TOPIC:

Having discovered from his records that an ancestor who fought in the Boer War, and subsequently joined the SAMR, became infected with syphilis (possibly while on leave), I'd like to find out more about the kind of treatment he was likely to have received at that time, and the implications of this.

He was hospitalised at Wynberg Camp in June and July of 1919, for the treatment of a chancre, and married approximately a month later, which is surprising to say the least. Would he have passed on the disease to his bride and the children born of the marriage, or would his treatment have been sufficient to cure him before his nuptials? I am not aware that he suffered from any further effects of the disease in later years, but that may simply be because such things were not discussed. He was not quite 80 when he died.

This link re this disease from 1880 to 1920 may be of some use to you in understanding more on this subject which is more of medical question than Boer War.

www.uri.edu/artsci/com/swift/HPR319UDD/Syphilis.html

Tinker

I have the medals of a Canadian, who served in the Boer War, and who went on to serve in the South African army in WWI.

After nearly two years in Nyasaland (now Malawi), he returned to South Africa in poor health. He suffered from malaria, rheumatism and influenza. Later he was admitted to hospital for "Specialized Treatment". This turned out to be treatment for syphilis. He had tested positive to the "Wassermann test" and, although he denied the possibility of syphilis, he was treated for it by having administered "2.I.V. Kharsiwan and about 8.I.V. galyl".

He later had a negative Wassermann test at his own expense and refused further treatment. Evidently, the Wassermann test is not specific to syphilis and there are positive reactions to other diseases, including malaria.

Regards
Brett

Stephen, that link was extremely helpful, thank you very much. Other sources I had Googled had not made it particularly clear that there was a latent period during which the individual was not infectious. Reading the notes on my man's cards, he was initially admitted at the end of May for 'suspected V.D,' had the chancre appear in June, and presented with 'soft sores' in early July which I surmise would be the manifestion of the secondary stage syphilis. By the looks of it, my man had then entered the latent period described in your link, luckily for him and his bride, and never, as far as I am aware, suffered any further progression of the disease! The biggest surprise is that it took him so long to pick up a sexually contracted disease as he was 38 at the time of his marriage, and had been in the army since he was 21!! Before I checked the dates properly, I had assumed that he'd contracted the syphilis a lot earlier in his army career, and that that was the reason why he'd married so late in life.

Brett, thanks for that very interesting story. Ironically, from what I've read, some early sufferers of the disease were given malaria deliberately, as the high fever killed off the syphilis infection.