Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Feb 1943

Vol. 89 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Anti-Diphtheria (Immunisation) Scheme.

asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state (a) the total inclusive cost of the anti-diphtheria (immunisation) scheme for the County Borough of Dublin for each of the years 1939 to 1942 inclusive; (b) the number of cases of diphtheria which occurred in the County Borough of Dublin in the year 1942 and the number of these cases which had received the immunisation treatment; (c) the number of deaths from diphtheria in the County Borough of Dublin in the year 1942 and the number of such deaths which occurred to patients who had received immunisation treatment.

The total cost of the scheme was as follows:—Financial year 1939-1940, £1,223; financial year, 1940-1941, £1,230; financial year 1941-42, £5,770.

The cost of the scheme in 1942-1943 is not yet available.

Six hundred and twenty-two cases of diphtheria occurred in Dublin City during 1942, of which 92 had received full and 44 partial immunisation. There were 56 deaths from the disease in Dublin City during 1942. Three of these deaths were of children who had received full immunisation and there was one death of a child who had received partial immunisation.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise the disastrous significance of the figures which his answer reveals? Does he appreciate the fact that approximately 25 per cent. of the cases of diphtheria which occurred during the year 1942 were allegedly immunised or partly immunised cases, and does he realise that approximately 8 per cent. of the fatalities which occurred were amongst allegedly immunised cases?

I do not think the Deputy's deductions are in accordance with the answer I have given him.

I regard the Parliamentary Secretary's reply as unsatisfactory, and with your permission, Sir, I give notice of my intention to raise this matter on the adjournment.

This is becoming an abuse of the Rules of the House.

The Minister did it very often himself when he was over here.

asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state (a) the number of children who received anti-diphtheria (prophylactic) treatment in the County Borough of Dublin from the initiation of the anti-diphtheria campaign; (b) the number of such children subsequently post-Schick-tested, and (c) if he will further state the result of this test, i.e., the Schick conversion rate.

There were approximately 80,000 children immunised in Dublin up to 1941. In that year an intensive campaign of anti-diphtheria immunisation was undertaken and the number of children immunised was 57,616. In 1942 the number dropped to 2,618. Post-Schick testing was not carried out.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that, in the absence of Schick testing, no evaluation of the efficacy of the prophylactic treatment applied can be made? In the absence of Schick test, or the alternative method of testing, the efficacy of the prophylactic treatment cannot be ascertained.

I fully realise that it would be desirable to have post-Schick testing carried out, but I think the Deputy will appreciate the practical difficulties in the way of having that done. In fact, a substantial proportion of the children immunised did not return for the second injection. If a substantial proportion did not return for the second injection, we could not hope to secure voluntary compliance with the Schick test, which would involve at least two further visits to the doctor, and perhaps four or five.

I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary misunderstands the position. Does he not realise that effective testing can be carried out by Schick testing in selected groups —that it is not at all necessary to Schick test every case that comes along?

How would the Deputy get them to comply with the test, seeing that they, will not come for immunisation?

Top
Share