3
the additional Health Inspectors asked for were not sanctioned by Government,
and this increased the difficulties. In G.O. Mis. No. 1170-P.H., dated 9th.June
1925, the proposal to create additional vaccination ranges in the Agency Tracts
has been deferred until 1926-27. It is hoped that the Government in the budget
for 1926-27 will make provision not only for the increased staff of Health
Inspectors in the Agency, but also for all the twenty-eight additional men already
asked for.
7. In spite of the criticisms made in these annual vaccination reports, many
Local Boards and Municipalities either fail to maintain the full complement of
vaccinators, or employ men who do not possess the qualifications prescribed in
G.O. No. 963 L., dated 4th July 1917, as modified in G.O. No. 1167, L. and M.,
dated 4th April 1925. With few exceptions these unqualified men are incompe
tent, and are a serious handicap to the administration. A large number have not
even an elementary knowledge of antisepsis, far less of the technique of vaccina
tion. Their retention is to be entirely deprecated, especially as at the present
time the Public Health Department has to counteract the insidious propaganda
of the anti-vaccinationist, who is always prepared to publish exaggerated reports
of any untoward incidents. Immediate steps should therefore be taken to
replace all unqualified men with qualified vaccinators.
The continued employment of a large number of unqualified vaccinators,
although men with qualifications are available, is mainly due to the reluctance
of local bodies to offer adequate scales of pay. In G.O. No. 354-P.H., dated 1st
March 1923, the Government expressed the opinion that a uniform scale of pay
for vaccinators employed by local boards and Municipalities was neither
necessary nor desirable, and they left the discretion of determining the scale of
pay to the Local Bodies themselves. This has unfortunately led to a considerable
degree of inconsistency. The pay offered by a number of local bodies is so small
that it is impossible to expect any qualified vaccinator to accept the appointment.
Unless a minimum scale of salary sufficiently high to attract qualified men is fixed
by the Government, and local bodies are given the option of giving higher scales
suitable to local exigencies, the improvement in the staff, which is so desirable,
will be a matter of extreme difficulty. Proposals are being submitted separately
to Government regarding the revision of the scales prescribed in G.O. No. 963 L.,
dated 4th July 1917.
8. The compartmental system of control of vaccination was in operation
throughout the Presidency, excepting Gūdalūr taluk in the Nilgiris. The
Collector, Nilgiri district, has been asked to include this taluk in the scheme.
On the whole, the system worked satisfactorily.
In one or two instances, District Health Officers have suggested rever
sion to the system in vogue prior to 1918, owing to delays in inspection by the
Health Inspectors caused by urgent epidemic duties. As the old system was
condemned only after long trial, and the difficulties experienced will disappear, if
as is hoped, the Government sanction an additional number of Health Inspectors,
the suggestion cannot be accepted.
9. In previous reports various factors retarding progress in vaccination work
have been frequently discussed, but it is to be noted with regret that practically
nothing has been done to rectify these defects. In fact, there has been a change
for the worse. It is therefore necessary to discuss even at the risk of repetition,
a number of the factors which go to hamper the working of the vaccination
department.
(a) Vaccination is compulsory only in certain districts, and in a few large
rural towns and villages in other districts. In other areas, the only possible
means of securing cases for vaccination is by persuasion of parents and
guardians. The vaccination staff being limited, and their stay in each village
necessarily being brief, it is obviously impossible for the vaccinator to explain to
every individual parent the benefits of vaccination. Moreover, all parents are not
amenable to persuasion, and the children in these cases ought to be protected
against their parents' ignorance. Thirdly, it has been held in a court of law that
a vaccinator on duty in non-compulsory areas does not come within the definition
of a " public servant in the discharge of his duties." The result is that if the