§ 60. Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish particulars of any case of death from inoculation against typhoid fever?
§ Mr. TENNANTAs far as the War Office is aware there has been only one death which can be in any way connected with inoculation. This case was that of Corporal Nichols, of the 3rd Battalion (Reserve), City of London Regiment. I stated in this House on 27th November last that the cause of death was pneumonia, but when the death certificate was received it was seen that the cause was given as "(i.) Anti-typhoid vaccination; (ii.) Pneumonia." The case has been investigated and submitted to Sir William Osler, who considers that death was due to an eight-mile march which the man took within twenty-four hours after inoculation and not to the inoculation directly. Instructions have been given that care must be taken to see that men recently inoculated are not given hard work until their condition justifies their undertaking it without risk.
§ 61. Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of cases of typhoid, and deaths from typhoid, among inoculated men and uninoculated men in the Expeditionary Force from the commencement of the War to a recent date?
§ Mr. TENNANTOf the 421 cases of typhoid in the present campaign among British troops, 305 cases were in men who were not inoculated within two years. In the 421 cases there have been thirty-five deaths. Of these deaths thirty-four were men who had not been inoculated within two years. Only one death occurred among patients who were inoculated, and that man had only been inoculated once instead of the proper number of times—namely, twice.
§ Mr. TENNANTYes.
§ Mr. HAMERSLEYAre the figures given included in the list of actual casualties?
§ Mr. TENNANTNo.
§ Mr. HAMERSLEYDoes the list of casualties include all prisoners as well as wounded?
§ Mr. TENNANTYes.
§ Mr. HAMERSLEYAll missing?
§ Mr. TENNANTYes.
§ 77. Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state the results of inoculation in the United States Army in 1911, 1912, and 1913?
§ Mr. TENNANTThese figures are of considerable interest and the House will perhaps pardon me if I state the position fully. Prior to 1911 inoculation was not compulsory in the United States Army. The ratios of admission to hospital per 1,000 of strength for typhoid fever were in the years from 1899 as follows: 10.85, 5.62, 5.62, 3.57, 5.66, 5.53, 2.94, 3.03, and 2.32. This last figure is for the year 1910—the last year in which inoculation was voluntary. In 1911 the ratio was.81 and in 1912.31. For 1913 figures are not available. To sum up from the year 1900, when voluntary inoculation was introduced, the ratio gradually fell, and, from 1911, when it became compulsory, a further marked drop took place.
Mr. CHANCELLORIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that compulsion in the United States Army only came into operation towards the end of 1911, and that the reduction to that date was from much higher figures than those of 1900, namely, from 88.5 per 1,000 in 1898 to.85 in 1911?
§ Mr. TENNANTIf the order came into force at the end of the year, it shows what a marvellous effect it had.
Mr. CHANCELLORDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that the first year of compulsion, as shown by his figures, shows an increase in typhoid?
80. Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary for War whether the punishment for refusing inoculation of men who have fought at the front by depriving them of the five days' leave to visit home which is granted to inoculated men is a form of influence and persuasion sanctioned by the War Office to induce men to undergo an operation which is not compulsory or legally enforceable and to which they have a conscientious objection; and whether men who stand upon the legal right guaranteed by the public announcements of the Minister for War are to be punished indefinitely for doing so by the refusal of the leave granted to others, or whether this action on the part of officers will at once be put an end to by a general order issued from the War Office?
§ Mr. TENNANTI am not aware of any case where a man returning from the front has been punished in the manner described in the question. The danger of infection being spread in the Army by un-inoculated men is considerable, and has to be guarded against by precautions being taken as regards granting them special leave. Any general Order that may be issued will be in this sense.