The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1881-06-11
Correspondence,

We are not responsible for opinions expressed by cor
respondents, our columns being open 70 an ior tHe us
Correspondents Will please observe that all letters
must be authenticated by the names Of writers nI
necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee Oh S''"
faith.
To the Editor of the Pacific Commercial AdreT''SeT:
SIR notice in your issue of the 14th ult-
a communication from f. Johnson complaining
of the very harsh tratmeut he, will others, had
been subjected to in being summarily sent over
to the Pest House through the mistaken diagnosis
of a physician employed by Government as an
inspector, in connection with the prevailing
epidemic.
That a simple rash should have been mistaken
for smallpox in the case alluded to, is attributed
by the complainant, to the ignorance of the phys
ician. And it must be evident that either lgnor-
ance, or a reckless disregard Of professional
decency, and the comfort and convenience OF
| others, was accountable for an action fraught
also with danger to the lives of those in behalf
of whom the complaint was uttered.
Call such an occurrence a mistake, and then
add the fact that several persons possessing cert
ifcates for good vaccinations recently performed
bv the same individual, have died Of small pOr,
and is any ones confidence IN his professed
ability likely to be h heightened thereby Or can
we wonder at the not limited prevalence among
natives. rs a result therefrom, of the idea that
vaccination affords no protection against small
pox.
l have it on good authority that a lay VACCINE
tor. not long since, was sent by this same phys
ician to vaccinate an infant in Il quarantined
house, an whom the eruption OF smallpox was
several DAYS old, (and when vaccination could
have done no possible gooi) the child having
been seen on the very same day by the physician
himself. The gentleman sent, however, hap
PLY recognized the disease, and did not vac
cinate the infant, otherwise he might have
carried the infection far and wide, and perhaps
have introduced it into the very bosom Of his
own family. Now what could explain such an
action as this, unless il were that the physician
referred to, did not know smallpox when he
saw it, or that he had some interior object III
view, best known to himself. The house III
which their child was, had been quarantlned foI
two weeks or more, and had been frequently
visited in the interval by this physician; and had
this child been vaccinated, rs 1t ought to have
been, when the quarantine was first imposed,
the chances are fifty to one that its life would
have been saved. But no This child was
taken to the Pest House, and died there, not
withstanding the repeated intercessions OF Its
parents that it should be vaccinated: and this
to a regular salaried vaccinator-was this life
any the less valuable because 1t was that OF {
non-paying patient ? To one actuated IN the
performance of the functions OF his office by love
of lucre alone, such might be the case. But
does the law, or the Administration, intend the
disbursement of public monies for the mere
benefit of individuals, or the public good
KAMAAINA.