CANTERBURY CATHOLIC LITERARY SOCIETY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XI, Issue 33, 14 December 1883, Page 13

CANTERBURY CATHOLIC LITERARY SOCIETY.

Christchurch, Dec. 7, 1883. At the usual weekly meeting of the above Society on •< Monday evening, Dec. 3, five .candidates jvere^balloted for and elected* resolution, concerning the annual picnic/ standing in the name of Mr. Milner, was introduced by that gentleman, his suggestion being that it take place at Governor's Bay on Boxing Day. It was, however, intimated that would be the day selected for the children^ fete, and both would necessarily clash ; accordingly it was arranged that the motion should stand over until the following meeting, when the day appointed for the school treat would be finally doterasineo upon. The programme for the evening was a debate oa " Should vaccination be compulsory." ' -•>' . ; ~' \ - Mr. Perceval considered that vaccination would be looked upon as an exploded idea fifty years hence, and classed with the practices made use of some years ago of bleeding and starving-fever patients. Statistics were brought forward to prove a decrease in deaths by small-pox since the introduction, of vaccination by Jenner, bat every other disease decreased in a certain degree' since that time, a fact ■whioh was due, no doubt, to better drainage, cleanliness, and a knowledge of the Jaws of health. Disease germs were very often transmitted from aa unhealthy child to a healthy one .by means of vaccination. " ' " " ,"~ ,~" ' Mr. Crook upheld the principle of vaccination, as it has been proved to be one of the greatest discoveries ever found out for checking disease. An argument in favour of it is, that the majority < of the medical profession testify to its efficacy in resisting small-pox Mr. O'Connor differed with Mr. Crook as to the-benefits '-derived from vaccination, as he saw a child covered with sores inconsequenceof disease germs being transferred from an unhealthy child -from* whom the lymph was taken. He did not betieve fin compelling any man to get his child vaccinated, and he was glad to see public opinion rapidly changing that way. If it was to be done at all, let . it be done with pure lymph from the calf. Mr. Barrett favoured vaccination, as there could be no two opinions concerning its merits in reducing the number of fatal cases of small-pox. He then showed from authorities, and quoted statistics to prove that the danger of infection to those vaccinated is almost , nil, whilst those not vaccinated are almost sure to be attacked. ' Mr. Leahy was rather disappointed at the strong arguments advanced against vaccination, as he did not think there could be much said on that "side. Before coming to a conclusion on the question it would be necessary to see if it was beneficial to> the community at large, and if it was conducive to the preservation of life. In a question of this kind, it would be impossible to dispense with the opinion of the medical profession, as the greater "part of the public know but very little about such matter. The doctors say that it is of immeDse benefit, and when they come to that conclusion it is absurd for ordinary people to maintain to the contrary. Mr Kennedy said that since the discovery of vaccination, by Jenner, towards tbe end of the last" century, the fatal effect of- small* pox had. decreased at an enormous rate up to the present time. It was remarkable also, that when a notion was introduced some time ago in the House of Commons against compulsory vaccination, only 14 members supported it out of about 320, whilst it is evident that these did not so much disaprove of the practice in itself as the compulsory clause. Mr. Maskell considered the greater part of the speakers had missed the point of debate, which was not the merits of vaccination, but whether it should be compulsory. There could be no doubt whether, concerning the benefits of vaccination, as the figures in support of it were overwhelming. Lady Montague got her children vaccinated in Turkey about 80 years since, and from that -time until the present, vaccination has been practiced with immense success. The opponents of the practise allege that cases of blood poisoning, have occurred, but that is through the carlessness of the practitioner, and if vaccination is to blame for the death of some, is it not better that hundreds should die in order to save millions? Mr. O'Sullivan contended that the children were the property of the parents, and not of the State, and, therefore, the former- should have the option of getting them vaccinated or not,-a3 -they .thought fit. It was wrong to force a man to get his child, in fected^with disease germs from an unhealthy cbi'd, as was very often tie case. Mr. Lougham said that the opponents of vaccination, were conjuring before their minds terrors which did not really 'exist. There is no coming from figures, nor from the opinions of the doctors, who, | if they would only combine in opposing vaccination, it would be a j good way of filling their pockets. The only thing that could be brought against the practice was that which was the result of carelessness on the part of tbe practictioner. Oa the question being put to the vote, it was found that the np. holders of compulsory vaccination wore in a decided majority. was then determined who, of the junior speakers made the best speech, when it was voted that Mr. Crook's was the best.