100 YEARS AGO - ANTI-VACCINATION LEAGUES
100 YEARS AGO - ANTI-VACCINATION LEAGUES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/adc.59.12.1195
复制
发表时间：
1984-01-01
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
WILLIAMSON, S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
WILLIAMSON, S
接种天花疫苗似乎是一种非常可靠的预防措施，以至于1853年英国规定所有新生儿都要接种天花疫苗。起初，这项法律并没有得到严格执行，但在1864- 188年的一场小流行病期间，早期的立法得到了加强，监护人委员会被赋予了确保法律得到实施和起诉不遵守法律的父母的任务。然而，在这个时候，疫苗接种的严重、有时甚至是致命的副作用被报道出来，19世纪70年代初，随着流行病在各地的爆发，人们对疫苗的有效性产生了怀疑，从医学和伦理角度出发，反对这种手术的运动开始增长。莱斯特是众多反疫苗联盟兴起的城镇之一，他们要求废除法案中的强制条款，并主张采取其他措施来应对这种疾病，比如完全隔离病人和任何与他们接触过的人。尽管如此，这项法律在1871年得到进一步加强，引发了更强烈的反对，这种反对持续了20年。仅在莱斯特，在此期间就有6000起起诉，其中以下是1884年莱斯特媒体的典型报道：“梅尔顿·莫布雷·佩蒂·塞申斯：爱德华·艾恩斯被传唤，因为他忽视了为两岁的儿子接种疫苗的命令。他说，他出于良心反对遵守《疫苗接种法》，他也是根据医生的建议行事，医生说，接种疫苗不利于儿童的健康，也不会对他有好处。他的一个孩子已经接种了疫苗，她受到了很大的影响，他不能让这个男孩承担同样的风险。然后，他提出了几位医学先生对接种疫苗的害处的看法，并说他认为法官根据良心反对来执行这项法律是不明智的。主席说，没有什么问题比疫苗接种问题更能引起不同的意见。毫无疑问，疫苗接种使天花以一种温和得多的形式出现。法官们对这个问题的意见是一致的。他们根据公众的理由采取行动，并决定在两周内执行这项命令。如不遵从命令，被告将须承担
Vaccination against smallpox seemed to be so reliable a prophylactic that in Britain in 1853 it was made statutory for all newborn children. At first the law was not rigidly enforced, but during a minor epidemic in 1864-8 the earlier legislation was tightened up, the Boards of Guardians being given the task of ensuring that it was implemented and prosecuting parents who failed to comply with it. By this time, however, severe and sometimes fatal side effects of vaccination were being reported, and with the outbreak of epidemics in various places in the early 1870s, which threw doubts on its efficacy, a campaign of opposition to the operation, on both medical and ethical grounds, began to grow. Leicester was one of the many towns in which Anti-Vaccination Leagues sprang up, demanding repeal of the compulsory clause in the Act, and advocating other measures for dealing with the disease, such as total isolation of patients and of anyone who had come into contact with them. In spite of this, the law was reinforced still further in 1871, provoking yet stronger opposition, which continued for two de-cades. In Leicester alone during this period 6000 prosecutions were said to have been brought, of which the following, reported in the Leicester press in 1884, are typical:'Melton Mowbray Petty Sessions: Edward Irons was summoned for neglecting to comply with an order for the vaccination of his son, aged two years. He said he had a conscientious objection to conforming to the Vaccination Act, and he was also acting under the advice of his doctor, who stated that vaccination was not conducive to the child's health, nor would it benefit him. One of his children had been vaccinated, and she had suffered considerably from the effects of it, and he could not allow the boy to undertake the same risk. He then gave the opinions of several medical gentlemen on the evils of vaccination, and said he thought it wouldbe inadvisable for the Bench to enforce the law upon a conscientious objection. The Chairman said there were few questions which had given rise to more varied opinions than the subject of vaccination. It had been proved beyond doubt that vaccination had caused smallpox to show itself in a much milder form. The Bench were unanimous in their opinions upon the question. They acted upon public grounds, and decided that the order should be enforced within a fortnight. If the order were not complied with, defendant would be liable to