§ 8. Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what objection the Army Medical Department advances to allowing Mr. Barker and other experts in manipulative treatment to assist and cooperate with the Army surgeons and Army doctors in alleviating the sufferings of the wounded; whether he is aware of the extent of Mr. Barker's practice in the United Kingdom; and whether, in view of the amount of support extended to him by members of the medical profession itself, he will dissociate the Army Medical 1828 Department from the attitude of the Council of the British Medical Association?
§ 10. Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the objection of the Army Medical Department to utilising the help of Mr. Barker in manipulative treatment of wounded soldiers is that he does not hold professional degrees; and, if so, whether he can state what is the objection to utilising the help of doctors of osteopathy who hold professional degrees?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI have no information as to the extent of Mr. Barker's practice. Independently of the attitude of the Council of the British Medical Association, the Army Council is, by the terms of the Medical Act, precluded, apart from other reasons, from utilising the services of this gentleman. The British Medical Council has no official connection with the War Office.
§ Mr. PRINGLECould not the Government override that Act by using the Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act as they have done in regard to so-many other matters?
§ Mr. MacVEAGHWhat particular Clause of the Medical Act is it which prevents use being made of the services of these men?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI believe Clause 36.
§ 17. Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Department is yet in a position to say whether the British Medical Committee (Balneological Section) has reported on the use of manipulative treatment in France; and whether the Army Medical Department in this country proposes also to make use of every possible aid for wounded soldiers?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes, Sir; they have reported on certain methods of treatment, all of which are in use in this country.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHAm I to understand that the Army Medical Department have sufficient medical assistants at present?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThey have.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHCan the hon. Gentleman explain why appeals are being made all over the country for medical assistance-and further recruits for the Medical Service?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI do not understand that is so.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIt is; there is no doubt about it.
§ 18. Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has received any representations from General Count Gleichen on the subject of manipulative treatment; and, if so, what was the tenor of his Report?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThere has been no Report, but I believe an informal letter on the subject was written by Count Gleichen, of which there is now no trace.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHMay I ask my hon. Friend whether letters to generals at the War Office are classified as formal letters and informal letters? If so, on what basis, if there is no trace of a letter that has been sent, can that letter be classified as informal?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy hon. Friend knows that we get a great many letters which are informal, and he will realise that any formal letter sent to the War Office is duly registered, and a letter which is informal is not registered.
§ 19. Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Department is aware that the Medical Act of 1858 applies only to persons falsely styling themselves physicians, doctors of medicine or surgery, or surgeons; whether the Department is also aware that experts in manipulative treatment do not come within any of those descriptions, do not so style themselves, and have never asked to be so employed; and whether he can state what Section of the Act can, under those circumstances, be construed as preventing the Department from using the services of these experts?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo, Sir; I am not aware that my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Medical Act is correct. I think if he refers to the Act he will find that it prohibits the appointment of any person as a medical officer unless he is registered. Every branch of medicine and surgery pursued by lawfully qualified medical men is represented among those employed by us.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHIs it not the fact that these gentlemen have not asked to be employed as registered practitioners, but have asked to be allowed to serve their country in the hospitals?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONPerhaps my hon. Friend will read the letter from Mr. Barker which appears to-day in the "Westminster-Gazette."