other women's organizations objected to notification and compulsory
treatment. They argued that there was at present a "scare" on the
subject of venereal disease, and deprecated "panic legislation." They
contended that the adoption of notification would deter patients from
seeking treatment for fear of publicity. They were opposed to compulsory
treatment of recalcitrant patients, arguing that any law of the kind
would be used most oppressively against women. They contended that
reliance should be placed on greater facilities for free treatment at
the clinics, the work of women patrols, suppression of liquor, and above
all education and propaganda on moral lines.

When confronted with typical cases of difficulty already quoted some of
the witnesses admitted that it was not easy to see how such cases could
be dealt with satisfactorily without compulsion of some kind. But they
argued that, even so, it would be a greater evil if the fear of
publicity and the fear of compulsion should have the effect of deterring
sufferers from seeking treatment and so drive the disease underground.

The National Council of Women, by a substantial majority, at a recent
conference in Christchurch, carried a resolution protesting against a
proposal to introduce compulsory notification and treatment of venereal
diseases, and urging the Government to increase the facilities for free
treatment. The President of the Council, however, informed the Committee
that most of the nineteen societies affiliated to the Auckland Branch of
the National Council are in favour of some form of compulsion, but a
number of the southern branches are opposed to it. Speaking as an
individual, and not as President of the National Council of Women, she
added:

"Personally, I have no first-hand knowledge as to whether the disease is