Prof. N. A. Semashko

On the Work of the Branches of the All-Union Hygiene Society

In recent months, the work of the local branches of the All-Union Hygiene Society has become somewhat more active. Contacts have been established with a number of new localities (Tbilisi, Kursk, Kalinin, and others). Most of the branches, of which there are currently 17, have considerably expanded and intensified their work.

The Gorky branch of the All-Union Hygiene Society (chair: Prof. Skundina), in addition to its extensive work to improve sanitary conditions in the region and the city of Gorky and its energetic participation in the fight against infant mortality, has introduced an interesting innovation: it has established a special “Methodological Bureau” to organize lectures on combating infant mortality. Alongside a range of organizational measures advocated by the society, the Methodological Bureau will undoubtedly play its part in reducing infant mortality in the city and the region.

The oldest branch, the Leningrad branch of the All-Union Hygiene Society (chair: Prof. Frenkel), continues to carry out extensive work. Until recently, communication between the branch and the All-Union Hygiene Society had not been adequately established. This shortcoming has now been remedied. In particular, a very interesting and important report by Prof. Gutkin on child welfare, a detailed account of which was sent to the All-Union Hygiene Society, was discussed by the society’s school section.

The experience of the Kazan Hygienic Society (chairman: Prof. Miloslavsky) is of interest. At one of its meetings, Comrade Troitsky, a fifth-year student, presented a report entitled “The Sanitary Condition of the Yelabuga District,” based on his practical fieldwork in the district. This practice of bringing forward young specialists to present scientific reports is to be welcomed wholeheartedly. The Kazan Hygienic Society also examined Prof. A. N. Sysin’s hygiene textbook in detail and made a number of valuable suggestions for future editions. Its review was communicated to the author.

At one of its meetings, the Crimean Hygienic Society (chairman: Prof. Okulov) discussed in detail Prof. A. V. Molkov’s theses on the history of hygiene in our country, prepared for the 175th anniversary of the First Moscow Medical Institute, and Prof. S. I. Kaplun’s article, published in Meditsinsky Rabotnik, on the results of the All-Union ten-day review of hygiene teaching in the faculties of sanitation and medicine. The society’s comments, particularly its detailed observations on the second question, deserve serious attention and should be taken into account in the final decision on the teaching of hygiene in medical institutes.

The Sverdlovsk branch (chairman: Prof. Velichkin) has shown exceptionally important initiative by joining the fight against gastrointestinal diseases in the city and the surrounding region. At present it would be difficult to identify a more pressing subject for the work of the Hygienic Society’s branches. It is to be hoped that other societies will follow this example and that their participation in this important cause will not be confined to scientific consultation but will also take the form of practical assistance: raising issues in Party and Soviet organizations and working to ensure that decisions are implemented.

Alongside these and similar progressive branches of the All-Union Hygienic Society, however, work in a number of places is being conducted unsatisfactorily.

First of all, there are no ties whatsoever with the hygienic societies in Ukraine. This is regrettable. There is no doubt that scientific thought in hygiene is active in Ukraine, where a number of leading hygienists and sanitary workers, whose names are known throughout the Union, are based. The absence of contact prevents the sharing of this advanced Union republic’s experience and the proper planning of work on an all-Union scale. Such isolation will undoubtedly also have an adverse effect on preparations for the forthcoming All-Union Congress of Hygienists and Sanitary Physicians.

A number of branches do not work systematically enough. The Omsk Society (chairman: Prof. Vladimirsky), which for a time worked quite intensively, has recently slowed its pace. The same must be said, judging by the information available, of the Bashkir Society (chairman: Prof. Yemelyanov), the Tomsk Society (chairman: Prof. Suzdalsky), and several others. The Perm Society (chairman: Prof. Yershov) provides only brief information and does not send minutes of its meetings, making it difficult to assess its work and respond promptly when necessary.

The Stalingrad Society (chairman: Prof. Nikogosyan) likewise does not send minutes. The Irkutsk Society (chairman: Prof. Romanov) and the Kirghiz Society (chairman: Dr. Khryapin) have recently provided no information whatsoever about their activities. Is it really the case that these major centers, with their institutions of higher medical education, lack sufficient resources to organize public engagement properly, and that there are no pressing issues deserving public discussion and assistance in carrying out the necessary measures? Inaction in such cases cannot be justified.

The Penza Hygienic Society has joined the general Medical Society. Presumably this was done in recognition of the insufficient local sanitary and hygiene personnel to organize an independent society. But a hygiene section should be established within the Medical Society, given the distinctive character and importance of sanitary and hygiene work. Once a section had been formed, its members could establish contact with the All-Union Hygienic Society, which would provide them with every assistance in their work. Nevertheless, no information has yet been received from Penza, suggesting that scientific thought in hygiene there is languishing.

All the foregoing facts show that a broad field of activity lies open to hygienic thought in the USSR. Those branches of the Hygienic Society that not only discuss questions but also draw on the full strength of Soviet public engagement to press for concrete health-improvement measures deserve to be emulated in every way.

The Soviet hygiene community can and must take a leading role in improving the health of the population of the Soviet Union.

Prof. N. A. Semashko is the member of the board of the All-Union Hygienic Society responsible for liaison with the branches.