asked the Minister for Health whether he is aware that a considerable number of cases have arisen where tuberculosis patients in sanatoria have been expelled from the sanatoria and sent home prior to the completion of their treatment, on account of their having committed minor breaches of the sanatorium regulations; whether he will have the incidence of such cases investigated; and whether he will now make a statement as to the type of breach which he considers should necessitate the expulsion of a patient from a sanatorium, and the general desirability or otherwise of taking this action in cases of minor breaches.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tuberculosis Patients.
11.
I am not aware that the position in this matter is as represented by the Deputy.
I have had inquiries made from health authorities in respect of the three regional sanatoria and five other of the larger institutions. The number of patients expelled from these eight institutions since 1st January, 1961, was 28. These institutions between them had, at any time during this period, a population ranging from 1,000 to 1,500 adult respiratory tuberculosis patients. From the reasons given for these expulsions, I am satisfied that this action is not resorted to without justification.
Sanatoria are maintained at very considerable public expense so as to provide conditions in which all the patients have the maximum prospect of restoration to health. To that end, it is necessary to lay down and enforce certain simple rules of conduct. These rules are conscientiously observed by all but a handful of the patients and I am satisfied that the interests of the very considerable majority, those who observe the rules, require that the few who are guilty of serious or repeated misconduct should be required to leave the institutions. I do not propose to interfere with the discretion in this matter of the authorities concerned.
12.
asked the Minister for Health if he is aware that wide discrepancies occur as to the services of clothing, etc., available to tuberculosis patients under the domiciliary welfare scheme, as operated by different local health authorities; and that these discrepancies can result in patients in the same hospital receiving totally different standards of service from such schemes; whether he will issue general directions to local health authorities with a view to ensuring a reasonable degree of uniformity in the operation of such schemes; and whether, in particular, he will now direct those authorities whose operation of these schemes is least satisfactory to take steps to administer them in a more liberal manner.
The domiciliary welfare scheme, as its name implies, is intended primarily for necessitous patients undergoing treatment for tuberculosis outside hospitals but under it suitable clothing may be provided for necessitous patients undergoing treatment in institutions in circumstances in which, if such clothing were not provided, they would be unable to derive full benefit from the treatment.
The grant of assistance under the scheme is entirely within the discretion of the various health authorities and, consequently, while an approximate uniformity of standards over the whole country is a reasonable aim, it would be impossible to achieve it. Such inquiries as I have made, however, would appear to indicate that applications are dealt with sympathetically by the authorities concerned. It should be remembered that since this scheme was first introduced the position has altered substantially by reason of the introduction of the Infectious Diseases (Maintenance) Allowances.