In this chapter, however, we must deal with the situation as it exists to-day. The infectious nature of tuberculosis has become known comparatively recently, hence we find ourselves confronted with a delicate and difficult situation, as must always be the case when public opinion is evolving. To-day if a private physician forbids a nurse to visit his patient (and for nurse, read also Health Department), the present status of public opinion will usually uphold him in his decision. It is for us, therefore, to find out the reasons which prompt him to this decision, and to lay them frankly before the public, and let the public pass judgment. In no other way can opinion be altered, or can we gain for tuberculosis the same supervision and control that we have obtained for the other infectious diseases. =The Nurse’s Difficulties.= Let us take a few examples of the difficulties the nurse meets. A boy of fifteen had been diagnosed by the Phipps Dispensary as a moderately advanced case, and the nurse was asked to follow him up. On her first visit, the patient’s mother refused to let the nurse enter, saying that her son had since called in a private physician, who assured him that the dispensary diagnosis was all nonsense. The dispensary man had counselled rest; the newcomer told the mother to buy her son a bicycle and let him take all the exercise he could. This treatment was followed out, and, still acting on the physician’s advice, the nurse was refused admission to the house. The mother was friendly enough when they met on the street, and she even permitted the nurse to stop and inquire for her son, always cheerfully replying that he was doing well. Useless as they were, the nurse continued these visits, since she was anxious to see the outcome of the case. Finally, one day six months later, the mother threw open the door, and in deep distress, begged the nurse to come in. “Do what you can for my boy,” she pleaded, and led the way to an upper bedroom, where the young fellow was lying in a moribund condition. A few days later he died. The mother bitterly accused herself for her folly in refusing the disinterested advice of the dispensary physician, and her grief, remorse, and opinions were given wide circulation in the neighbourhood. At no time during his illness had instruction been given as to the nature and danger of the disease, and not until a week before death did the attending physician admit that something was seriously wrong. In consequence of this wrong diagnosis, the boy lost his life, and the physician’s reputation was damaged. Apparently he had not taken into sufficient consideration the risk of contradicting a diagnosis that came from such an expert source.