Some leading arguments against compulsory vaccination / Issued by The London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination.
- London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination
- Date:
- 1887
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Some leading arguments against compulsory vaccination / Issued by The London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.
21/30 page 19
![If we ask, how often we ought to perform the operation, we come on this state of things :— Drs. Jenner, Thorpe Porter, and Pringle, say only once in a lifetime. Dr. Seuton, repeat at puberty. Sir W. Jenner, repeat at 7 years old, and whenever there is an epidemic. Dr. Guy, dou'c vaccinate during an epidemic. Dr. Tripe, repeat at 7 and 14 years. Dr. Bernard O'Connor, repeat at 7, 14, and 21 years, and each time racciake, i.e., repeat every 4 months till no effect results. Dr. Chikes (Birmingham), every 10 years. Dr. Collingridge, every year. If we inquire whether vaccinia and smallpox are the same disease or different, we find that Marson, Simon, Badcock, Pavv, on the identity side, are fiercely resisted by Cameron, \\ arlomont, Fleming, and other champions of diversity. The contest is warm, and only Bristowe remains cool, with diversity in his first edition and identity in his third; com- pulsion, of course, in both. Calf lymph or humanized ? Again the din of controversy is deafening, Sir Thomas Watson, speaking of the ugly blot [syphilis] which has fallen on the arm-to-arm system, and Dr. Ceely declaring that animal vaccine would be likely to produce far more ailments and cutaneous eruptions than humanized; the German Commission recommending that retro-vaccine form of calf lymph which Dr. W. B. Car- penter declared to be no good at ail; and the smallpox calf lymph of Mr. Badcock being still largely used both in Government and private vaccination in England, in spite of its being described by Dr. Cameron as capable of pro- pagating smallpox in its most virulent form by contagion, ami of its use being declared illegal by the Local Government Bonrd of Ireland. The doctors agree in nothing. Opponents of vaccination will be perfectly satisfied if the law is only suspended until the consensus so much talked of is really arrived at amongst medical men. Once more, it may be nrged that the opponents of vaccina- tion cannot be permitted to endanger the community. But if the community is vaccinated, anti-vaccinators can only endanger it if vaccination is of no avail. If vaccination protects the vaccinated, the fate of the uuvaccinatcd need bo of no concern to those who are themselves safe. Whoever holds that vaccination only mitigates, can obtain at his own free choice whatever benefit the operation has to offer. Hence, the better thing vaccination is, the less need there is to enforce it ; whilst the worse it is, the less right there is to](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21363444_0023.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
