THE ENGLISH VACCINATION BILL.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10148, 22 September 1898, Page 4

THE ENGLISH VACCINATION BILL.

Our readers are aware that the House of Lords threw but* the "conscience clause" from the Vaccination. Bill brought in by the English Government. We gather from the English papers, however, that very properly the Peers afterwards reconsidered this decision, and agreeti to reinstate the clause. The effect of the provision is to protect from

prosecution, any father who makes a statutory declaration that he is conscientiously, opposed to his child being vaccinated. It is, as we have before pointed out, a startling change m the law, but it does not indicate any disbelief in the efficacy of vaccination. It indicates rather a disbelief in.the efficacy of Acts of Parlianrent to make people either moral or of hygienic habits, if they are not already inclined that way by force of education and persuasion. A striking speech on the subject was made in the first debate by Lord Lister, the founder of the antiseptic treatment, and probably the greatest authority of the day on such questions as vaccination. To the surprise of a large number of his medical brethren,' Lord Lister supported the conscience clause. He did so in the interests of vaccination. He pointed out that it was impossible to say that the vaccination laws at present were working satisfactorily, seeing "the appalling fact" that about one-third of the children born in England and Wales were not subjected to vaccination at all. This he attributed to the anti-vaccination crusade. The anti-vaccinationiste, his Lordship went on to saj, had two weapons, one the supposed danger arising from vaccination, and the other the supposed martyrdom of the persons who were subjected to fine and imprisonment for disobeying a law which they believed, rightly or wrongly, exposed their children to danger. The present measure would entirely remove the former of these objections. The possible danger of the introduction into a child of terrible contamination was absolutely done away with by the use of glycerinated calf-lymph. The introduction by means of lymph of tubercles was equally prevented, because tubercles when mingled i with glycerinated lymph lost their vitality. There remained the possible danger of introducing erysipelas, but the microbes which were the element of erysipelas were as effectually disposed of by the use of glycerinated lymph as were the microbes of the tubercle; and the risk of erysipelas would be still further diminished by having the children vaccinated at home instead of having them congregated in large numbers at the vaccine stations. He trusted that before long any possible communication of erysipelas and subsequent contamination would be entirely done away with by the adoption of simple antiseptic measures, which would not interfere with the efficacy of the lymph. When this was accomplished there would be absolutely no ground of objection based on the possible danger from vaccination. The other weapon—the martyrdom cry—■ would be struck out of the anti-vacci-nationists' hands by the means of the conscience clause. For these reasons he supported the Bill, believing that it would really increase the amount of vaccination instead of 'diminishing it. He considered, however, that there was one serious omission in the measure., in that it failed to deal with re-vaccination. The immense vajue of re-vaccination had been shown by the splendid results achieved in Germany, amongst both the military and the civil population. Its value was also endorsed by the figures of the Commissioners, showing the reduction of small-pox in the ranks of tho Army, the Navy, and the Police. Another striking proof of the efficacy of re-vaccination was the immunity enjoyed by the nurses in small-pox hospitals. The Royal Colltege of Physicians had reite-. rated its belief not only in the efficacy of vaccination, but also of vaccination "duly repeated.". The College of Surgeons took a similar attitude, declaring that re-vaccination was an additional safeguard and ought to be~ universally practised.

These views, we need hardly say, are entitled to the greatest possible weight, and ought to be seriously considered by our own Government. Ministers some time ago promised to bring down a Vaccination Bill this session, but it looks as if this and other matters of real practical concern would be sacrificed as usual to the squabbles of the politicians and the anxiety of the Government to get their little legislative "jobs" safely through. Wβ have already expressed the opinion that the prosecutions recenlly instituted in Wellington are a mistake. To prosecute people in this colony, where there is no small-pox, is the very way to start the anft-vaccinafcion agitation in full blast, and is "a blunder worse than a crime." The law should be amended by introducing such provision as the conscience clause. What is of very much more importance, however, is that the Government should take prompt steps to provide an ample supply of glycerinated calf lymph. At present medical practitioners are not able to get nearly enough for their requirements. There ought in our opinion to be not only sufficient for ordinary needs, but if small-pox should be imported into the colony, the Government ought to be able to cope with the demand for lymph that would then take place as the result of the panic which would inevitably ensue. If the colony, in the event of invasion by smallpox, were discovered to be unprepared with lymph to meet it, the conduct of the Government would be just as criminal as if they were found unprovided, with ammunition in the event of invasion by a foreign foe. In the meantime to compel parents, under the threat of prosecution, to submit their children to the arm-to-arm process is an act of tyranny of which no Government, in these enlightened days, ought to be guilty.