( 6 )
Thus in 1807, in a Parliamentary report, the Royal College of Physicians of London, put
it in evidence, that even at that date—" Great numbers of persons" were annually inoculated
in London and " required to attend two or three times a week at the places of inoculation
through every stage of their illness." Besides this, people recently inoculated were intention-
ally placed in the public thoroughfares, for the purpose of their being freely exposed to the
air, and only in exceptional instances were the most necessary precautions attended to.
Under such circumstances, to say that inoculation only failed to lessen small-pox, and
succeeded only in displacing the mortality from the provident to the careless, is to give it
very high praise indeed. Even though, as is generally believed, it tended rather to increase
than to diminish the general small-pox mortality, it still remains a subject for wonder that
its effects were not even more mischievous than history relates.
Regarding the causes which lead to hostility to
inoculation.
13. For many years the feelings of the Medical men and of the Members of the Civil
Service in India have been more or less strongly
opposed to the practice of small-pox inoculation. One
reason for this is, that all who appreciate the value of
vaccination justly regard its advantages as inestimably superior to inoculation, but ignore
the fact that many decades would not suffice to vaccinate forty millions of people in
Bengal. Another reason is, that while the one truth, that inoculation may be dangerous both
to the individual and to the community, is universally recognised, the larger truth, that it
may be conducted extensively with great safety to both, is unknown to many.
Dangerous tendency of such hostility
14. Such a hostile feeling to inoculation has led to district officers discouraging the
practice, and to their intimidating or otherwise
punishing inoculators on many occasions. The art
of inoculating, which exists in many places in high perfection, can only be handed down
from father to son, if such obstacles are not thrown in the way; and if interference is practised
to any great extent the country will come to suffer from the want of competent
inoculators.
The reasons of the policy adopted by Govern-
ment should be made public.
15. In reply to my letter No. 465, dated 10th January 1867, the Government have
already expressed their intentions in this matter, and
it is now suggested, that independently of further
action on this report, the attention of district
officers should be directed to the subject, with the view to their being able to make themselves
acquainted with some of the reasons on which such a policy of the Government is founded.
As it is probable that many may not have leisure to read the whole of this report, an index
has been prefixed, so that individual paragraphs may be referred to. Perhaps it may lead to
a more favorable reception of the views expressed in favor of a regulated inoculation if it be
distinctly stated that the same knowledge of the laws of small-pox, and the same familiarity
with the facts which should regulate our action in the matter of vaccination, which led the
writer to bring forward as essential, the proposal which was afterwards passed into law, that
small-pox inoculation should be prohibited in Calcutta, and which caused him to press
on Government the necessity for the extension of vaccination in Bengal, on a scale never
previously practised, has also taught him the necessity for the measures now pointed
out.
Argument in favor of a regulated inoculation.
16. It is well known that; inoculation confers a very large amount of protection to the
community, as well as to the individual, against
small-pox. It is also certain that a very large pro-
portion of the population of Bengal is protected by this means, and that an extensive
machinery, kept up at the cost of the people themselves, exists for providing the country
with this protection. In some parts of the country the safety with which inoculation is
practised is very great; the remark being equally true, both as regards the individuals opera-
ted on, and as regards those by whom they are surrounded.
Under such circumstances, the abolition of inoculation would constitute a great hard-
ship, and unless an efficient substitute for it were brought to the doors of those affected by
the prohibition, the measure would be a dangerous one to public health. On the other
hand, it is believed that the dangers consequent on the practice, which have been so often and
so vigorously pointed out, might be lessened to a very great extent, by means of a regulation
of the practice; measures being taken to provide against both classes of risk connected with
inoculation.