THE DEBATE ON VACCINATION.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—An eminent philosopher and historian has remarked : " If I am not wanted for the defence of the State, if I am not dangerous to those who come in contact with me, and if I have committed no crime, the State has no right to assault my person." That is a cardinal principle. Well, Sir, a healthy baby is not wanted for defence, it is not dangerous to those who come in contact with it, and it has committed no crime, hence the State has no right to assault its person or inoculate it with any disease whatever. Before vaccination was made compulsory, vaccination was universal, and it is, consequently, impossible to-day to find persons over twenty- three years of age who have not been vaccinated in early life, thus proving that vaccination was made compulsory when there was clearly no necessity for compulsion. Experts are by no means united, as you think they are, as to the efficacy of vaccination in preventing small-pox, as witness Dr. Tebb's work, "A Century of Vaccination," and Dr. Wallace's brochure entitled " Vaccination a Delusion." The opponents of vaccination are not., as a rule, "ignorant fanatics." Many of them have carefully studied the subject, which, so far as my experience goes, cannot be said of a number of those who would force a system of which they know little or nothing on many who are deeply concerned for the welfare of their children. You suggest that a non- vacoinated person may become a centre of contagion. But so may a vaccinated person. Moreover, if vaccination is a pro- tection, the vaccinated need not fear ; while if it is not a pro-
tection, its raison dare falls to the ground. You evidently believe that the majority of the people do not distrust vacci- nation; but they have always voted against it whenever a. plebiscite has been taken, and although I am not opposed to vaccination per as myself, I think they are quite right in. repudiating the principle of compulsion.—I am, Sir, &c.,
CHARLES BELL TAYLOR, M.D.
[We print our correspondent's letter, but we totally and entirely disagree with his highly sophistical argument. rf vaccination is a protection from small-pox, which practically all competent observers admit, then compulsory vaccination is as reasonable and as legitimate as the compulsory abolition of cesspools in large towns.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
