THE ABOLITION OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume C, Issue 11702, 5 October 1898, Page 3

THE ABOLITION OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Will you allow an old, and formerly frequent conti ibutor to your columns, to indulge in a mild expression of triumph at tho success which has at last attended the efforts made : by a disinterested and determined party in Britain to abolish compulsory vaccination ? Many years ago —twenty-seven, indeed—l was a witness before tho committee of tho House-of Commons to consider the question of compulsory vaccination. I was tho only medical witness who, recognising the valno of vaccination in the prevention of small-pox, yet advocated tho abolition of compulsory vaccination. I stood alouo between two parties, both desperately in earnest, and both repudiating and hating my views, which suited neither party. Being old enough to have been vaccinated for some years before vaccination was made compulsory, I knew that the prejudice against it had largely increased. While it was optional and fashionable although here and there one might find parents, who obstinately refused to allow their children to bo vaccinated, yet for the most part when satisfied that the vaccinator was a careful man, or when they could themselves select the vaccinator, the parents allowed the operation to be performed. But with the advent of compulsion caiao tho most furious aud fanatical opposition to vaccination itself, which was denounced as the.-cans-).- of ~ almost all,the cvils,.,that, afflict humanity. To read some of the writings of the more fanatical of the antivaccinationists, one would think that before vaccination was introduced there wero no other diseases, aud that small-pox was a mild and innocuous malady compared with vaccination. Those people outraged common sense by refusing toadmit that vaccination prevents small-pox in tho vast majority of cases, and lessens the severity of the attacks in all but a few cases.

In 1870 or 3871, I forget which year, a com raittee of the House of Commons was appointed io go into the whole question, and being in England at the time on leave of absence from my appointments iii ; Trinidad (one of wbicli was Vaccinator-General of the colony), I was called before the Committee to give evidence as to the operation of compulsory vaccination iu that colony. It was during this examination that I. mentioned tho strong suspicion that was entertained by the natives that leprosy was propagated by vaccination. This has been proved to be well founded, through the exertiousof Mr William Tebb, who has twice circumnavigated the globe for the purpose of collecting evidence on this point. He has, in his book, called “The Recrudescence of Leprosy,” I think, clearly proved his case as against vaccination. In his preface he states that his attention was first directed to the matter by reading my evidence, which be quotes. Now, I have always joined issue with the anti-vaccinators, when they abuse vaccination and deny its efficacy. They have quoted my opinions and evidence in hosts of pamphlets and fly-leaves, but they do not quote what I have said in favour of vaccination wherever there is danger of small-pox. My own opinions are fully stated in a paper read before the Auckland Institute, and published in the " Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 1890,” ‘entitled, “ Ought Vaccination to be Compulsory?” This paper I sent to the Anti-vaccination Society, and their Secretary wrote to me asking to be allowed to reprint parts of it. I told them "that they might reprint the whole if they liked, but I would not have bits picked out, as it embodied my deliberate opinions after nearly fifty years’ practical experience of vaccination.

Briefly, I do not think vaccination either necessary or desirable in New Zealand. Here small-pox, although frequently introduced, has never established itself, or become epidemic. I have twelve grandchildren, all born in New Zealand, and following my advice, none of them have been vaccinated. It seems to me ridiculous to inflict a positive injury on an infant in order to guard it against catching a disease, which does not exist, and has never existed, in the country the child lives in. I am glad, therefore, to see that tho Premier proposes to introduce a Bill bn the lines of ■ the Act just passed in England. I hope that if vaccination is provided at the public expense, which seems to me quite unnecessary, not only will pure calflymph be provided, but duly qualified vaccinators. It is a monstrous thing that druggists, totally unqualified should be made public vaccinators. ■ The worst case of syphilis I ever saw produced by vaccination was done by a druggist who was, and, I believe, still is, a public vaccinator. After being almost the solitary advocate for permissive or voluntary vaccination, it is a great triumph for me to find my views adopted by the British Government and embodied in an Act of Parliament, which will virtually abolish compulsory vaccination throughout tho British Empire.—l am, etc., R. H. BAKEWELL, M.D. Auckland, Sept. 29/1898.