1848HealthActLandmarkPeiceofLegislation
Google

Public Health was another social reform amongst many, when the time of laissez faire had come to an end. However in terms of health it was pioneering, in social reform it was not. The changes that it applied did reach a lot of people; by the end of 1853 the Board had implemented the Public Health Act in 182 places, affecting 2 million people. When the act came up for renewal as this happened every five years, opposition was strong though as it was seen as a failure, it never achieved what it set out to do and that was bring epidemics like cholera to an end. Chadwick was given early retirement and new amendments were added for the new 1854 act. It had been realised by catching an epidemic early, this would lessen the impact, yet previously unions had been slow to react or had done nothing at all.  The new Board led by Sir Benjamin Hall used better application when the third cholera epidemic swept the country, local authorities started doing what the Public Health Board told them to, and Poor Law Commissioners made more resources available. The results were better as with 43,737 possible symptoms of cholera were detected in London, these people were treated and only 52 developed the decease . The new act was comprehensively built on the old one, the fact it was so successful showed the failings of its predecessor.

Lightbulb
In my opinion The 1848 Public Health Act was the first step on a long road, it started a trend for change politically in relation to health. It did come at a time of many social policies and blended in to the change that was going on, and many acts followed because it was not far reaching enough. However the reason so many changes were made to the original was because Public Health grew in importance, if the small successes the original act had could be improved, many lives could be saved.  In terms of implementation these limited successes were not enough in terms of what were expected. I believe that in this respect it was a failure because it did not do enough to stop deaths during the epidemics. General health was not improved, and causes were not stopped. This was because the General Board did not have enough powers and so local authorities did not do as it requested. Failure can also be attributed to a lack of knowledge at the time, when house to house visits were seen to be working they were not employed in all areas. It was a powerful piece of centralising ideology, but did not have the goods to back itself up. Therefore it is dependant on how you measure the Public Health Act. Personally I feel from a political point of view it was a landmark piece of legislation in respect that it was the first of its kind, although it came at a time of great political change it was still unique in relation to what it was trying to do.  But from a social point of view I do not think it was because many died, and conditions remained unsanitary until greater changes were made.

Page 173 – Harold Perkin – Origins of Modern English Society

Page 32 – W. H. Claber and W. O. Anderson – The Condition of the Working Class in England

Page 48 – Derek Fraser – The new Poor Law in the 19th Century

Page 25 – Sir Malcolm Morris – The Story of English Public Health

Page 27 -  Sir Malcolm Morris – The Story of English Public Health

Page 117 – Harold Perkin - Origins of Modern English Society

Page 7 – The General Board of Health 1854

Page 31 – Sir Malcolm Morris – The Story of English Public Health 

Page 344 – S. E. Finer – The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick

The Times - 1854

The Times – 7th of October

Page 8 – General Board of Health - 1854

 

Next Page

Google
     

 

Part of the BuytheMap.com Network

Click here for Links & Domains for Sale