If children, and adults were re-vaccinated,—say every seven years after the first vaccination,—depend upon it, even these rare cases would not occur, and in a short time small-pox would be known only by name.
47. Do you consider it, then, the imperative duty of a mother, in every case, to have, after the lapse of every seven years, her children re-vaccinated?
I decidedly do: it would be an excellent plan for every person, once every seven years to be re-vaccinated, and even oftener, if small-pox be rife in the neighbourhood. Vaccination, however frequently performed, can never do the slightest harm, and might do inestimable good. Small-pox is both a pest and a disgrace, and ought to be constantly fought and battled with, until it be banished (which it may readily be) the kingdom.
I say that small-pox is a pest; it is worse than the plague, for if not kept in subjection, it is more general—sparing neither young nor old, rich nor poor, and commits greater ravages than the plague ever did. Small-pox is a disgrace: it is a disgrace to any civilised land, as there is no necessity for its presence, if cow-pox were properly and frequently performed, small-pox would be unknown. Cow-pox is a weapon to conquer small-pox and to drive it ignominiously from the field.
My firm belief, then, is, that if every person were, every seven years, duly and properly vaccinated, small-pox might be utterly exterminated; but as long as there are such lax notions on the subject, and such gross negligence, the disease will always be rampant, for the poison of small-pox never slumbers nor sleeps, but requires the utmost diligence to eradicate it. The great Dr Jenner, the discoverer of cow-pox as a preventative of small-pox, strongly advocated the absolute necessity of every person being re-vaccinated once every seven years, or even, oftener, if there was an epidemic of small-pox in the neighbourhood.
48. Are you not likely to catch not only the cow-pox, but any other disease that the child has from whom the matter is taken?
The same objection holds good in cutting for small pox (inoculation)—only in a ten-fold degree—small-pox being such a disgusting complaint. Inoculated small-pox frequently produced and left behind inveterate "breakings-out," scars, cicatrices, and indentations of the skin, sore eyes, blindness, loss of eyelashes, scrofula, deafness—indeed, a long catalogue of loathsome diseases. A medical man, of course, will be careful to take the cow-pox matter from a healthy child.
49. Would it not be well to take the matter direct from the cow?
If a doctor be careful—which, of course, he will be—to take the matter from a healthy child, and from a well-formed vesicle, I consider it better than taking it direct from the cow, for the following reasons:—The cow-pox lymph, taken direct from the cow, produces much more violent symptoms than after it has passed through several persons; indeed, in some cases, it has produced effects as severe as cutting for the small-pox, besides, it has caused, in many cases, violent inflammation and even sloughing of the arm. There are also several kinds of spurious cow-pox to which the cow is subject, and which would be likely to be mistaken for the real lymph. Again, if even the genuine matter were not taken from the cow exactly at the proper time, it would he deprived of its protecting power.
50. At what age do you recommend an infant to be first vaccinated?