View report page

219
repetition at intervals, but they do not suggest that the repeated
operation, which they regard as essential, should be pressed
upon the indifferent and negligent as in the case of the primary
operation.
Now, the whole principle of securing the protection of a
community from small-pox by the artificial production of a mild
disease (whether it be inoculation or vaccination) is based upon
the thoroughness of the procedure in two directions:—1. In
applying the inoculatory process to every individual; 2. In
securing to each individual operated upon the maximum of protection
the process is capable of securing.
The proposals of our colleagues appear to us to fail upon
their own showing in both directions. They recognise the
impossibility of securing the primary vaccination of every
person, and open a means of escape for objectors. They
are also not prepared to recommend that re-vaccination should be
pressed in the same manner as the primary operation at a time
when the vaccinated have lapsed into susceptibility to small-pox.
This serves to prove that any such system must at best be
a broken reed on which to rely for the protection of a community
from small-pox epidemics.
We believe the methods of isolation of the infected, disinfection,
and the observation of strict cleanliness are both more successful
and more legitimate methods for the State to encourage. They
have the advantage of applying the preventive only where it is
required: and they do not necessitate an operation upon the
person of every healthy individual.
We, therefore, recommend that the law be amended by the
repeal of the compulsory clauses of the Vaccination Acts. But
in consideration of the prevalent belief in the value of vaccination
as a prophylactic for an indefinite period, and we suggest that in
other respects the law should be left as it is, subject, however, to