§ 40. Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of an insured person named John Coghlan, living at Eastry, Kent; whether he is aware that Coghlan, a youth of twenty-two years of age, was found to be suffering from tuberculosis some two months ago, and his own doctor and the local medical officer of health agreed in the opinion that 1251 his life might be saved if he were immediately removed to a sanatorium, and recommended him for sanatorium treatment accordingly; that the Kent County Insurance Committee accepted the case, and undertook to communicate with the patient's friends as soon as a bed should become available, that Coghlan has never yet been removed to a sanatorium, but, after being left for several weeks in a small, old-fashioned cottage with several small children, who were thereby exposed to the danger of infection, he was removed to the workhouse infirmary, where he still is, and that through this neglect to provide the youth with sanatorium benefit his recovery is now practically hopeless; and whether the contributions under the Insurance Act paid by John Coghlan for benefits to which he is entitled, but which have been withheld from him, will be returned to him or, in the event of his death, to his legal representatives?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am informed by the Kent Insurance Committee that the insured person referred to applied for sanatorium benefit on 14th April, and that on 18th April he was recommended for sanatorium treatment, and from that date was receiving domiciliary treatment. On the same date the doctor in charge of the case was informed that the tuberculosis officer would consult with them as to subsequent treatment. No communication was received, either from the doctor in charge of the case or from the local medical officer of health to the effect that the case required institutional treatment. When the tuberculosis officer called on the doctor he was informed that Coghlan had been admitted into an infirmary. Had this not been done the committee would have made arrangements for his admission to the Bromley and Beckenham Sanatorium.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this youth is being detained in his own home, a small cottage where a number of other children were subject to infection by his presence; and is he also aware that the youth was removed to a workhouse infirmary when his friends had despaired of getting him the treatment to which he was entitled under the Insurance Act?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am not aware as to these facts, but, as far as I can judge by examination, no blame attaches to the Kent Insurance Committee. The blame 1252 rather attaches to those who did not make the representation on the occasion referred to.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSWill the right hon. Gentleman explain why this insured person was sent to a workhouse infirmary?
§ Mr. MASTERMANWe never sent him to a workhouse infirmary. He was receiving domiciliary treatment from the Kent Insurance Committee.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILLTo whom does the right hon. Gentleman say these representations should be made?
§ Mr. MASTERMANTo the tuberculosis officer of the insurance committee.