View report page

46
his judgment against that of the community embodied in the
statute law, and to refuse in consequence to render that law his
obedience ; they have, therefore, opposed any relaxation of the
laws relating to vaccination, assuming that because in particular
instances it might lead to children remaining unvaccinated who
would otherwise be vaccinated, it must necessarily result in a
diminished number of vaccinations. We believe that this
assumption is not well founded. It has been apparently forgotten
that under the existing law a penalty, or even repeated
penalties, can be paid without difficulty, by a man only
moderately well-to-do, and that a poorer man will constantly pay,
or suffer a distress of his goods, or go to prison, rather than
allow his child to be vaccinated. We think these ardent
advocates have not always been the wisest friends of vaccination,
and that there would have been more vaccinated persons if the
law had been enforced with more discretion.
After careful consideration and much study of the subject, we
have arrived at the conclusion that it would conduce to increased
vaccination if a scheme could be devised which would preclude
the attempt (so often a vain one) to compel those who are
honestly opposed to the practice to submit their children to
vaccination, and, at the same time, leave the law to operate, as
at present, to prevent children remaining unvaccinated owing to
the neglect or indifference of the parent. When we speak of an
honest opposition to the practice, we intend to confine our remarks
to cases in which the objection is to the operation itself, and to
exclude cases in which the objection arises merely from an
indisposition to incur the trouble involved. We do not think
such a scheme impossible.
It must of course be a necessary condition of a scheme of this
description that it should be such as would prevent an objection
to the practice being alleged merely as an excuse to save the
trouble connected with the vaccination of the child. We may give
the following as examples of the methods which might be
adopted. It might be provided that if a parent attended before
the local authority and satisfied them that he entertained such an
objection, no proceedings should be taken against him. Or, again,
a statutory declaration to that effect before any one now
authorised to take such declaration, or some other specified
official or officials, might be made a bar to proceedings. We do
not think it would be any real gain to parents who had no conviction
that the vaccination of their children was calculated to do
mischief, to take either of these steps rather than submit them
to the operation.
And if every duly qualified practitioner who vaccinated a child
successfully could claim the appointed fee, it could properly and
ought, we think, to be made a condition that all children so
vaccinated should be liable to inspection, and that the fee should
not be allowed when the examination did not appear to have been
performed in accordance with the prescribed rules. It would
not, of course, be necessary to make such an inspection in
every case ; a limited number of test cases would suffice. The
liability to inspection would prevent abuse, and under proper
regulations we think the system might be an improvement on any
at present existing.