§ MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the case of Rosina Walsh, re-vaccinated a day after her confinement, and also to the inquest on her infant, which was vaccinated at eight days' old, and died of inanition, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in the "Lancet," purporting to be written by Dunlop, the vaccinating officer, which states that he re-vaccinated at similar early periods 1,500 women; whether this practice is approved of by the Local Government Board; whether, on the testimony of Dr. Whitefoord, also contained in the "Lancet," there is now to be seen clear evidence on the arms of the mother that she had been vaccinated in infancy and re-vaccinated more recently; if so, whether the Board consider the re-vaccination justifiable; whether the mother asserts that, being unaware she was to be re-vaccinated, her arm being bared without consulting her feelings in any way, and that she suffered severely from the effects of the operation; and, whether the Board will any longer delay the announcement of its views on the subject for the guidance of vaccinating officers?
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKESir, Dr. Dunlop states that his own experience of the vaccination of women at an early period after labour extends to nearly 1,500 cases, and that these vaccinations have not been attended by any injurious effects. With regard to the Question whether the practice is approved by the Board, a similar Question was answered on Monday last. The testimony of Mr. Whitefoord, which is said to be contained in The Lancet, as to the arms of the mother affording clear evidence of vaccination and re-vaccination, has not been found in that journal. The depositions taken by the Coroner do not show that Mr. Whitefoord gave any evidence on the subject, but Rosina Walsh stated that she had been vaccinated in infancy and about seven years ago. Dr. Dunlop says that he does not 790 remember having asked in the particular case whether the woman had ever been re-vaccinated, but that it was his usual practice to do so, and that there were no marks suggestive of anything like recent vaccination. If Dr. Dunlop did not make inquiry as to previous revaccination, the Board considers that ho should have done so. The mother stated before the Coroner that Dr. Dunlop vaccinated her without her being asked whether she wished to be vaccinated; while Dr. Dunlop says that she was aware she was going to be vaccinated, but raised no objection. The woman stated that her arm was swollen and had after the vaccination, and that she had it in a sling. According to the evidence of Dr. Dunlop and the midwife, the arm of the woman when she left the workhouse had only dry scab upon it, and there is no evidence that she "suffered severely" from the effects of the operation. I have already stated that steps would be taken to inform Dr. Dunlop of the Board's view upon the case, but see no occasion for the issue of formal instructions.