We have frequently stressed the economic phase of tuberculosis eradication, but the dairy farmer also has a moral responsibility to his own family and the families of others who may consume his product in the raw state. The chief danger is, of course to children, especially to children under five years of age. Listen to what Dr. Charles H. Mayo f the world-renowned clinic of Rochester, Minnesota, says concerning the eradication of bovine tuberculosis:
“I believe in pasteurization,” he says in answer to an inquiry, “but I also strongly believe in the eradication of tuberculosis animals from dairy herds. This can be done by careful testing. The testing should be repeated twice a year until the herd is free from disease. This is the only safe way for children on the farms where pasteurized milk cannot be obtained. The majority of cases of tuberculosis in the neck, intestines, and abdomen are found in children from the farms and not from the city.”
Farm fathers and mothers may well pause and consider these words of a famous surgeon who tells them that this type of tuberculosis is most often found on the farm. Does it pay to temporize and delay? Of course, all children who drink milk from tubercular cows may not acquire the disease. It is even possible that only a small percentage of them will. But what sensible and loving father would refuse to stamp out the burning brand even thought they may be only one chance in 10 that it will set the house on fire? Who would jeopardize in the slightest or run one chance in a million that his little boy or girl might be taken from him because he was neglectful in adopting reasonable precautionary methods? Many sad stories have been told. Here is one recently called to our attention, and almost any community can find a similar tragedy:
A little farm boy of two years developed a swelling on his head. Local doctors failed to discover the cause and finally the child was taken to the state children's hospital. There it was found that the trouble was due to tuberculosis. Everything that science and tender care could do failed to save the child.
The parents, recognizing the possibility of bovine origine but heretofore neglectful, immediately had their herd tuberculin tested. Several cows reacted, among them the one cow whose milk had been selected for baby because the cow seemed to be so healthy. Post-mortem revealed that this animal had tuberculous udder.
Is there a father or mother who can fail to understand the anguish and self-reproach these young parents suffered? There is no proof here, perhaps, yet there must always arise the question with these stricken parents. “If we had cleared our herd of tuberculosis, Bobbie might still be with us.” However, proof is not lacking that bovine tuberculosis is responsible for tuberculosis in people, particularly children. We give below a few references.
A German commission investigated 84 children who had died of tuberculosis. Twenty-one of these, or one-fourth, had contracted the disease from bovine sources. Several years ago an investigation revealed that in New York City there were 300 children died each year from tuberculosis of bovine origin, in addition to which there were many more that were permanently disabled through tuberculosis of the glands, bones, and joints, acquired from bovine sources. In 67 cases of tuberculosis of the bone in children under 12 years of age, an Edenborough investigation showed that 41 were of bovine origin. In the same city, out of 72 children with enlarged cervical glands, 65 showed tuberculosis of bovine origin and only seven from human germs.
“It is evident from these results,” says Dr. Ravanel, “as well as those obtained from other works, that the chief danger of infection with the bovine germ in children and especially children under five years of age. It is self-evident that practically the only source of infection in such children is the milk they drink.”
This is the human side of tuberculosis testing—a possible tragedy waiting just around the corner for the father and mother who neglect to accept the protection of which they might avail themselves. Would they place their boys and girls in jeopardy, even though it may be only a one in a million risk? Will they continue to knowingly gamble with the life of their own little children and other little children?
--From Hoard’s Dairyman, May 25, 1926, as reprinted on the editorial page of the Cherokee Scout, Murphy, N.C., Friday, July 23, 1926
newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn83004710/1926-07-23/ed-1/seq-2/
No comments:
Post a Comment