London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Kensington 1901
Annual report on the health, sanitary condition, etc., etc., of the Royal Borough of Kensington for the year 1901
This page requires JavaScript
34
those who objected to vaccination because of the possibility of enthetic disease being conveyed
in humanised lymph. Public vaccination stations have been abolished by the Act, which is
entailing considerably increased expenditure upon the ratepayers.
Official returns show that the unvaccinated children in the Metropolis, and in
the country generally, are a great host, whose unprotected condition involves a serious
danger to the community as well as to themselves. In this borough, as already
shown, there had been recorded, up to 1898, a yearly increasing "loss" of cases of
children who, from removal to places out of the parish, or which cannot be reached, and cases
not having been found, are deemed to be unvaccinated. In London, as a whole, in 1885, the
"lost" cases, or the proportion of unvaccinated children to births registered (after deducting
deaths of children before the age for vaccination), was only 7 per cent. In 1898 the proportion
had increased to 31.2 per cent. This is an average proportion; in some of the metropolitan
boroughs the unvaccinated cases were more numerous than the vaccinated. The lost cases in
Kensington, 6'7 per cent. in 1890 had increased to 12.7 per cent. in 1898; but in 1899, as above
shown, they fell to 8.1 and in 1900 to 6.8 per cent. under the operation of the new Vaccination
Act. Probably in no other part of London is there a better vaccinated population than in this
borough.
The actual figures, showing loss, both for town and country, during the fourteen years 1885-98, as set out in the report of the Local Government Board for 1900-1901, are as follows—
| Metropolis. Cases lost. | Rest of England. Cases lost. | Metropolis. Cases lost. | Rest of England. Cases lost. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1885 7 .0 per cent. | 5 5 per cent. | 1892 18.4 per cent. | 14.3 per cent. | |||
| 1886 7.8,, | 6.1,, | 1893 18.2 „ | 15.7,, | |||
| 1887 9.0 | 6.7 „ | 1894 20.6,, | 19.0,, | |||
| 1888 10.3 ,, | 8.2 „ | 1895 21.9,, | 19.8,, | |||
| 1889 11.6 „ | 9.6 „ | 1896 26.4,, | 22.3,, | |||
| 1890 13.9,, | 10.9,, | 1897 29.1 „ | 21.6,, | |||
| 1891 16.4,, | 12.9 „ | 1898 31.2 ,, | 19.6,, | |||
Vaccination Authority.—In October, 1901, the Stoke Newington Borough Council adopted
a resolution to the effect that—
"Having regard to the fact that all other measures taken to stamp out the disease of small-pox
are under the direction of the sanitary authority, it is an anomaly that vaccination and revaccination
should not be also under their control."
The resolution was communicated to the Local Government Board, with a request that they
should initiate legislation for the correction of the anomaly; and also to the Borough Councils,
who were requested to support the action taken.
In November the Paddington Board of Guardians adopted a resolution as follows—
"That it is expedient that all powers and duties belonging to the Guardians in connection with
vaccination be transferred to the Public Health Department of Borough Councils, so that
all questions relating to public health can be dealt with by one authority."
This resolution was communicated to the Local Government Board, the several Boards of
Guardians and the Borough Councils. The Kensington Guardians informed the Council that
they agreed therewith. Both resolutions were referred to the Public Health Committee, who,
in a report dated 19th November, recommended—
"That the Council do express their concurrence with the views of the Stoke Newington Borough
Council and the Paddington Guardians, and that communications be addressed to the Local
Government Board and the Metropolitan local authorities in support of their representations
on the subject."
The report of the Committee was adopted by the Council.
For my own part, whilst concurring in the desirability of relieving the poor-law
authority of responsibility in connection with the administration of vaccination law, I question
whether it would be the better course to transfer the responsibility to twenty-nine separate
authorities ; viz., the Metropolitan Borough Councils. Some Boards of Guardians, it is well
known, have all along grievously failed in their duty in this matter, and strange as it may seem,
some of the Health Authorities of London are known to be hostile to vaccination. Elections
to Boards of Guardians have been fought on this ground, and who shall say that the same thing
might not happen at elections to Borough Councils? The interests of London are one and
indivisible in regard to this subject, and it would be intolerable that any district should be
exposed to danger because a neighbouring authority failed to enforce, or was half-hearted in
enforcing, the law. The question is too important to be made the subject of party or municipal
politics. I venture to think that the view first expressed in my annual report for 1877 (page 15)
is deserving of consideration ; viz., that the control of vaccination should be placed in the hands
of a central authority, that, namely, having charge of the hospitals. This authority, at the
present time, is the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and to that body I believe the control of
arrangements connected with the administration of vaccination law might be entrusted, with
confidence that the trust would be faithfully exercised in the interests of public health.