64

RELEASE OF SPECIALISTS

SIR,—On p. 30 of your last issue you report thatthe Minister of Health expressed himself satisfied thatthe Central Medical War Committee are making everyeffort to find replacements for specialist medical officersat present serving in H.M. Forces. Lest any of yourcivilian readers should think that serving specialistsare suffering from delusions of persecution it may bewell to state the demobilisation position as it will beat the end of September. Medical specialists in theArmy will then be five groups behind officers and otherranks of other arms of their Service, seven groups behindmedical officers of the R.A.F., fifteen groups behindgeneral-duty officers of the R.A.M.C., and twentygroups behind medical officers of the Navy.A few months ago the Central Medical War Com-

mittee announced that they had powers to call upspecialists in civil life up to the age of 45. How manyof these have been called up ? Every three months thecommittee announce the demobilisation programmefor the coming quarter. It is remarkable that they,who have been in charge of medical manpower for nearlyseven years, are unable to forecast more than three orfour groups ahead at any one time. Such unaccountablesecrecy prevents those of us in groups not yet evenmentioned from applying for civil appointments, sincewe can give no definite date by which we can expect tobe demobilised.As far as class B releases are concerned, it seems

that for a specialist to be demobilised in this way asubstitute has to be provided. I have studied ReleaseRegulations for the Army, and can find no mentionof this rule, so I assume that this is another example ofthe extraordinary tyranny under which we labourat the hands of this remote and reticent committee.An open balance-sheet of specialists awaiting demobi-

lisation and those eligible to be called up (I do notrefer to those whom the teaching hospitals, the E.M.S.,and the Medical Research Council consider " essential ")would do far more to allay the resentment and dis-satisfaction felt by serving specialists than any numberof fatuous voluntary schemes which are produced for thederision of our more canny and essential professionalbrethren in civil life. Why cannot the Central MedicalWar Committee now use the totalitarian powers whichthey exercised so freely and remorselessly during thewar ?The Minister of Health is to be congratulated on his

satisfaction with the position. As a prominent memberof a party on whose hustings last July could be seen theslogan "Vote Labour and get the Boys Home," heevidently possesses either an elastic conscience or a

remarkably euphoric outlook. SERVING SPECIALIST.

PROPHYLACTIC PENICILLIN IN SURGERY

SIR,—I was glad to see Mr. R. Wood Power’s letterin your last issue, because there seems to be littlepublished work on this very beneficial practice whichI believe to be widely employed.

I would like to add to his list of operations for whichprophylactic penicillin might be of value that of tonsil-lectomy by dissection. Everybody who carries out thisoperation in a large series of cases must have met theoccasional cases of pyrexia, scarlatiniform rashes, and,most tragic of all, nephritis following the operation.I regard such consequences of a non-urgent operationon a comparatively healthy child as a major disaster.In an endeavour to avoid them, Mr. J. B. Cavenagh,at my suggestion, recently introduced a routine at thishospital by which every patient is given 15,000 units ofpenicillin just before the induction of anaesthesia, anda further 15,000 units three and six hours afterwards.Personally I regard it as unnecessary to give a twenty-four hours’ course before operation, since high blood-levels are invariably obtained within a few minutes ofintramuscular injection.

Although our series is as yet too small to be scientificallysignificant, none of the complications named has occurred,nor has there been a case of secondary haemorrhagesince this routine was introduced. If it has preventedthe development of nephritis in even a single childit is in my opinion amply worth the trouble and expense.Royal Infirmary, Worcester. G. J. FRAENKEL.

Medicine and the Law

Alleged Cruelty to CatsProf. E. G. T. Liddell, Waynflete professor of physiology

in the University of Oxford, was fined £25 last monthby the Oxford magistrates on a charge of causingunnecessary suffering to cats in the animal-house of hisdepartment. Notice of appeal having been given,

comment on the case must be deferred. The followingbrief summary of the proceedings is taken from the fullreport published in the Oxford Times of June 28.

Counsel, prosecuting on behalf of the Royal Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, alleged that,in a compound about 15 ft. by 10 ft., there were 34 cats" in every stage of misery and disease." Some wereapparently dying; one was dead. The place smeltabominably. There was a pan of water, but no sleepingaccommodation for the animals. Some were sufferingfrom advanced stages of feline distemper ; some were

practically blind ; others could scarcely breathe. Pro-fessor Liddell, said counsel, must have wilfully abstainedfrom going to the place. The same was true of Mrs.Scragg, the woman who had charge of the cats. " Ifthis case is proved, it has discovered a university plague-spot which calls aloud for immediate and drastic reform."Two inspectors of the R.S.P.C.A. gave evidence. Oneof them said he destroyed four cats in the defendant’spresence and with his agreement. A veterinary surgeon(who, it appeared, has been appointed chief veterinaryofficer to the society) said he would not keep more than sixcats in a space of 100 square feet, for fear of an epidemic ;it was wrong to keep these catsas they were kept; eachshould have had individual treatment for distemper.

Professor Liddell, giving evidence, explained thathe had been experimenting with the treatment ofanimals with sulphamethazine. It was found that byits use the secondary infection, but not the basic virusof distemper could be overcome. He himself had giventhe drug three times a day and had fed cats which couldnot feed themselves. Four days before the inspector’svisit he decided to suspend the treatment to see whatwould happen. Distemper in cats was like measles inchildren ; " once they have had it, they probablywon’t have it again." The witness described how hedealt with the cats. He was asked in cross-examinationwhere he got the cats. " Somebody’s pets, I suppose,"commented counsel ; " so far as you know, they may havebeen stolen ? " The witness said the cats were notdeliberately infected. The drug was being administeredto check the distemper. The experiment had a negativeresult. The infected cats were not capable of feelingsuffering because of lethargy of the nervous system.The experiment was not calculated to give pain. Prof.Harold Burrow, M.R.C.V.S., said there was ample roomin the compound for 34 cats ; the floor was suitable.Quick emaciation was a feature of feline distemper.Dr. A. D. Gardner, professor of bacteriology at theuniversity, said that pain would decrease as coma andlethargy came on ; he had heard nothing that madehim feel that these animals suffered appreciably morethan the suffering of all living things.The magistrates found the charges proved. Professor

Liddell, in addition to being fined £25, was ordered topay ten guineas costs to the prosecution. Mrs. Scraggwas fined £5.

On Active ServiceCASUALTIES

ACCIDENTALLY KILLED

Flight-Lieutenant IAN ARCHIBALD MCLEAN THOMSON,L.R.C.P.E., R.A.F.V.R.

Flight-Lieutenant Thomson, who was killed in a flying accident onJune 25, was born in 1916 and studied medicine at Glasgow, where heobtained the triple qualification in 1942. After holding house-appointments at the Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, from March, 1942,to December, 1943, he was granted a commission in the RoyalAir Force Volunteer Reserve. At the time of his death he wasmedical officer at a Communication Wing headquarters in Germany.

AWARDS

D.S.C.

Temporary Surgeon Lieut.-Commander R. G. S. WHITFIELD,M.R.C.S., R.N.V.R.