Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-18T19:46:11.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Myth of Exceptionalism: The History of Venereal Disease Reporting in the Twentieth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Amy L. Fairchild ,
James Colgrove  and
Ronald Bayer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As therapeutic advances in the treatment of AIDS began to emerge in the late 1980s and public health began to have more to offer than just the threat, or the perceived threat, of quarantine or partner notification, fissures began to appear in the alliance against named HIV reporting that had emerged a few years earlier. In 1989, New York City’s Health Commissioner stated that the prospects of early clinical intervention warranted “a shift toward a disease-control approach to HIV infection along the lines of classic tuberculosis practices,” including the “reporting of seropositives.”

Although his proposal met with fierce and effective resistance, it is now clear that his call represented part of a national trend. The CDC continued to press for cases of HIV to he reported by name to health departments, an effort that assumed the dimensions of a campaign. It was supported by a growing number of public health officials.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , Winter 2003 , pp. 624 - 637
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bayer, Ronald Fairchild, Amy L., “The Limits of Privacy: Surveillance and the Control of Disease,” Health Care Analysis, 10 (2002):19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, S., Remarks at the 5th International Conference on AIDS (June 5, 1989), mimeo.Google Scholar
Bayer, R., “Public Health Policy and the AIDS Epidemic: An End to HIV Exceptionalism?” N. Engl. J. Med. 324 (1991): 1500–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Albert E., “Venereal Prophylaxis,” Journal of the Michigan State Medical Society 4;9 (September 1905): 409–420, at 419.Google Scholar
Carrier, Albert E., “Venereal Prophylaxis,” Journal of the Michigan State Medical Society 4;9 (September 1905): 409–420, at 420.Google Scholar
Interestingly, Michigan did not even attempt to pass a TB reporting statute until 1909 and physicians described it as being “far behind twenty other states.” “New York's Tuberculosis Law,” Journal of the Michigan State Medical Society 8 (1909):86; Warthin, Aldred Scott, “The Need of Michigan in the Fight Against Tuberculosis,'” Journal of the Michigan State Medical Society 8 (1909): 78–82.Google Scholar
“A Model State Law for Morbidity Reports,”–Public Health Reports XXVII; 26 (June 27, 1913): 1323–1329.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Guy L., “Report of Committee on Control of Venereal Disease by a Municipality,” JAMA 57 (1911): 1052–1054, at 1053. To build public opinion, the Detroit Society for Sex Hygiene was organizing a series of workshops in pubic schools and churches as a means of arousing public sentiment and making a reporting law feasible.Google Scholar
“The Notifiable Diseases: Diseases and Conditions Required to be Reported in the Several States,” Public Health Reports 31 (1916): 881–885.Google Scholar
Strong, S.L., “A Symposium on the Reportability and Control of Venereal Diseases,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal CLXIX; 25 (December 18, 1913): 903–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Allan, No Magic Bullet: A Social History of Venereal Disease in the United States Since 1880 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987):11–19.Google Scholar
Morrow, Prince A., “Health Department Control of Venereal Diseases,” New York Medical Journal 94 (1911): 129–133, at 130.Google Scholar
Morrow, Prince A., “Health Department Control of Venereal Diseases,” New York Medical Journal 94 (1911): 129–133, at 130.Google Scholar
Morrow, Prince A., “Health Department Control of Venereal Diseases,” New York Medical Journal 94 (1911): 129–133, at 130.Google Scholar
Morrow, Prince A., “Health Department Control of Venereal Diseases,” New York Medical Journal 94 (1911): 129–133, at 132.Google Scholar
Morrow, Prince A., “Health Department Control of Venereal Diseases,” New York Medical Journal 94 (1911): 129–133, at 132.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913):135–154.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913):135–154, at 150.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 143. The Board of Estimate and Apportionment allotted $55,000 for the construction of this hospital the same year. The medical advisory board to the NYCDOH quickly resolved to undertake the “sanitary surveillance of the venereal diseases.”Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913):135–154, at 150. See also Marsh, E.H., “A Plan for the Prevention of Venereal Diseases in New York State,” New York Medical Journal 107(1918):1178–1179.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York, 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 135.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York, 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 135.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York, 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 145.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York, 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 144. Shea, Thomas B., “What the City Should Do to Control Syphilis,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal CLXXI;11 (September 10, 1914): 415–417, at 415, would also argue that “the time has arrived when this disease should be controlled the same as other infectious diseases.” The argument that venereal disease should be treated like others persisted through the 1920s. See Starkey, Frank R., “Prophylaxis of Venereal Disease,” Journal of the Michigan State Medical Society 17(1918): 82–84, at 84, who argued that “We should have the courage to make a stand in this matter and strip the subject of the stigma of shame and deal with it simply as we do other contagious diseases. …” See, additionally, Taylor, G.G., “Approved Methods of Venereal Disease Control,” Illinois Medical Journal 38 (August 1920): 119–122 and Moore, H.H., “Four Million Dollars for the Fight Against Venereal Diseases,” Social Hygiene 5 (1919):15–26; Vaughan, Henry F., “Municipal Control of Venereal Diseases,” Social Hygiene 14 (1928): 539–544, at 544; “Notification and Control of Venereal Disease,” Social Hygiene 15 (1929): 229–243, at 237; Frankel, Lee K., “The Interest of Life Insurance Companies in Social Hygiene,” Social Hygiene 1;1 (1914): 61–66, at 62. A similar anti-exceptionalist plea was also articulated for TB reporting: O'Neill, Eugene J., “The Need and Value of Stria Enforcement of Notification in Cases of Suspected and Diagnosed Pulmonary Tuberculosis,”Illinois Medical Journal 39 (January 1921): 22–25.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York, 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 144.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann M., “Venereal Diseases. The Attitude of the Department of Health in Relation Thereto,” New York Medical Journal 97 (May 17, 1913): 1009–1012, at 1009. See also Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 1 (January 1913): 13.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York, 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 144–145.Google Scholar
“Venereal Disease” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3:1 (January 1913): 13.Google Scholar
Biggs, , “Venereal Diseases,” 1009–1012, at 1011.Google Scholar
The Medical Association of the Greater City of New York, Annual Meeting, Held January 20, 1913, New York Medical Journal 97 (1913): 1004.Google Scholar
“The Compulsory Notification of Venereal Diseases,” JAMA 31 (1898): 1119–1120.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3: 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 136.Google Scholar
Biggs, , “Venereal Diseases,” 1009–1012, at 1011.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 149.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913):135–154, at 150, 149. Biggs echoed the words of others before him like Prince Morrow, who wrote, “It is not probable that the notification proposed by the health board would involve any violation of professional secrecy that ought to be respected. Even were the report of all cases required, the information furnished would doubtless be kept secret by the sanitary officials; it would not be proclaimed from the housetops or in any way made public.” Morrow, Prince A., “Health Department Control of Venereal Diseases,” New York Medical Journal 94 (1911): 129–133, at 132.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 150.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3, 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 150.Google Scholar
In Allen v. Dept. of Health William H. Allen petitioned the health department for access to all typhoid records, including the records of cases. Allen gave “no reason or explanation why he desires to inspect these records” and made the request solely “upon his presumed right as a taxpayer” under Section 1545 of the Charter of the City of New York, which stipulated that “All books, accounts and papers in any department or bureau thereof, except the police and law departments, shall at all times be open to the inspection of any taxpayer, subject to any reasonable rules and regulations.” Laws of 1901, chap. 466, section 1545. Allen made his claim based on section 1545 of the city charter as well as section 1175, which allowed the department of health to establish regulations regarding whey and how “papers, files, reports, record and proceedings” should be made public and publicized. Laws of 1901, ch. 466, section 1175. In the case of Egan, the city had, indeed, ruled that citizens had the right to inspect records regarding the award of city contracts. Matter of Egan, 205 N.Y. 147. But in Allen, the opinion differed dramatically, based on the nature of the records in question. See also “In the Matter of the Application of William H. Allen, Appellant, to Examine Certain Records on File in the Department of Health in the City of New York, Respondent, Opinion of Willard Bartlett, April 1912, 205 N.Y., pp. 158–160.Google Scholar
In the Matter of the Application of William H. Allen, Respondent, to Examine Certain Records on File in the Department of Health in the City of New York, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Dec. 1, 1911, 148 A.D. 26, at 30.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,” Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913): 135–154, at 150–151. See also Keyes, Edward L., “The Effect of Venereal Disease Upon the Public Health,” New York Medical Journal 91(1910): 5–9. See the Medical Association of the Greater City of New York, Annual Meeting, Held January 20, 1913, New York Medical Journal 97 (1913): 1004.Google Scholar
See also Johnson, Paul B., “Social Hygiene and the War,” Social Hygiene 4 (1918):91–137, which indicates that these fears would persist among physicians.Google Scholar
Biggs, “Venereal Diseases,” 1009–1012, at 1010.Google Scholar
Biggs, “Venereal Diseases,” 1009–1012, at 1011.Google Scholar
Biggs, Hermann, “The Public Health,”. Monthly Bulletin of the Department of Health of the City of New York 3; 6 (June 1913); 135–154, at 136.Google Scholar
Department of Health of the City of New York, Annual Report of the Department of Health of the City of New York for the Calendar Year 1913 (New York City, 1914):84. In 1919 Louis Harris at the Bureau of Preventable Diseases in New York, would continue to call for mandatory VD reporting while noting “the growing tendency toward a cordial and cooperative relationship between private physicians and health officers.” Harris, Louis I., “The Venereal Disease Problem,” New York Medical Journal 109(1919): 531–535.Google Scholar
Department of Health of the City of New York, Annual Report of the Department of Health of the City of New York for the Calendar Year 1918(New York: William Bratler, Inc., 1919): 71.Google Scholar
“Enforcement of Reporting in New York City,” Social Hygiene 9 (1923):244. Similarly, in 1935, the Massachusetts Health Commissioner warned that 37.3 percent of physicians had failed ever to report a case of VD and that if the compliance rate was not improved then the state would cease to supply them with free arsenicals for treatment. Chadwick, Henry D., “The Reporting of Syphilis: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health State House, Boston,” N. Engl. J. Med. 212 (March 14, 1935): 494.Google Scholar
New York State Department of Health, Manual of Laws Relating to Syphilis, Gonorrhea and Chancroid, A Compilation of the Laws and Regulations (New York: Albany, 1919): 7. See also Sanitary Code, Chapter II, Communicable Diseases, A Compilation of the Laws and Regulations (New York: Albany, 1919): 1 and Special Rules and Regulations, A Compilation of the Laws and Regulations (New York: Albany, 1919): 35.Google Scholar
Biggs, Herman M., “Compulsory Notification and Registration of Tuberculosis,” address before the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis (Washington, D.C.: N.P., 1907): 6–7. In the case of tuberculosis, the health department would only exam sputum accompanied by identifying patient information.Google Scholar
“The Notifiable Diseases: Diseases and Conditions Required to be Reported in the Several States,” Public Health Reports (April 7, 1916): 880–885; Dublin, Louis I., Statistician, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., and Mary Augusta Clark, Statistician, American Social Hygiene Association, “A Program for the Statistics of the Venereal Diseases,” Public Health Reports 36; 50 (December 16, 1921): 3071–3088; “Venereal Disease Control,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal XLXXXI; 6 (August 7, 1919): 185–187; “Venereal Diseases Regulations Explained: Observance Declared Patriotic Duty,” Illinois Medical Journal 33 (June 1918): 342–343. The theme of patriotism would endure beyond the war's end. In 1919, for example, Dr. H.N. Cole, a professor of dermatology and syphilis at Ohio's Western Reserve University Medical School, urged that the venereal campaign persist: “it is the patriotic duty and the moral duty of every physician and parent to report all cases of venereal disease by name and address making a particular attempt to find the source of the infection.” Cole, H.N., “Venereal Diseases—Their Diagnosis, Treatment and Control,” Ohio State Medical Journal 15 (December 1919): 783–784.Google Scholar
Gertrude Seymour, PHS, “A Year’s Progress in Venereal Disease Control,” Social Hygiene 5 (1919): 49–66, at 61. Another editorial declared that “early notification is a most important factor in the warfare against disease. … [P]hysicians should rally to the good cause and see to it that their districts are furnished with reliable figures concerning the incidence of communicable disease.” >“Tuberculosis and Notification,” American Journal of Public Health 8 (1918): 924–925, at 925. See also Cole, H.N., “How Physicians of Ohio May Aid in the Campaign Against Venereal Diseases,” Ohio State Medical Journal 15 (February 1919): 68–69, at 68, which stated, “The fighting and industrial needs of the nation demand that sick men be made well quickly and with certainty. Venereal infection among the civilian population must be controlled to maintain the maximum efficiency to work of fight.”Google Scholar
“Reporting of Venereal Diseases,” Northwest Medicine Vol. XVII, No. 1. (January 1918): 28.Google Scholar
Moore, H.H., “Four Million Dollars for the Fight Against Venereal Diseases,” Social Hygiene 5 (1919):15–26.Google Scholar
“Public Health Service Program for Nationwide Control of Venereal Diseases” New York Medical Journal 109(1919): 126.Google Scholar
Cole, H.N., “How Physicians of Ohio May Aid in the Campaign Against Venereal Diseases,” Ohio State Journal of Medicine 15 (February 1919): 69 and “Physicians Indorse Campaign,” Social Hygiene 5 (1919): 392. A year before the legislation providing funding to states with notification laws was passed, a resolution of the AMA called for “the centralized control of venereal infections through special divisions of the proper public health and medical services” without explicitly endorsing reporting. American Medical Association, Resolution of June 7, 1917, reprinted in Public Health Service, Venereal Disease Handbook for Community Leaders (Washington: GPO, 1924): 61. See also Johnson, Paul B., “Social Hygiene and the War,” Social Hygiene 4;1(1918): 91–137.Google Scholar
“The Control of Venereal Diseases,” Public Health Reports Reprint 447 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, January 4, 1918): 3.Google Scholar
Gertrude Seymour, PHS, “A Year’s Progress in Venereal Disease Control,” Social Hygiene 5 (1919): 49–66. In 1918, the PHS had suggested coded reporting. See also Johnson, Paul B., “Social Hygiene and the War,” Social Hygiene 4;1(1918):91–137 and Worthington, George E., “Developments in Social Hygiene Legislation from 1917 to September 1, 1920,” Social Hygiene 6 (1920): 557–568.Google Scholar
Seymour, , “A Year’s Progress,” 49–66, at 53.Google Scholar
Vermont developed a two-tiered system of VD reporting in 1913, following in the path of New York City. “Legislation to Prevent the Spread of Venereal Diseases,” Social Hygiene 1; 4 (1915): 635–638. The Vermont legislation stipulated that “All information and reports in connection with persons suffering from such diseases shall be regarded as absolutely confidential, and shall not be accessible by the public nor shall records be deemed public records.” As in New York, Vermont did not require physicians to report the names and addresses of their private patients, providing privacy for this class of patient. But physicians were required to report the name, address, sex, age, nationality, and race of every “charitable patient” they encountered in “hospitals, dispensaries, clinics, homes, asylums, [and] charitable and correctional institutions.” Vermont, Act No. 218, Feb. 3, 1913, reported in “Sanitary Legislation: State Laws and Regulations Pertaining to Public Health,” Public Health Reports 28 (1913): 1173–1180, at 1179.Google Scholar
“Legislation to Prevent the Spread of Venereal Diseases,” Social Hygiene 1; 4 (1915): 635–638. By 1921, only seven states required name reporting. Forty states required reports using serial number and of these, 17 specified that names were to be reported when the patient “fails to observe proper precautions.” Dublin, Louis I., Statistician, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., and Mary Augusta Clark, Statistician, American Social Hygiene Association, “A Program for the Statistics of the Venereal Diseases,” Public Health Reports 36; 50 (December 16, 1921): 30713088. See also “The Massachusetts Venereal Disease Program,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal CLXXVII;3 (January 17, 1918): 100–102.Google Scholar
In 1918, for example, Massachusetts adopted what was known as the “West Australian” method for coded reporting, which protected both the patient and physician identity: “At the first visit or consultation the physician furnishes the patient with a numbered circular of information and advice. At the same time he fills out the numbered report blank attached to the circular of advice and mails it to the state department of health. If the patient has been under the care of another physician previously, the second physician consulted notifies the first one on a special blank provided for that purpose. If the patient fails to return to the attending physician for a period of six weeks, the physician notifies the state department, which, in turn, notifies the local board of the community in which the patient resides.” Physicians were only required to report names “only when he will not follow proper medical advice or cease from infecting others.” In this manner, the state felt that it was possible “as far as it is consistent with the best interests of the public health, [to] respect the patient's instinctive desire for secrecy.” “Control of Venereal Disease in Massachusetts,” JAMA 70;17 (1918): 1234–1235. See also “The Western Australia Act for the Control of Venereal Disease,” Social Hygiene 3; 1 (1917): 148–149. By 1924, health officers in Massachusetts reported that it had almost never been necessary to quarantine patients refusing treatment. Eugene R. Kelley, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, and Albert Pfeiffer, Chief, Subdivision of Venereal Diseases, Massachusetts Department of Public Health,” “Some Special Features of Massachusetts' Program for Venereal Disease Control,” JAMA 83;12 (1924): 913–918. See also Johnson, Paul D., “Social Hygiene and the War,” Social Hygiene 4;1 (1918): 91–137.Google Scholar
“New Regulation for Venereal Disease Reports,” California State Journal of Medicine 16 (August 1918); 375. Like Massachusetts, California adhered to the West Australian method for reporting. Patients in Massachusetts were also informed that their case was being reported by code. Johnson, Paul B., “Social Hygiene and the War,” Social Hygiene 4;1 (1918): 91–137. In sharp contrast, the Medical Societies of Ross and Pickaway Counties in Ohio adopted a resolution that if any member of the armed services were to seek treatment that physicians should, “without informing the applicant, report the case immediately to the Division Surgeon's office.” If a soldier failed or refused “to give satisfactory address,” physicians should refuse treatment “on the ground that such identification is expected of all patients.” Physicians were further called on to report other physicians who violated the resolution. “Some Social Hygiene Resolutions of Importance,” Social Hygiene 4 (1918): 242–243.Google Scholar
Dr.Johnson, Paul B., Member, Committee for Civilian Cooperation in Combating Venereal Diseases, Council of National Defense, Washington, D.C. “Social Hygiene and the War,” Social Hygiene 4;1 (1918): 91–137, at 95.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Henry F., “Municipal Control of Venereal Diseases,” Social Hygiene 14 (1928): 538–544.Google Scholar
Transactions of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Conference of State and Territorial health Officers with the United States Public Health Service (Washington: Public Health Service, 1936): 32.Google Scholar
“The Notifiable Diseases: Diseases and Conditions Required to be Reported in the Several States,” Public Health Reports 34 (February 7, 1919): 233–238, at 233.Google Scholar
Kelley, Eugene R., “The Massachusetts Venereal Disease Program,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal CLXXVIII;3 (January 17, 1918): 100–102; Thomson, Alec Nicol, “The Massachusetts Plan,” Social Hygiene 5 (1919): 317–335. Massachusetts explicitly protected the identity of physicians who reported patients by name. See also Digest of Laws and Regulations Relating to the Prevention and Control of Syphilis and Gonorrhea in the Forty-Eight States and the District of Columbia (New York: American Social Hygiene Association with the Cooperation of the USPHS, 1940): 174, 78.Google Scholar
“Notification of Venereal Diseases,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 179 (December 12, 1918): 748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druggists were also required to keep records of all prescriptions by name and address unless the prescription bore the physician's “key” number. The law specifically protected druggists' records from all but local and state health officials. “Venereal Diseases Regulations Explained: Observance Declared Patriotic Duty,” Illinois Medical Journal 33 (June 1918): 342–345.Google Scholar
“Reporting Venereal Diseases,” Illinois Medical Journal 33 (January 1918): 51–52.Google Scholar
“Venereal Diseases Regulations Explained: Observance Declared Patriotic Duty,” Illinois Medical Journal 33 (June 1918): 342–345, at 343. See also Taylor, G.G., “Approved Methods of Venereal Disease Control,” Illinois Medical Journal 38 (August 1920): 119–122. Many venereal disease reporting laws had explicit confidentiality clauses. Some states, like New Jersey, required reporting not to local but to state health officials on the grounds that it was the state officials who were bound by the law, making the reports “less likely to become public property than if they were reported to local boards.” “Reporting of Venereal Diseases in New Jersey” Social Hygiene 3; 4 (1917): 599–600.Google Scholar
Strong, S.L., “A Symposium on the Reportability and Control of Venereal Diseases,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal CLXIX;25 (December 18, 1913): 903–907; Kelley, Eugene R., “The Massachusetts Venerea! Disease Program,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal CLXXVIII;3 (January 17, 1918): 100–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G.G., “Approved Methods of Venereal Disease Control,” Illinois Medical Journal 38 (August 1926): 119–122, at 120.Google Scholar
Vaughan, Henry F., “Municipal Control of Venereal Diseases,” Journal of Social Hygiene 14 (1928): 539–544.Google Scholar
US PHS, “Legal Aspects of Venereal Disease Control: Local, State, and Federal Control,” Venereal Disease Manual for Social and Corrective Agencies, VD Bulletin No. 81 (Washington: GPO, 1926): 37.Google Scholar
“This trend is so widely endorsed,” the article continued, “and laws and ordinances for its effectuation have been so generally enacted as to fairly entitle it to be considered accepted policy.” “Notification and Control of Venereal Disease,” Journal of Social Hygiene 15 (1929): 229–243, at 237.Google Scholar
Charles Walter Clarke, Supervising Consultant, and Theodore Rosenthal, Director, Bureau of Social Hygiene, New York City Department of Health, “The Private Physician's Role in the New York City Syphilis Control Activities,” JAMA 111 (1938): 2287–2290, at 2289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles Walter Clarke, Supervising Consultant, and Theodore Rosenthal, Director, Bureau of Social Hygiene, New York City Department of Health, “The Private Physician's Role in the New York City Syphilis Control Activities,” JAMA 111 (1938): 2287–2290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles Walter Clarke, Supervising Consultant, and Theodore Rosenthal, Director, Bureau of Social Hygiene, New York City Department of Health, “The Private Physician's Role in the New York City Syphilis Control Activities,” JAMA 111 (1938): 2287–2290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior to 1938, the department had used the count of positive laboratory results to estimate the levels of VD. They ceased this practice in 1938 because physician reporting had increased some 126 percent in just one year. Indeed, by the second quarter of 1938, private physicians were exceeded health clinics (whose reporting also increased 135 percent) in reporting cases of syphilis and gonorrhea. Charles Walter Clarke, Supervising Consultant, and Theodore Rosenthal, Director, Bureau of Social Hygiene, New York City Department of Health, “The Private Physician's Role in the New York City Syphilis Control Activities,” JAMA 111 (1938): 2287–2290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, Edward S., Commissioner of Health, State of New York, “The New York State Program for Syphilis Control,” Social Hygiene 23; 1(1937):13–14; Johnson, Bascom, “State Laws and Regulations of State Boards of Health Which Deal with the Venereal Diseases,” Social Hygiene 24; 8 (1938): 514–519.Google Scholar
Theodore Rosenthal, Director, Bureau of Social Hygiene, and George Kerchner, Statistician, Bureau of Social Hygiene, Department of Health, New York, “Venereal Disease Case Reporting—New York City, 1941,” Venereal Disease Information (September 1942): 330.Google Scholar
Venereal Disease Branch, Field Manual (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Communicable Disease Center: Atlanta, Georgia, July 1962): H-2-H-3.Google Scholar
Walter Clark, Executive Director, American Social Hygiene Association, ‘“Find the Missing Million’—and Help Stamp Out Venereal Disease,” Social Hygiene 33: 8 (November 1947): 373–374, at 374.Google Scholar
Connecticut, for example, began requiring reports by full name, age, address, and occupation with the explicit stipulation that “such reports of infected persons shall be confidential and not open to public inspection” in 1943. Physicians were further required to report individuals who failed to return for observation or treatment. And, in addition, physicians were required to attempt to determine the source of infection and, if successful, report this name “in strict confidence.” “Change in Reporting Cases of Syphilis, Gonorrhea and Chancroid,” Connecticut Medical Journal 7(November 1943): 787–788. The District of Columbia, however, reverted to name-based reporting as early as 1926. “Reports of Venereal Disease, District of Columbia,” JAMA 86(1926):1842.Google Scholar
Johnson, Bascom, Digest of Laws and Regulations Relating to the Prevention and Control of Syphilis and Gonorrhea in the Forty-Eight States and the District of Columbia (1946 Supplement) (New York: American Social Hygiene Association, 1946), at 140.Google Scholar
The rate of syphilis declined from 55.9 in 1948 to 6.2 in 1953. By 1957, the rate was 38. Baumgartner, Leona, “Syphilis Eradication—A Plan for Action Now,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses,” Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 28. The death rate for syphilis was, in 1940, 10.7 per 100,000. By 1950, that rate had been cut in half and then halved again by 1955. Brandt, , No Magic Bullet, p. 171.Google Scholar
Aufranc, W.H., “Are Venereal Diseases Disappearing? Over-All Picture Throughout the Country,” American Journal of Syphilis 35 (March 1951): 135–137. Cited in Brandt, p. 171.Google Scholar
Brandt, , No Magic Bullet, p. 176, 178; Baumgartner, Leona, “Syphilis Eradication—A Plan for Action Now,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses,” Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 28.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Leona, “Syphilis Eradication—A Plan for Action Now,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses, Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 28.Google Scholar
Kampmeier, Rudolph H., “Responsibility of a Physician in a Program for Syphilis Eradication,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses,” Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 72 and Venereal Disease Branch, Field Manual (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Communicable Disease Center: Atlanta, Georgia, July 1962): H-3; Brandt, No Magic Bullet, p. 177.Google Scholar
Brandt, , No Magic Bullet, 174.Google Scholar
Lentz, John W., “Health Department Responsibilities to Practicing Physicians,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses, Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 55–56.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Leona, “Syphilis Eradication—A Plan for Action Now,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses, Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 29–30.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Leona, “Syphilis Eradication—A Plan for Action Now,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses, Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 27.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Leona, “Syphilis Eradication—A Plan for Action Now,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses, Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 30.Google Scholar
The goal of the program was to eradicate syphilis by 1972, leaving a structure in place for the subsequent eradication of gonorrhea. Parts I and II, Venereal Disease Branch Chief’s Statement, Control of Venereal Diseases, December 1963, p. 2, Part I, p. 4, Part II. RG 442, Box 108374, Folder: Program Planning Conference (December 1963), NARA, Atlanta Georgia. See also letter from Bauer, Theodore J., Assistant Surgeon General, to Surgeon and Chief, Bureau of State Services, Re: Task Force Report on Syphilis Control in the United States, January 12, 1962. RG 442, Box 105232, Folder: “Task Force Report on Syphilis Control in the United States,” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia; E-mail communication from Russell Havlak, March 20, 2003. For a critique of the eradication effort, see Aidan Cockburn, T., Assistant Commissioner of Health, Director Division, of Research, Ohio, “Comments on the Proposal to Eradicate Syphilis from the USA,” transcript of proposed article, February 1963. RG 442, VD Manuscript Files, Box 70A470, Folder, “Cockburn, Aiden T.” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Tuerk, Edward F., “Legal Basis for Syphilis Control,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses, Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 86.Google Scholar
One source indicates that in 1967 27 states required lab reporting. Public Advisory Committee on Venereal Disease Control: A Follow-Up Report of The Surgeon General’s Task Force on Syphilis Control, Atlanta, Georgia, June 16–17, 1966 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1967):7. RG 90, Box 334068, Folder: “Public Advisory Committee on VD Control,” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia. Another, however, suggests that 33 states and 80 locales had mandatory lab-based reporting as early as 1965. The American Public Health Association, The American Social Health Association, The American Venereal Disease Association, The Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, with the cooperation of the American Medical Association, “Today's VD Problem,” February 1966, p. 33. RG 442, Box 318288, File: “VD Program Informational Materials,” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia. See also letter from Donaldson, Alan W., Scientist Director, to Chief, CDC Washington Office, BSS (CH), and Deputy Chief, Communicable Disease Center, Re: Proposal for State Legislation, March 25, 1964. RG 442, Box 108379, Folder: “Legal 1964, Proposed Legislation,” NARA, Atlanta Georgia, which indicates that as of 1964 the following areas required lab-based reporting: Chicago, Connecticut, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Nevada, New York State, New York City, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Utah, and Ohio (regulations only in Ohio).Google Scholar
Health departments, however, were not able to follow-up on all of the lab-based reports, and in 1966 designated some 31 percent of cases as not requiring follow-up. Health departments did not follow up on weakly reactive specimens, specimens among the elderly, and specimens from health department clinics. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Report of the Venereal Disease Branch Fiscal Year 1966 (CDC:Atlanta, Georgia, 1966):9–10. RG 90, Box 334069, Folder: “VD Branch Report, FY 1966,” NARA, Atlanta Georgia. Thus, by 1967, despite a 24 percent increase in physician reporting from 1954 to 1965 and an increase in the percentage of patients contacted and interviewed by health officials (81.8 percent in 1963 and 89.6 percent in 1965), the PHS cut back on visits to private physicians in the face of continuing personnel shortages creating by failure of funding to keep pace with activities. Public Advisory Committee on Venereal Disease Control: A Follow-Up Report of The Surgeon General’s Task Force on Syphilis Control, Atlanta, Georgia, June 16–17, 1966 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1967):1–2, 5–6. RG 90, Box 334068, Folder: “Public Advisory Committee on VD Control,” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia. Instead, the Surgeon General’s Task Force on Syphilis Control recommended intensified contact tracing efforts in all high incidence areas, dubbing the program “Operation Pursuit.” Public Advisory Committee on Venereal Disease Control: A Follow-Up Report of The Surgeon General’s Task Force on Syphilis Control, Atlanta, Georgia, June 16–17, 1966 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1967):1–2, Box 334068, Folder: “Public Advisory Committee on VD Control,” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Sunkes, E.J., “Health Department Responsibilities to Private and Hospital Laboratories,” and Kampmeier, Rudolph H., “Responsibility of a Physician in a Program for Syphilis Eradication,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses,” Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 67, 73.Google Scholar
Part I, Venereal Disease Branch Chiefs Statement, Control of Venereal DiseasesFolder: “Program Planning Conference (Dec. 1963),” NARA, Atlanta Georgia.Google Scholar
Part I, Venereal Disease Branch Chief’s Statement, Control of Venereal Diseases, December 1963, p. 1. RG 442, Box 108374, Folder: “Program Planning Conference (Dec. 1963),” NARA, Atlanta Georgia.Google Scholar
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Report of the Venereal Disease Branch Fiscal Year 1966 (CDC:Atlanta, Georgia, 1966):8. RG 90, Box 334069, Folder: “VD Branch Report, FY 1966,” NARA, Atlanta Georgia.Google Scholar
Guthrie Birkhead, New York State Department of Health, AIDS Institute, personal communication, June 16, 2003.Google Scholar
The California code required laboratory-based reporting not only for syphilis and gonorrhea, but also diphtheria, tuberculosis, and typhoid. The prohibitions against patient contact until a report had been made applied to all conditions. Memorandum from Chief, Venereal Diseases Branch, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, to Assistant Chief, Communicable Disease Center, February 27, 1964 and attached California Administrative Code. RG 442, Box 108379, Folder: “Legal 1964, Proposed Legislation,” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Report of the Venereal Disease Branch Fiscal Year 1966 (CDC:Atlanta, Georgia, 1966): 8. RG 90, Box 334069, Folder: “VD Branch Report, FY 1966,” NARA, Atlanta Georgia.Google Scholar
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Report of the Venereal Disease Branch Fiscal Year 1966 (CDC:Atlanta, Georgia, 1966): 7, 9. RG 90, Box 334069, Folder: “VD Branch Report, FY 1966,” NARA, Atlanta Georgia.Google Scholar
The American Public Health Association, The American Social Health Association, The American Venereal Disease Association, The Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, with the cooperation of the American Medical Association, “Today’s VD Problem,” February 1966, p. 33. RG 442, Box 318288, File: “VD Program Informational Materials,” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Aidan Cockburn, T., “Comments on the Proposal to Eradicate Syphilis from the USA,” transcript of proposed article, February 1963, pp. 506. RG 442, VD Manuscript Files, Box 70A470, Folder, “Cockburn, Aidan T.” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Memorandum from W.A. Ketterer, MD, Head, Venereal Disease Section, Department of Health, California, through Philip K. Condit, MD, Chief, Bureau of Communicable Diseases, to Arthur C. Hollister, MD, Chief, Administrative Research, Division of Research, Re: Dr. Cockburn's Proposed Paper, April 8, 1963, pp. 1–2. RG 442, State and Community Service Division, VD Manuscript Files, Folder: “Cockburn, Aidan T,” Box 70A470. NARA, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
The American Public Health Association, The American Social Health Association, The American Venereal Disease Association, The Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, with the cooperation of the American Medical Association, “Today’s VD Problem,” February 1966, p. 34. RG 442, Box 318288, File: “VD Program Informational Materials,” NARA, Atlanta, Georgia. See also Kampmeier, Rudolph H., “Responsibility of a Physician in a Program for Syphilis Eradication,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses,” Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962): 75.Google Scholar
Venereal Disease Branch, Field Manual (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Communicable Disease Center: Atlanta, Georgia, July 1962): PMD-6.Google Scholar
E-mail from Russell Havlak, March 25, 2003.Google Scholar
E-mail from Russell Havlak, March 25, 2003.Google Scholar
The American Public Health Association, The American Social Health Association, The American Venereal Disease Association, The Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, with the cooperation of the American Medical Association, “Today’s VD Problem,” February 1966, p. 39. RG 442, Box 318288, File: “VD Program Informational Materials,”NARA, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Leona, “Syphilis Eradication—A Plan for Action Now,” Proceedings of World Forum on Syphilis and Other Treponematoses,” Washington, D.C., September 4–8, 1962 (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1962):1.Google Scholar
Ryan White Care Act Amendments of 2000, House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 106–788 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2000): 29.Google Scholar