The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-04-13
INTERPRETATIONS
SECOND ROUND
A Reply to the Second Article in the
Controversial Series.

Editor Advertiser: AS the bill favor
ing the adjustment of compulsory vac
einat1oE has passed safely through both
Houses and now awaits the signature of
the Governor, it seems useless to an
sWcr the criticism of my characterization
article which appeared in your paper a
few days ago. but as silence would i'm
ply weakness in this case. 1 wish to
write, as briefly as possible, in defense of
my statements
| / claimed that certain diseases, small
pox among them, yielded to a certain
course of treatment My critic denies my
assertion. and, to prove his point, claims
that certain other diseases do not yield
10 that treatment. I can only say that
did not make any claim for. men
ton, the diseases he speaks Of
| Regarding the compulsory vaccination
law in England, in 1910 an Act was pass
ed in that country providing facilities for
public vaccination, but it was not until
1853 that the neglect of vaccination was
made punishable by fine and imprison-
ment. This law was enforced to an ex
tent, but not entirely until 1867, after
which time thousands of persons suffer
ed punishment of various kinds rather
than submit to the law. This state of
affairs continued until 1888, when the So
called conscience clause" became part
of England's law. BY this Act any per-
son who objects to vaccination may, by
fuse to have his child vaccinated without
danger of suffering penalty for such re-
fusal. II this is not repeal of the
rigidly enforced compulsory vaccination
laws of the previous thirty years, 1 do
not know what il is 1t is like saying
| do not steal; but if you will sign a pa
per stating that you really want to steal
| you may do as you please without fear
of the law"
| l do not know anything about what
.'otfer factor may be at worn regard
ing the overwhelming characterization
statistics of Italy; but whatever factor
| il is. it does not confine it's operations
| to Italy alone. 1 am strongly tempted to
qrote more figures but am mindful that
space is limited And what If I quoted
columns of figures in support of my
stand? My critic could do the same
and what would it prove? Merely that
|
agree on the subject of vaccination And.
because they do not agree. / hold that
the majority, strong only in might of
numbers, have no right to seek TO com
pei the minority to submit to something
they are conscientiously opposed TO. I
hold that, however useful physicians may
| be in cases of sickness, they have no
right 10 tamper with the healthy human
body. John Stuart Mill says: THE only
|
which he is amenable to society is that
which concerns others. In the part
which concerns himself merely his in
dependence is of right absolute. Over
himself. over his own mind and body,
the individual is sovereign. The
only freedom which deserves the name
is that of pursuing our own good way,
so long as we do not attempt to deprive
others of theirs, or impede their efforts
to obtain it. Each is the proper guar
dian of his own health, whether bodily
o. mental and spiritual" And any man
who has insured the safety 90 Of himself
and family through vaccination should
be satisfied
| Then there is another reason for my
reluctance to quote more facts and hg-
ures though I hate to confess it. The
truth. however, is that I feel utterly out
of place in a discussion of this kind My
| opponent is a man who has made life
study of this subject, while my entire
knowledge of therapeutics has been gain
Ell in tying up cut fingers or stubbed toes
and making an occasional haxseed poui-
| tice. To be sure, / have seen some OF
the evils of vaccination; else 1 should
not have written in defense of Senate
bill As; but otherwise the doctor has ev-
cry advantage in this discussion. So
would be foolish, indeed, TO tempt him to
! bewilder me with a lot of figures, | would
not know how to answer in this out OF
the way place. Any one interested in
this subject can easily consult the ency-
clopaedias, where they viii find figures
galore.
The doctor says: II also disagree with
your correspondent when she calls in
question the fact that all danger OF
transmitting disease is done away with
and yet, little further along, he quotes
the following fact from the report OF
the Vaccination Commission of 1896:
careful examination of fact leads to the
conclusion that, although some of the
dangers said to attend vaccination are
undoubtedly real and not inconsiderable
in gross amount, yet, when considered
in relation to the extent of vaccination
work done, they are insignificant ano
diminishing in numbers under the better
precautions of the present day, and are
likely TO still further diminishN with NJ
ture precautions "n1cn experience SUP
gests'' This is good. He disagreeS
with me when 7 say all danger is MOI
done away with. He thinks 1t is; there
fore he must consider the process per
feet. He thinks it perfect now, but
willing to acknowledge it is becoming
more perfect; and. with the wisdom III
ture experience will give us, 1t Will maj
Iy become still more perfect, The de-
grees are not simple or comparative mere
vaccination is now perfect: after
while it will become perfecter, and, iate'
on. it is expected it will become perfect
est, When the doctor says, "A secone
vaccination was always successful pS
taking particular care as to method ane
by selecting with equal care a good tuo'
Iof lymph he proves conclusively ina
all lymph is not equally good Ii TN:
lis true, what becomes of the inferior
grade? And if he sometimes has taker
particular care IS to method' ther'
must have been other times when M
was-well, let as say not quite SO par
ticular
was indeed enlightened as my crit
lic hoped. when I read his statement tina
| a,,ooc;pe docs not contain the germs o.