I agree that the principle behind this section is good, but I think it needs a little clarification. It appears to me that this section replaces, or amends, sub-section (1) of Section 38 in the Principal Act. That sub-section says:—
"Where a chief medical officer is of opinion, either consequent on his own inspection of a person in the area for which such medical officer acts, or consequent upon information furnished to him by a registered medical practitioner who has inspected such person, that such person is a probable source of infection with an infectious disease and that his isolation is necessary as a safeguard against the spread of infection, and that such person cannot be effectively isolated in his home, such medical officer may order in writing the detention and isolation of such person in a specified hospital or other place until such medical officer gives a certificate (for which no charge shall be made) thatsuch person is no longer a probable source of infection."
It appears from the new section we are discussing that an order made under it, in addition to being signed by the chief medical officer, must also be signed by another registered medical practitioner. As I have said, we accept that principle as being sound, but it would seem to put certain difficulties in the way which I should like the Minister to clarify. As far as I can see, this section deals with all types of infectious and contagious diseases. I can envisage a situation arising in which a case, that was discovered to be highly infectious, might come into this country by sea or by air which it was necessary immediately to isolate for the protection of the public.
Under the Principal Act, it was possible for the chief medical officer to have that case isolated forthwith, but, under this new section, in addition to signing the order himself, it must also be signed by another registered medical practitioner. I can envisage this difficulty arising, that if it were discovered that the person suffering from the disease had come into the country by sea or air there would not be any registered medical practitioner in attendance on the case. Deputy McGilligan raised that point last night as to whether it was considered necessary that another medical officer of health or State official would have to sign the order. As I say, if it were a case that had to be isolated immediately, the case of a person who had come in by sea or by air, there would not be any general medical practitioner in attendance. That is a difficulty I should like the Minister to clear up. I am somewhat confused as to what is the actual intention behind this new section. We are not against the section, but are simply seeking information.