Report and supplementary report to the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the British Medical Association on vaccination penalties : the principal [i.e. principle] of compulsion in vaccination / by Ernest Hart.

  • Ernest Abraham Hart
Date:
1880
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report and supplementary report to the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the British Medical Association on vaccination penalties : the principal [i.e. principle] of compulsion in vaccination / by Ernest Hart. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    20/28 (page 20)
    seem clear, from the circular of the Board of Supervision, that it is intended that the English definition should be observed. In a circular addressed, on March 14th, 1S79, by the Registrar-General of Scotland, to the local registrars after communications with the Board of Super- vision respecting the defaulters under the Scotch Vaccination Act, attention was drawn to the “considerable variety of practice which prevails in filling up the half-yearly list of defaulters.” Whilst some registrars embraced the names of all defaulters since January ist, 1864 (when the Act came into operation), others merely inserted the names of those who had failed to transmit certificates when they first became due under the provisions of the Statute, thus practically confining each list to a period of six months, and never repeating the name of a de- faulter after he had been once reported. The Registrar-General ac- cordingly gave instructions for the next half-yearly list of the registrars to include the names of all defaulters in the district since January 1st, 1864, specifying how this should be done, and saying that he would consider what uniform course ought henceforth to be followed in the matter. The Board of Supervision, in forwarding a copy of this cir- cular to the local inspectors of the poor, said, “When the list of de- faulters is received by you, it will be your duty to make alt necessary inquiries regarding the persons named in the list, and to call an early meeting of the parochial board, with the view of their carefully revising the list, and giving such instructions as may be requisite You will observe that this is probably the last occasion on which the names of the whole number of defaulters since 1864 will be sent to the parochial board” [meaning, doubtless, that the children over fourteen years of age that had escaped vaccination ever since their birth in the year 1864, would, after 1878, be absolved from further proceedings]; “and it is important that the parochial board and its officers Should carefully revise this list, so as to bring the number of defaulters on the Regis- trar’s books within the narrowest possible limits, and thereby diminish their labours for the future.” I hardly see how this (when considered in connection with the terms of Section 18 of the Act) can be regarded in any other light than that the Board of Supervision expect that every defaulter is to be brought up again and again in each half-yearly return, and the proceedings required by the law gone through each time with regard to the case, until the vaccination has been effected. It may be quite true that no second proceedings have been required to be taken ;* but clearly they are permissible under the terms of the Act, and are regarded as permissible by the Scotch central authorities. The latter have been so fortunate as not to meet with the organised system of opposition that their English colleagues have had to combat, and, therefore, there has been no occasion for any more definite expression of their views than is contained in the circular I have quoted; but I think it is clear that they do contemplate repeated prosecutions in cases where such may prove to be necessary. Success of the Act.—The Scotch Act has undoubtedly been a con- spicuous success. To say nothing of the marked decrease of small-pox • During Dr. Alexander Wood’s examination before the Select Committee of 1871, the following questions were asked him by Dr. Lyon Playfair ;—Q. 4386: “ Do you know of any case of a second penalty having been exacted under the Scotch Act V “ I do not. Q. 4387 : “ Is not the clause in the Scotch Act much more distinctive in power for a .second penalty than the clause in the English Act?” “ I think so. It is not nearly such a hardship to a parent to be fined for resisting vaccination ns to be fined for the neglect of it. See also Dr. Wood’s answers to the questions of Mr. Candlish (4432-4441), which lead to the same conclusion.