Report of the executive committee for the years 1905 / The Jenner Society.

  • Royal Jennerian Society.
Date:
1905
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Report of the executive committee for the years 1905 / The Jenner Society. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    6/20 (page 6)
    the Vaccination Act of 1898 made to this much-discussed individual, which, it must be remembered, was made on the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, even the most enthusiastic pro-vaccinist must recognise that it cannot now be withdrawn. But when it comes under recon- sideration it will be open to those who were not satisfied with the hasty manner in which this Act was hurried through Parlia- ment to suggest a more excellent way of meeting the case of the “ determined ” objector than that adopted by the Act. There can be little doubt that though Parliament may have acted wisely in making the concession, it was less wise in meeting what might be only a temporary objection by a perpetual exemption. To permanently exempt any person from the provisions of an Act which is, ex hypothesis applicable to all alike, is to create a position which is logically indefensible and is calculated to bring legislation into contempt, On the other hand, to have granted temporary exemption from the requirements of the Vaccination Acts would not only have avoided a logical blunder but would be merely an extension of twro provisions which have always been recognised in vaccination law\ One is, that the requirement of vaccination may be postponed on a medical certificate, on the ground that it would be prejudicial to the health of the child. The other is, that a vaccination defaulter shall not be considered guilty of an offence if he shall render a “ reasonable excuse ” for his neglect. The extension of these two provisions would remove all the difficulties of the case. Instead of requiring the objecting parent to obtain a medical certificate that vaccination would be injurious to the health of his child, it would be sufficient for him to declare, as he may do now, that he believed it would be injurious to its health. Such a declaration might be as properly accepted as a “ reasonable excuse ” for the temporary suspension of the requirements of the law as it is now for permanent exemption from them. Suspension v. Exemption. The question remains, for how long should the suspension operate ? There need be no difficulty about the answer to this question : the suspension should operate until the child may happen to be exposed to the risk of catching small-pox from the prevalence of the disease in its immediate neighbour- hood ; or, until it commenced its school-life, when it would be exposed to risks of catching small-pox from which, under ordinary circumstances, it would be, comparatively speaking, free before that stage of its career. If the parent then still persisted in his objection, there would be no alternative to renewing the suspension, until,