- Email: [email protected]
The value of isolation hospitals
256
Correspondence
[PtlblioItoo.lth
CORRESPONDENCE. T H E VALUE OF I S O L A T I O N HOSPITALS. To the Editor o/ " Public Health." S m , - - I t is very gratifying to me to hear from Dr. Fremantle that I have " cleared the air of vain statistics, and brought him and his side back to clear reasoning." This is something to have accomplished after all. He concludes his letter with this friendly sentiment : - - " Let us link arms . . . honestly recognizing that in discussing their value the statistical method is inapplicable." Let me add but these few words, and I can agree with him : " to those who wish to demonstrate the value of these institutions as a disease-preventing agency." To those who take the opposite view statistics are, and are likely to remain, the backbone of their case. Yours, etc., L~IC~STER, December 4th, 1906. C. KILLICK MILLARD.
To the Editor o] " Public Heahh." Sm,--Will you allow me to deprecate the personal allusions to Dr. Millard in Dr. Francis Fremantle's letter in your current issue ? The problem under discussion is a difficult one, but its elucidation is likely to be rather retarded than advanced by references to Dr. Millard's style of dress, whether emblematic or otherwise. Dr. Millard may, or m a y not, wear a red tie and a squash hat ; but really that has nothing to do with the value of Isolation Hospitals for Scarlet Fever. I feel sure that on reflection Dr. Fremantle will himself regret the personal tone of his letter, and will recognize that it is far better to deal with the facts adduced by a controversialist than to disparage his personality. Dr. Millard may, or m a y not, be a Socialist, but if he be one, and if his Socialistic views influence his opinions on Isolation Hospitals for Scarlet Fever, it is still conceivable that his views may be well founded. Personally, I differ from him on this and on other points, but I would still appeal to Dr. Fremantle not to obscure an interesting and difficult question b y personalities. Yours, etc., HUDDERSFIELD, Dec. 4th, 1906. S . G . MOO~E. THE LENGTH OF IMMUNITY AFTER INJECTION OF DIPHTHERIA ANTITOX:N.--Sittler (Jahrbuch/. Kinderheitk, Sept., 1906) comes to the following conclusions as the result of his practical experience : 1. The immunity given by the prophylactic injections lasts from three t o five weeks, if the children are not too often exposed to diphtheria in the interval. 2. Unimmunized children are much more susceptible to diphtheria than the children who have been immunized. 3. Catarrhal affections of all kinds, and wounds of the mucous membranes, 'predispose to diphtheria and tend to shorten the period of immunity. 4. The length of the period of the immunization is not increased by using doses larger than 500 units. 5. Certain children show a greater predisposition to diphtheria than others. I t is advisable to isolate these children as thoroughly as m a y be, so as to avoid the necessity for too frequent injection of antitoxin.
Correspondence
[PtlblioItoo.lth
CORRESPONDENCE. T H E VALUE OF I S O L A T I O N HOSPITALS. To the Editor o/ " Public Health." S m , - - I t is very gratifying to me to hear from Dr. Fremantle that I have " cleared the air of vain statistics, and brought him and his side back to clear reasoning." This is something to have accomplished after all. He concludes his letter with this friendly sentiment : - - " Let us link arms . . . honestly recognizing that in discussing their value the statistical method is inapplicable." Let me add but these few words, and I can agree with him : " to those who wish to demonstrate the value of these institutions as a disease-preventing agency." To those who take the opposite view statistics are, and are likely to remain, the backbone of their case. Yours, etc., L~IC~STER, December 4th, 1906. C. KILLICK MILLARD.
To the Editor o] " Public Heahh." Sm,--Will you allow me to deprecate the personal allusions to Dr. Millard in Dr. Francis Fremantle's letter in your current issue ? The problem under discussion is a difficult one, but its elucidation is likely to be rather retarded than advanced by references to Dr. Millard's style of dress, whether emblematic or otherwise. Dr. Millard may, or m a y not, wear a red tie and a squash hat ; but really that has nothing to do with the value of Isolation Hospitals for Scarlet Fever. I feel sure that on reflection Dr. Fremantle will himself regret the personal tone of his letter, and will recognize that it is far better to deal with the facts adduced by a controversialist than to disparage his personality. Dr. Millard may, or m a y not, be a Socialist, but if he be one, and if his Socialistic views influence his opinions on Isolation Hospitals for Scarlet Fever, it is still conceivable that his views may be well founded. Personally, I differ from him on this and on other points, but I would still appeal to Dr. Fremantle not to obscure an interesting and difficult question b y personalities. Yours, etc., HUDDERSFIELD, Dec. 4th, 1906. S . G . MOO~E. THE LENGTH OF IMMUNITY AFTER INJECTION OF DIPHTHERIA ANTITOX:N.--Sittler (Jahrbuch/. Kinderheitk, Sept., 1906) comes to the following conclusions as the result of his practical experience : 1. The immunity given by the prophylactic injections lasts from three t o five weeks, if the children are not too often exposed to diphtheria in the interval. 2. Unimmunized children are much more susceptible to diphtheria than the children who have been immunized. 3. Catarrhal affections of all kinds, and wounds of the mucous membranes, 'predispose to diphtheria and tend to shorten the period of immunity. 4. The length of the period of the immunization is not increased by using doses larger than 500 units. 5. Certain children show a greater predisposition to diphtheria than others. I t is advisable to isolate these children as thoroughly as m a y be, so as to avoid the necessity for too frequent injection of antitoxin.