PUBLIC HEALTH. And Private Opinion.

Free Lance, Volume II, Issue 60, 24 August 1901, Page 8

PUBLIC HEALTH. And Private Opinion.

IF the jDarents of New Zealand have sciuples about the transmittal of possible disease to their children by vaccination, and keep their opinion to themselves, they are duly fined It is assumed by the Public Health Act that parents know nothing about the needs of their children, that they have no reasoning faculty to determine whether or no they shall or shall not transmit the virus of constitutional defects to their offspring, and so the State leasons for them, and compels them to do what may, or may not, be right in the interest of public health. * ♦ * So many cases are reported of persons becoming subject to new diseases the possible result of vaccination, that the compulsory clause dealing with the question might, as a measure for the elimination of specific disease, be excused from the Act. We have in our mmd a case in which soldiers were vaccinated prior to then departure for foreign service. The incision m each case for the introduction of the vaccine was made m the leg. One man has died from disease brought on by blood-poison-ing, one is permanently lame, and the other is apparently well. A membei recently made the statement that he considered the danger of vaccination sufficient to warrant him in importing his own lymph from Germany. We believe that if the phial containing the virus was labelled doubly pure, with a sworn statement attesting its quality added, that disease might lurk in it. We say "might," for it is possible that vaccine may have the good propei ties attributed, and very few bad ones. * * * It is obviously wrong that a parent should, by ,the Public Health Act, be deemed incapable of saying what is best for his particular child. There are a large number of people in New Zealand who fear vaccination for their children, and who therefore transgress the law m this connection. Opining that the registrars of particular districts are instrumental in getting many fined for non-compli-ance, others escape We have, therefore, a great number of children in New Zealand who have never been vaccinated, owing to the conscientious scruple&i of the parents , but we have no smallpox * * * It ib leasonablc to assume that the bcoiugc of smallpox has been eliminated, or at least minimised, by vaccination, but it is possible that other diseases may have increased in conveise proportion Persons may lodge objections to having their children vaccinated, but recent records show that many have been have been duly paid, the law is satisfined m spite of conscience for transgiessmg the law When the fines fied. and the children are free to go unvaccinatcd foi the remainder of their life It lesolves itself, therefoie, into a matter of public pence lather than public health. ■* * * If the Government considers conscientiously that each child should be piotected from smallpox in the orthodox way, it should not consider that the public health had been safeguarded by fining a transgressor of a drastic law. The compulsory clause might well be deleted, and in its place information as to the benefits of vaccination circulated, the possible dangeis not being forgotten, leaving it to parents to decide at their own discretion whethei they should safegudid their childien against smallpox or make it even faintly possible for them to contiact other diseases by that means It is unfan to assume that the framers of the Public Health Act, or any other Act, are the only peisons capable of deteimining what is good or othci wise for the rising generation.