RIGHT OF CHOICE

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 51, 28 August 1925, Page 9

RIGHT OF CHOICE

INOCULATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN fO THI EDITOR. Sir,—ln "The Post" of 24th August aletter from Dr. Bowerbank contains tho following statement ro diphtheria and toxin antitoxin treatment: — This prophylaxis has been known for some years, and though compulsory test or prophylaxis might raise sorao opposition, intensive propaganda would, I feel sure, remove all opposition in view of the inevitable fall in the incidence. While believing that the above statement is made in all good faith, it is interesting to note that many eminent medical men havo expressed the opinion that fear an<l worry are often tho procuring causes of disease. What more subtle instrument, therefore, could be used for the propagation and dissemination of disease- than the "intensive propaganda" suggested above, and what more calculated to instil fear into the child mind. than picturing tho ravages of certain diseases, and tho supposed result of non-complianco with tho popular medical "cure" of the moment? 'Ihere is no doubt that a propaganda such as is suggested would cause such a condition of mind in parents and children that the next step, i.e., compulsion, would bo comparatively easy. If Allopathy were all that its advocates claim for it, the word "compulsory" need never be mentioned, for people would involuntarily turn to tho system which could provo itself practically infallible That such proofs of infallibility oannot be presented may be seen in the fact that so many thousands havo turned to other methods for the restoration and preservation of their health. Any systom of othics or medicine which seeks to imposo its own particular methods on the community should be able to prove beyond cavil that these methods are thoxmly ones worthy of acceptance. Tho onus of proof must rest on the school which seeks to imposo its own peculiar doctrines on the community. The ple ( i generally advanced when organised mcdi-, cine tries to carry on its propaganda work in'the schools is that these methods a.re employed solely in the interests of the health of tho public. Most parents, however, prefer to choose their own physician, and would resent the paternalism of any school which strove to enforce the acceptance of its own socalled preventives. It is just as illogical to exryoefc the publio generally to accept ' the dictums of one school of medicine as it would be to expect the same public to subscribe to the creeds and dogmas of whatever religious organisation happened to bo tho most powerful. Intolerance and bigotry have darkened the pages of religious history in the past, find persecution and death were meted out to thoss who hold views differing from socalled orthodoxy.

Medical freedom is just a« essential to tho individual as religious freedom, and JntoWanoe of dissenters and their persecution is as lilwly tr> occur in tho hospital as in the church. That the latter statement in susceptible of proof can bo shown by the fact that other schools suoh as homeopathy, osteopathy, etc., have had to fight their way to their position against tho bitter opposition of organised allopathy.

It is abo evidenced in the many prosecutions instigated by organised medicine in cases whore a patient has diod after being treated by other than recognisod medical methods, ana even when it is proved that the patient voluntarily chose nis own treatment. That coercive methods have been adopted towards members of tho profession itself who venture to difter on tho efficacy of serums, etc., has been amply proved, and instances can be cited of this abuso. Pare-nU have tho. right of choice as to what means they adopt for the preservation of the health of their children, providing always that they comply with the rules and regulations laid down regarding notification in casea of infectious diseases. Hero, also, tho parent should bo allowed to choose tho curalivo agency which ho or sho has proved by past experience to Do most efficacious. Tho choice of whatever agency ho chorea bo employ should bo tho inalienable right of every citizen, and, even 6hould death follow, that is no reason why his immediate relatives should bo prosecuted at tho instance of organised medicine, as has been done so often in tho past. State medicino would eliminate- any freedom of choice for the individual as to his physici?.n, and make it compulsory for all to submit themselves a.nd their children to the prevailing medical fada of tho moment. Should- such a condition as this ariso in Now Zealand, and an allopathic doctor declare that a person were suffering from en incurablo disease, it would bo illegal for that person to try any other curative mothod. /

Parents who believo in, and have proof of, other curative agencies, will naturally object to tho dissemination of socalled health literature which imprints dark images of disease on the susceptible mind of the child, and which tends to turn tho immature mind, to allopathy as the only means of dcHveranco from all the ills which flesh is popularly supposed to be heir to. Any proposal to use our State schools for propaganda, medical or otherwise, is ,anathema to many good citizens, whoso opinions and convictions are as worthy of respect as aro those who hold divergent view?. ' _ In conclusion, let me point out that this let-tar is written for those who object to the enforcement of tho dogmas of one particular school of medicine. Tho majority of people will naturally turn to tho system which seems to benefit them most, and in this, as in religion, the individual should have absolute freedom of choice. — 1 &m ' Cte" DIURA. 26th August.