– in the House of Commons am 12:00 am ar 15 Gorffennaf 1947.
From the consideration of its own high honour and privilege, I respectfully invite the House to direct its attention, during the half hour which remains, to the consideration of a matter of a different kind which is also properly its concern—the welfare and the misfortune of a single English family. I shall not detain the House very long with the tragic story of the infant daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Gooding, of Hatfield Peverel, in the County of Essex. I am 'grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, for waiting here till this late hour personally to reply to this Debate, and for the sympathy with the parents which he expressed when I raised this matter during Question time on 3rd:fitly. On that occasion, he promised to inquire into this case; and I think it only right, in fairness to all concerned, including the doctors, that the House and the public, and particularly, perhaps, the public in Essex, should know the result of his inquiries.
In this extremely sad case, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the facts are these. Mr. and Mrs. Gooding had a daughter born to them last year. They had waited for, and hoped for, the birth of a daughter for some 15 years, and at last they were granted this joy. The doctors who examined this child when she was born, and in the first few months of her life—three doctors in all— including the doctor in charge of the clinic and the nurses at the clinic which Mrs. Gooding attended, all agreed that she was an extremely healthy child. They used the phrase, "A perfect baby." At the age of four months, the child was vaccinated. Apparently the vaccine did not take on the first occasion, and she was vaccinated in all three times within seven weeks. It is alleged by Mr. Gooding, the father of the child, that on the third occasion the child was vaccinated with a double injection; Mr. Gooding says that the doctor said "He had given her a double dose, and wished her luck." On the fifth day after this third vaccination, the baby was suddenly taken ill, was taken to hospital, and was found to be suffering from what was described as inflammation of the brain. Some weeks later she was returned to her home—unfortunately, blind. She is still, at the age of 13 months, blind and not developing in any way; she shows no signs of being able to walk, or talk, or take her food normally; and she suffers constantly from fits. Two children's specialists and a brain specialist have seen her, and say that there is no hope at all of her recovery.
Now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like, if I may, to make it clear that I have never been an anti-vaccinationist. I have not enough medical knowledge to presume to attack or to defend any medical practice or treatment. I do not know anything about it. But I cannot help feeling, as a simple matter of cause and effect, that in this case, at any rate, it is quite inconceivable that the illness from which this child is suffering, apparently for life—or for what life remains to her—is not connected with the vaccination. It seems significant that several of the doctors concerned in this case have assumed, on first examining the child, that there was an association between the vaccination and the subsequent condition, although some have later shown some disposition to modify their earlier statements. I am told by medical colleagues among hon. Members of this House that there is a well-known condition known as post-vaccinal encephalitis which does occur, and is, so far as they know, incurable. If I may say this, and I say it with the greatest respect, the medical profession is an extremely close closed shop, and not all its members are averse from a little "mumbo-jumbo." But, despite its strong tradition of mutual aid and self- protection, I would honestly add that, knowing personally of some of the doctors in this case, I have a high regard for their devotion and skill. It is in their interests, to clear the air, as well as for the reassurance of my constituents, that I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of answering the questions which I now propose to put to him.
First, assuming that vaccination is desirable, is he quite certain that everything was done in this case in an orderly and hygienic way? Has he the smallest doubt about the competence of the medical authorities in mid-Essex? Secondly, on the more general issues, can he tell us anything about this condition known as post-vaccinal encephalitis? What are the statistics about it? Does it kill many babies—or adults, for that matter—or cause them to go blind, or cause the terrible sufferings which this child has undergone? How does it compare, as a menace, with smallpox itself? I am bound to say that Mr. Gooding quotes in one of his letters to me a statement circulated by an anti-vaccination organisation, which I find difficult to accept, to the effect that post-vaccinal encephalitis kills more infants than does smallpox. Either that is not true, or it is a wrong manipulation of the facts. My right hon. Friend ought to assure the public about this, or, if necessary, have a more rigorous and, perhaps, unorthodox inquiry into the whole matter. Is any research going on into this disease? Nothing which we say here tonight can console these unfortunate parents for what has happened to them; but I know, from what Mr. Gooding has told me, that they would at least like to feel that their sufferings, and the sufferings of their child, had become the occasion for the provision of some extra safeguard, however slight it may be, to prevent other people's children from suffering in this way, and to prevent the same thing from happening again.
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the moderate language he has used in putting what is a very tragic case before the House, and I want to take this opportunity, once more, of expressing my very deep sympathy with the parents of this child in the tragic circumstances in which they find themselves. At the same time, if is my duty, after having made a very thorough investigation into the facts, to put to the House what has been disclosed to me. As far as one can gather from that investigation, there is no fault whatever attaching to the doctors concerned, and there was no departure from normal practice. They did exactly what is done in very large numbers of cases. There is no evidence whatever of carelessness or uncleanliness. Furthermore, I must rebut the suggestion that there were two insertions at the same time. I understand that what happened was that there were three insertions over seven weeks. The first two were unsuccessful and the third, so far as they were concerned from the point of view of inoculation, was successful. That, I understand, is not unusual: it happens quite frequently. Therefore, I think that for the sake of the doctors concerned, I must make it quite clear that there can he no imputation whatever against their professional skill, or the way in which they carried out their duties.
It is true—and here I must put before the House what I am told by those who advise me in these matters because I am as ignorant of these technical matters as my hon. Friend himself and can give to the House only the expert professional opinion—that post-vaccinal encephalitis does occur. But it is extremely rare, and very rare indeed in infants under one year of age—so rare that it amounts to one in 49,000 of inoculations. So I think it can be taken for granted that parents should not be deterred from getting their children vaccinated on account of the risk run. It would be deplorable if the inevitable publicity which has been given to this case should have the effect of frightening parents from having their children vaccinated. Although it is true that some parents do not get their children vaccinated, it is also true that if there is an outbreak of smallpox, or a suspicion of one, they rush for vaccination. One appreciates why that is so. It is also in doubt whether the baby's condition was due entirely to post-vaccinal encephalitis. The diagnosis is not quite clear. There are other possibilities which I do not wish to emphasize.
I would like to point out that when the Health Act comes into operation, compulsory vaccination will disappear; it will not be necessary for people to get exemption as they now have to do to avoid vaccination. In point of fact, we have, as far as possible, minimised whatever dangers there might be arising from vaccination. If we were entirely immune from infection from abroad we could probably do away with vaccination entirely. But there have been cases—very serious cases—of smallpox of a quite dangerous type brought into the country from abroad, and we have had to take precautions against it. It would, in my view, he disastrous if people jumped to the conclusion, on insufficient evidence, that vaccination does not at all affect the incidence of smallpox.
Of course, I admit at once the argument that many people advance, that at the same time as vaccination has occurred, we have had a policy of development of all kinds of preventive measures, like better nutrition, effective water supplies, increased sanitation and what one distinguished man has called "the influence of the artist on the outlook of the nation."—whatever that might be—and it is very difficult for a layman to intervene in this field. All we can do is to rely upon the laws of probability, and say that it appears to us that there is some association between the comparative immunity from smallpox enjoyed by the mass of the population and the use of immunisation and inoculation. That is all we can say. Certainly it is on a better statistical foundation than could be established on the basis of particular cases and, therefore, I do hope that the publicity given to this case will not frighten parents from having their children vaccinated. Everyone must deplore the sad circumstances in which the parents found themselves. We sympathise with them very deeply indeed but we must avoid drawing general conclusions from instances of this sort.
I would like to ask on this question of vaccination and immunisation whether the doctor carried out his job property in this particular case, using clean hands and clean instruments—because that is a matter that might give rise to a series of complaints?
The proceedings I have been shown disclosed no evidence whatsoever of any carelessness on the part of the doctor but, of course, the courts are there if it can be shown that it is a court case. If it can be shown that there has been negligence there is the chance of redress open to the parents. All I can say is, as far as we are concerned, there is no such evidence and I really state that in order that the publicity given to this case might not cloud the reputation of the doctors in the area concerned but any expression of mine has absolutely no value whatever as far as concerns the remedy which the parents themselves may seek.
Are we to understand that the Minister is to inquire into every fatality of this kind?
Surely, as the Minister of Health responsible for providing vaccination facilities, I must defend the facilities as far as I can and make sure that they are used in the proper way.
The right hon. Gentleman in his excellent reply has omitted to say one thing, and that is about the serum with which this child was vaccinated. It is prepared in the Government Serum Station, and, therefore, he is responsible for the production of that serum. Can he tell us whether that batch of serum, of which he will have the correct number, has been tested, and whether there was anything abnormal in the serum?
I understand that it has been tested, and that there is no evidence at all of any abnormality. It is a perfectly normal serum. So that the fact is that we have no evidence at all of any unusual circumstances.
May I ask my right hon. Friend if any examination has been made as to the health of the parents? Also, as to the figures he gave about the number of cases of post-vaccinal encephalitis, whether those figures are of the total vaccinations or of primary vaccinations, that is to say, of vaccination of young children? Because the evidence, I believe, in the case of primary vaccinations, that is to say, of vaccinations of young children, is that in these cases post-vaccinal encephalitis is unusual, is rare, and that the child who is vaccinated in infancy, is much less likely to be troubled by this very serious disease.
I want it to go on record quite accurately, otherwise there will be misunderstanding. What I am informed is this: encephalitis is extremely rare in primary vaccinations of infants.
That is what I think I said—in children under the age of one. It is also extremely rare in revaccinations of adolescents or adults who have been vaccinated in infancy. It is somewhat less rare in the primary vaccination of schoolchildren and adolescents who have not previously been vaccinated. But even in these patients it is uncommon. I think I gave the figures to the House. In the last year for which figures are available this infection occurred at the rate of one in 49,000 vaccinations.
Of the total vaccinations of all classes?
Yes. The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is, that there has been no investigation of the parents. I did not wish to add unnecessarily to their distress. It seems to me it is uncalled for. In the circumstances, the least said about it the better.
May I put one other question to my right hon. Friend? I followed his explanation very closely, but upon one point his answer seemed a little obscure. He was specifically asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), on the question of the number of insertions, about the possibility of the third insertion having contained, as it were, a double dose. My right hon. Friend said there were only three insertions. But he did not state whether or not there was evidence that on the third insertion there was, in fact, a double dose.
I think I am on record—if my hon. Friend will look at HANSARD—and that I said that there was not, in fact, a double dose. There were three insertions over seven weeks, but there was no double dose at any time.