceive the main functions of the Society's Journal to be three. The first is to serve as a means of expressing the policies and views of the Society, the second to give members as prompt and complete news of the activities of the Society as may be possible and the third to present to readers learned papers on matters affecting and arising out of the Public Health Service. In fulfilling the first of these functions we shall speak with the voice of the Council ; in fulfilling the second we shall present the information which is sent to us. But so far as the third function is concerned we are eager to be as liberal as possible. We shall interpret the term " Public Health " in the widest of senses, remembering the dictum of Ryle that " n o t h i n g in the whole field of human endeavour is foreign to Social Medicine." We shall welcome the controversial and the provocative and though most of the papers we publish will be papers which have been read to branches and groups of the Society we shall always be willing to consider papers which have been read elsewhere or which have been written directly for publication. But in all these things we remind our readers that this is the Journal of the Society and that its success or failure is, as it should be, largely in the hands of the Society's members, without whose co-operation either a single Editor or an Editorial Board must be as naught.
Another Pilot Survey of Industrial Health FROM REPORTSin the daily Press of a speech at Halifax on September 6th by Sir George Barnett, H.M. Chief Inspector of Factories, we learn that, the recommendation of the Minister of Labour's Industrial Health Advisory Committee, the first of two pilot surveys to discover the needs for industrial health services in particular localities is to begin shortly in that town. We have used the word " a n o t h e r " in our heading because we have recollections of the survey of the Govan Ward of Glasgow (1953) by the late Dr. Stuart Laidlaw and Dr. J. H. Bell, which was a model of its kind, and othes by medical officers of health which have indicated the extent of the need in various types of area. The Halifax survey, to be carried out by a team from the factory inspectorate, will cover the industry of the whole town and will be a very considerable task. We hope that the co-operation of the health department, which must already have some knowledge of the borough's factories and workshops, will be enlisted, for centrally there is still no public health service representative on the Minister's Advisory Committee. So long as the Government laid down no definite policy for the future development of industrial health services little real progress can be made. But meantime the survey at at Halifax and others to follow will show the real shortcomings and should be welcomed. Meantime we believe that there is a mainly unexploited field for occupational health work by local authorities amongst their own emlSloyees.
this issue. Mr. Elliston has generously agreed to join the Board, so that the specialised experience he has built up over the past 19 years will still be at the Society's disposal. He and the other four principal members will be the active Editors, the corresponding members serving primarily as expert advisers. Members of the Society are warned not to expect any swift revolutionary changes. We conceive the main functions of the Society's Journal to be three. The first is to serve as a means of expressing the policies and views of the Society, the second to give members as prompt and complete news of the activities of the Society as may be possible and the third to present to readers learned papers on matters affecting and arising out of the Public Health Service. In fulfilling the first of these functions we shall speak with the voice of the Council ; in fulfilling the second we shall present the information which is sent to us. But so far as the third function is concerned we are eager to be as liberal as possible. We shall interpret the term " Public Health " in the widest of senses, remembering the dictum of Ryle that " n o t h i n g in the whole field of human endeavour is foreign to Social Medicine." We shall welcome the controversial and the provocative and though most of the papers we publish will be papers which have been read to branches and groups of the Society we shall always be willing to consider papers which have been read elsewhere or which have been written directly for publication. But in all these things we remind our readers that this is the Journal of the Society and that its success or failure is, as it should be, largely in the hands of the Society's members, without whose co-operation either a single Editor or an Editorial Board must be as naught.
Another Pilot Survey of Industrial Health FROM REPORTSin the daily Press of a speech at Halifax on September 6th by Sir George Barnett, H.M. Chief Inspector of Factories, we learn that, the recommendation of the Minister of Labour's Industrial Health Advisory Committee, the first of two pilot surveys to discover the needs for industrial health services in particular localities is to begin shortly in that town. We have used the word " a n o t h e r " in our heading because we have recollections of the survey of the Govan Ward of Glasgow (1953) by the late Dr. Stuart Laidlaw and Dr. J. H. Bell, which was a model of its kind, and othes by medical officers of health which have indicated the extent of the need in various types of area. The Halifax survey, to be carried out by a team from the factory inspectorate, will cover the industry of the whole town and will be a very considerable task. We hope that the co-operation of the health department, which must already have some knowledge of the borough's factories and workshops, will be enlisted, for centrally there is still no public health service representative on the Minister's Advisory Committee. So long as the Government laid down no definite policy for the future development of industrial health services little real progress can be made. But meantime the survey at at Halifax and others to follow will show the real shortcomings and should be welcomed. Meantime we believe that there is a mainly unexploited field for occupational health work by local authorities amongst their own emlSloyees.