§ MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the proceedings at au inquest on Saturday last respecting the death of Herbert Walsh, vaccinated in St. Pancras Workhouse by the public vaccinator, in which a medical witness attributed the death of the child to the cessation of mother's milk caused by the mother having been re-vaccinated without her consent being asked the day after the child's birth; to the statement of the public vaccinator that in re-vaccinating mothers a few hours after their confinement he was acting under the advice and with the knowledge of the Local Government Board; whether the child was vaccinated when only eight days old; whether the Local Government Board approve of the re-vaccination of a woman, with or without her consent, so early after her confinement while nursing her infant, or of the vaccination of an infant so young; and, whether the Board will issue directions to restrain a practice attended with such results?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, the Board have obtained a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest respecting the death of Herbert Walsh. It was stated by a medical practitioner at the inquest that he was of opinion that the vaccination of the mother caused the flow of milk to cease, and the verdict of the jury was to the effect that the child died from inanition or wasting, caused by the absence of the mother's breast milk and want of proper nourishment. On the other hand, three medical men, including Dr. Sharkey, assistant physician at St. Thomas's Hospital, and Dr. Henderson, pathologist of St. Mary's Hospital, who were examined at the inquest, could see no connection between 200 the suppression of the milk of the mother and the vaccination; and, in fact, there was no cessation of the milk for a month after the time when the woman was vaccinated. The mother was re-vaccinated on the day after her confinement. She was admitted into the workhouse in labour, and was delivered early in the afternoon of the same day. There had consequently been no previous opportunity of re-vaccinating her. The labour was a natural one, and the mother was progressing favourably; and the medical officer was satisfied, from his previous experience, that the operation could be performed without injurious effect. With regard to the question whether the consent of the woman to the re-vaccination was obtained, the medical officer in his evidence at the inquest stated that the mother knew that she was going to be vaccinated, and raised no objection; and that in cases where objection has been made he has not vaccinated. The Board have not advised the re-vaccination of mothers a few hours after their confinement, and the Board have no reason to suppose that this is a general practice. The child was vaccinated when eight clays old. As regards the re-vaccination of mothers on the day after their confinement, the Board have been content to leave this to the discretion of the medical attendant, who can best estimate the risk of small-pox encountered by the woman during her stay in the lying-in ward. The Board have not had occasion to announce their approval or disapproval of the practice; but, under ordinary circumstances, would think it better that any required re-vaccination should not be associated with the accidents of the lying-in room. With regard to the vaccination of infants a few days after birth, I would refer to my answers to Questions on the 20th of February and the 6th of March. With respect to the case of the mother referred to in the Question, the Board will communicate with the medical officer.