Now, the true American thought in this quotation, as I take it, is that, as American soldiers and citizens, they are free men and members of a free state, with American rights and dignities that cannot be invaded, and are not “slaves,” “chattels,” or “subjects” to any one, and, therefore, are not to be treated by any form of military despotism or arbitrary medical dictation, as slaves, hogs, or cattle might be so treated. And as the hog or cattle doctor might properly force any medicine down the throat of the helpless beast without being required to say “by your leave” to his humble patient, or might perform on the body of the helpless animal any operation that he or the owner might decide upon, yet I think that neither of us would admit that any man calling himself a human doctor could, with any decency, propriety, or legality, follow this crude but necessary code of ethics of the animal doctor on the human subject by attempting to perform any medical service on the human body by any intimidation or force or without full approval and consent of the patient. Yet what have we seen? We have seen men, calling themselves doctors, claiming the right to force dangerous medical operations on school children and soldiers without their free will and consent, and with some form of barbarous intimidation or coercion, as they might do with dangerous beasts. We have seen loyal soldiers, conscientiously objecting to unnecessary and dangerous operations on their bodies against their approval or consent, who were tried by court-martial and condemned to imprisonment at hard labor for twenty-five years! And this outrageous sentence was inflicted for nothing more than for asserting one of the most obvious and unalienable rights of every American—the right to the medical sanctity of his own body, the right to medical freedom, choice, and consent in any medical treatment of that body!
Is it not time, therefore, Mr. President, that this clear American principle expressed in your address just quoted should now be applied in this matter, and that this Medical Hoggery of compulsory vaccination should be abolished in our Army and Navy? And is it not time also that the members of that “Divine” profession of Human Healing, in all its schools and sects, should now take action at the earliest possible day to purge their great profession from the deep disgrace of this Medical Hoggery, which they have originated and too long practiced, and which is involved in all forms of dictatorial and compulsory medicine on the human subject?
Of course, in anything I say here I make no reflection on the veterinary doctors whose work, in its own sphere, I regard just as honorable as the work of any other doctors in their sphere.
COMPULSORY VACCINATION NOT NECESSARY AND NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THE HEALTH OF ARMIES OR POPULATIONS. FAILURE OF VACCINATION IN U. S. ARMY OFFICIALLY ADMITTED
There is another strong consideration which I think should move you, Mr. President, toward abolishing this evil of compulsory vaccination with “cruel and unusual” punishment, and that is: That this compulsion and punishment is not really necessary for any military purpose or efficiency, as is proved by several facts in the past and present practice and experience of our own and other armies, for example: First: In the Russian-Japanese war the Japanese adopted for almost the first time the modern, effective system of general military sanitation and hygiene, but used no typhoid vaccination, and yet the army suffered very little from typhoid fever. Second: Per contra, in the Gallipoli expedition in the recent war the English soldiers were generally inoculated with typhoid vaccines, but at the same time the most unsanitary conditions prevailed in camp and field, and the result was a great loss from typhoid and other fevers among the vaccinated. Third: In the U. S. Army in France in 1918, in several camps where sanitation and hygiene were grossly neglected, typhoid vaccination proved to be little or no protection, and it has been officially admitted to be a great failure, as typhoid epidemics prevailed extensively in said camps with a high death-rate among the well vaccinated men. See official report on this subject from the Chief Surgeon of the A. E. F. in U. S. Public Health Reports of March 28, 1919, entitled, “Typhoid Vaccination no Substitute for Sanitary Precautions.” See also page 207 in the annexed Supplement. Fourth: Vaccination is now voluntary in the English Army, and it is estimated that from five to ten per cent. of the Army is unvaccinated. Fifth: There is no court-martial or punishment for refusing vaccination in the English Army, as is shown by a recent inquiry in the English Parliament, reported as follows:
“Official Parliamentary Debates, April 23, 1918, Column 833.
“Mr. Chancellor asked the Under-Secretary for War, Mr. Macpherson:
“Question A. Whether refusal of vaccination by any soldier is a military crime. Answer A. Refusal by a soldier to be vaccinated is not an offence punishable under the Army Act.
“Question B. Whether any officer is authorized to inflict punishment of any kind for such refusal. Answer B. No officer is authorized to inflict punishment for such refusal.
“Question C. Whether the fact of a man who joined when vaccination was compulsory, having assented reluctantly then, alters his legal position now that vaccination is no longer subject to legal compulsion in the Army. Answer C. Soldiers voluntarily enlisted who, at the time of their enlistment, agreed in their attestation papers to be vaccinated, cannot be punished under the Army Act for refusing to be vaccinated.”