jp1885 Posted 20 January , 2014 Share Posted 20 January , 2014 Hi, Whilst going through the service record of a relative (individual thread at http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=204145&hl=) I came across some references to a 'period of V.D.' during or after his stay at Bethnal Green hospital (evacuated from Gallipoli, then Malta for appendicitis). The references aren't listed in chronological order on his record, but a helpful clerk has at some time numbered the entries, allowing me to cut and paste them in (see attachment). His 'period of V.D.' places him in Rochester Row hospital - Googling this place has it down as a V.D. hospital and digging deeper into the archive brings up a report from Rochester Row, showing him admitted for gonorrhoea. But was he admitted on three separate occasions, or would two of them be 'check ups'? Furthermore, is he likely to have contracted gonorrhoea in hospital, for example during his operation, or would he have picked it up whilst being up to something naughty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaJane Posted 20 January , 2014 Share Posted 20 January , 2014 Only way to contract gonorrhoea, as far as I know (I haven't checked) is intimate contact (not sure if it is transmitted in utero as sometimes happens with syphilis). Its effects fluctuate, which would account for the repeated admissions. Excuse me while I go and check for any possibility of contracting it through broken skin or other infection vectors. [later] I can't find any other method of transmission except from an infected mother to her baby during childbirth - but if that had been the case I think your man would have been in worse trouble by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1885 Posted 20 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 20 January , 2014 Hehe, thanks for clearing that up (as it were). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc2 Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 Actually, Gonorrhea can be transmitted in several ways, including VERY RARE (and thus almost publishable) hand-to-hand contact. Skin infections and eye infections are reported (though I have to admit that I have never seen a skin infection). However, in general, the vast majority of cases (nearly 100%) are "caught" in just the way you would expect. If he caught it in the hospital, this would imply that he was having sexual relations in the hospital--- This is not normally a "hospital-acquired infection". In this instance, the second and third admissions, lasting 32 days and 6 days respectively, would not have been for "checkups", but for treatment. The second was likely due to "catching another dose". The third could have been readmission for treatment after the second hospitalization did not cure the disease, though it looks to me as if entries 8 and 9 are reversed-- see the dates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1885 Posted 21 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 21 January , 2014 Thanks! So if we transpose 8 and 9, it looks like he had two lots of treatment at what I think says 'High Commission Office' and a third at Rochester Row. He was discharged from Bethnal Green on 11/09/15, and I have a record that states he was admitted to Rochester Row 04/10/15, so he had a couple of weeks to sample the local, er, 'attractions'. That is assuming that he caught it in London - how long is it usually between catching it and noticing the symptoms? (You can tell I've led a sheltered life!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGM Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 I suspect the number of days of hospilitation was recorded because pay could be suspended during inpatient treatment for a venereal disease. Reference CGM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarylW Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 What a fascinating article CGM. I wasn't aware of most of that, including the part about Ettie Rout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 The large statistics of VD in the army read amazingly to modern eyes. By the Great War the figures were improving, but the war did not help matters. A 20 year old who was due to go over the top and had not experienced sexual intercourse was highly likely to spend a few francs on a jigajig in the local red light and blow the consequences. As it were. By the way, the evidence for officers'-only blue lamps is totally anecdotal and I don't believe a word of it. Yes, there were officers' knocking shops, but no, no blue lamps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 I'm surprised that the number of infected men was only 5% - would have thought it was higher. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 I beleive that in some poorer areas of the UK syphillis passed from mother to child was endemic. Would this show up in a recruits initial medical or would the age of the average recruit of late teens /early twenties, especially in the conscrips of 1917/18, mean that the disease was in a period of remission or at least not showing symptoms. Alternativly could this generic form of syphillis be a factor in increased rates in the last two year of the was as stated in the reference from CGM. bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 AR Skelley writes that, in the period 1860 to 1899 never fewer than one man in ten, and often one man in five, underwent some form of VD treatment in each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exuser1 Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 The French movie House of Tolerance tackles the issue of brothels in pre Great War France , and is worth watching. After reading the article it reenforces the understanding that a rifle was not the most dangerous weapon a soldier carried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1885 Posted 21 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 21 January , 2014 Thanks for your replies folks! The chap I am looking at met (and later married) my great aunt during his service, so I can only hope that it was a considerable time after his treatment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 The French movie House of Tolerance tackles the issue of brothels in pre Great War France , and is worth watching. After reading the article it reenforces the understanding that a rifle was not the most dangerous weapon a soldier carried. Shown recently on Sky Arts, with sub titles. Wondered where the title came from now I know One of the girls is found to have Syphillis when examined by the Doc so Madame says all the other girls will have to work hard because she is a girl short. My impression is that the girls seem too have been recruited when the Madame/owner of the house bought the girls debts although one girl had "volunteered" for the work. Aninterseting insight into French culture in Victorian/Edwardian era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exuser1 Posted 21 January , 2014 Share Posted 21 January , 2014 The update as to how its progressed was intresting ,ibelive the houses ceased operation in the late 1940s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now