§ 16. Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education, whether, in view of conflicting medical testimony on the advantage or necessity for the extraction of enlarged tonsils, he will recommend local education authorities to bring to the notice of their medical officers the fact that there is an alternative treatment and advise them not to prosecute parents who desire to follow such treatment rather than have recourse to the operation?
§ Lord E. PERCYI do not think the course suggested by the hon. Member is necessary. The medical officers of local education authorities are well aware that there are various alternative methods of treatment for enlarged tonsils, of which operative treatment is one, and operative treatment would only be recommended by them when other methods of treatment had been tried and failed. The position of the Board is indicated in paragraph 117 of the Report of their chief medical officer for 1921, which was repeated in paragraph 63 of his Report for 1923. I would also draw the hon. Member's attention to paragraph 118 of the Report for 1921 and to paragraph 64 of the Report of 1923 in which it is clearly stated that
the Board of Education have consistently advised that operation should not be undertaken except with the full consent of the parents or guardians of the child.
§ 35. Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the conflicting medical testimony on the advantage or necessity for the extraction of enlarged tonsils, he will communicate to all infant welfare centres the fact that there is an alternative treatment and that parents who desire to follow such treatment should not be pressed to have recourse to an operation?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIt is not the practice at infant welfare centres to advise the removal of tonsils, but rather to refer children needing treatment to a hospital or private doctor for advice as to the appropriate form of treatment. I see no reason therefore to take the action suggested in the question.