The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-08-23


tagious disease" am 70 be fined undar
complaint ct DR.. Gwarts of the state
board because / do not rush to the
town council and tell II that my child
has what DR.. Waxham declares to be
IAN acute. contagious. epidemic dis
absurdity. 1t began in the digest OF
1874. the period of the dark ages In
medicine; was elaborated In the digest
OF 1867 by DIR. Snow, and under DIR.
Fisher, secretary OF the state board AS
suined the absurdities which 1t now
Possesses. Section Is provides that a
does % not say say where Where n this T guard shall be
set, but doubtless 30 set az to prevent
the disease from getting out of the
house; then the town council shall re-
move said sick person to such place In
the town as will be most proper TO pre-
vent the spreading of the infection"
sons suspected Of having the distemper
until they are recovered" A perfectly
well person cannot be suspected OF hav-
ing a disease, hence q well person cam
not be confined until they are recov-
ered." Such law is positively ridicu-
lous. Section 16 provides that only the
infected person can be confined In any
house. or, as they generally now call IL,
"quarantined." or what use Is this
provision? Does not sick person be-
come most effectually "quarantined" by
the disease which he has? Section IL
gives to the town council power to re-
move any Inhabitants of said town Wis
tied with the smallpox or other con-
tagious or infectious disease to the hos
pital." Only the sick come under the
control OF the town council. This
guard, authorized to be placed around
a dwelling house, has no power what
ever conferred by this statute, because
section 15 declares that the health
board shall remove said person." Then
how can the town council or the state
board under the law leave case OF
measles in private dwelling unless
the dwelling Is turned into a hospital?
Section 10 Is q repetition of section Is.
with this variation In the latter-a
householder shall Immediately notify
the health authorities OF case OF
smallpox or any other contagious or
infectious distemper, or suspected TO be
so;" the former restricts this necessity
OF information to a case of smallpox.
Section Is provides punishment for any
person "who shall go into the house
where persons so suspected to have the
smallpox are confined. A well person
cannot be suspected; and section Is or
ders that sick person shall be re-
moved; hence. in case the town or the
health board has done it's duty, how am
to visit the sick, save by journey to
a hospital? This section provides only
for smallpox, but for no other con-
tagious or infectious disease whatever.
Diphtheria was unknown to the medi-
cal profession in 1857, when the statute
was first put into its present form. The
whole tenor OF the law is clear. No Of
ficer was to be permitted, under any
conditions, to confine well men In a
dwelling in which was q person sick
with smallpox or other CONTAGIOUS or
infectious disease. The sole purpose of
this statute is to keep well people from
exposure; but when wackerling's well
children were "Quarantined" with the
sick. did DIR. Chaplin execute this law?
Most certainly he did not: he shut up
with this contagious disease two well
children, whom he kept there until they
all became sick. Isolation Of the per-
son affected was all that DIR. Chaplin
could do, and DR.. Swarts has not. the
slightest Jurisdiction in the city of
Providence, nor in any other town or
city in Rhode Island. There was not
the slightest authority for his absurd
action in the Norberg case; nor was
there for Dr. Chaplin in the Wackerling
case. Both men were legally liable un-
der both chapters "a and 95 Of the GEN
eral Laws One would suppose II was
a sufficient affliction for a poor man to
have one case of scarlet fever. Why
add TO his affiiction by housing all his
well children with the infected until all
have It? And the poor man Is reduced
to a condition of penury--all, too. by
the Illegal unwarrapted. senseless ac-
tion OF the health board. While this
synopsis is precisely ac-
curate, so far as 1t goes. II has not
nearly exhausted the absurdit!es In
these preposterous statutes. They are
a disgrace to all men concerned in their
and enactment.
Over and above all these rules or
regulations comes the sacred private
rights of men which must be respected.
Neither DIR. Swarts nor DR.. Chaplin
have any more legal right to place amy
family lin quarantine" or mark my
house as a pest house than they have
to place the state OF Rhode Island in
and neither can cite any
law IN defence; both are liable in dam
ages but not in an action for SANDER,
as was done in the Norberg case
Sidney s. Riders Book Notes.