§ 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 amongst those employed by us.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Department has now seen the statement by the sister of the late Earl Kitchener, Mrs. Parker, with reference to the case of W. H. Townley, a soldier in the West Kent Regiment; and whether he can state the present occupation of Townley?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo, Sir; I have not seen the statement referred to.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHasked 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.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that manipulative treatment is recognised in every State of the United States of America as a profession; that many practitioners here hold the highest 1474W American diplomas; and whether the Army Medical Department objects to recognise these degree?
§ Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Members of this House have had experience of the benefit of manipulative treatment, and whether offers of free service to the troops by an expert or experts in this treatment were made at the early part of the War; and whether, in view of the favourable opinions of this treatment by Members of this House, the War Office will allow soldiers to receive this treatment when the medical practitioners can do nothing for them?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONAny professional degree recognised by the law of the land is recognised by the Army Medical Service. The so-called manipulative treatment is in full swing in the Army under well-known authorities on the subject.
§ Sir T. ESMONDEasked 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.