OCR Text |
Show Diphtheria Recently, by a certain portion of this city, considerable feeling, pro and con, has been engendered by the course one of our most respected citizens took to protect his family from that dreaded disease, diphtheria. The gentleman referred to, rents a portion of his house to a family, and his wife with seven small children live in the other portion. The family who rent are related to another living near by, in which a child recently died of diphtheria, and in which was another child sick with the disease. Immediately after the death of the child, its parents, with the other little one, moved into that portion of the gentleman's house occupied by the family who whom he rents it, intending to occupy it conjointly with them. The proprietor of the house objected to this as by so doing they were bringing into his house a child sick with diphtheria, and exposing his seven children to the dread disease. The family who rented part of the house, however, claimed that, as they paid rent for the apartments occupied by them, they had a right to share those apartments with whom they pleased, and the sick child, and its parents were duly installed as inmates of that part of the house. The proprietor of the house insisted on the removal from his premises of the sick child and its parents. The physician attending the child declared that a removal would be dangerous. On the other hand, facts were cited to prove that in very many cases during a recent prevalence of diphtheria in this city children who were sick with it were repeatedly taken, during the coldest winter weather, from their homes to the doctor's office to be treated and that no injurious results had followed in the vast majority of such instances, if in any where proper care was observed. At all events the case amounted to a choice between exposing the child who was sick to the danger, great or small, of a removal, and the imminent exposure of the seven children of the proprietor of the house, if the patient should be permitted to stay. In this dilemma the proprietor of the house took a course which we believe all candid? and fair-minded people, acquainted with the circumstances, will esteem wholly proper and justifiable. He obtained from the Board of Quarantine an order requiring the immediate removal of the sick child to the home of the parents. The order was obtained in the evening, but the child was permitted to remain till next day, and until its parents could warm up their own house and make all necessary preparations for removing it, which was done. It has since recovered, but a child of the family who insisted on receiving it and its parents into the rooms they were renting, took the disease and died some days ago. None of the seven children of the proprietor of the home, however, have taken it, as he moved them all away during the sickness of the second child, and since its death, he has thoroughly disinfected his premises. We sympathize deeply with the bereaved parents, and would not, on any account, say a word that would cause their already grief-stricken spirits to drop lower, but the safety of the living demands a word of caution respecting so dreadful a disease as diphtheria. It is hard indeed for parents, whose little ones are sick or dying, to be deprived of the cheering, comforting presence of relatives and friends but unnumbered lives may be imperiled if such freedom is permitted, and while the feelings of parents in where families contagious has made its dread appearance, should receive the most sympathetic consideration, it should be borne in mind that human life is priceless, and not to be endangered on any consideration of sympathy or sentiment. [Paragraph unreadable] Spread of the disease. In one case we understood that quite a congregation of men, women and children were permitted to attend the funeral of a child that had died with it, and to remain for a considerable time, in the presence of the corpse. Diphtheria is a disease that should be as vigorously quarantined as any other. NO person whose presence is not necessary should be allowed access to the patient, and the funerals of diseased patients should be conducted with every precaution against spreading the disease. Citizens having the disease in their houses should out of consideration for the lives of others, willingly submit to every precaution necessary to prevent the spread and we respectfully suggest to the proper authorities, the necessity of stringency in taking measures to keep the disease from spreading. |