Project Administrator, Author at Protection of Conscience Project Library

The “conscience clause” of the Vaccination Act, 1898 (correspondence)

C. Killick Millard

British Medical Journal, BMJ — British Medical Journal

Extract

The question of retaining, mending, or ending the above clause will shortly have to be settled. There are many medical men in favour of, and seriously advocating, the last alternative. They argue (i) that a “conscience clause” is altogether wrong in principle; that it is an anomaly without precedent, and opposed to the spirit of all other compulsory legislation; and that if vaccination is to be compulsory, it should be compulsory for all. (2) That the ” conscience clause ” is greatly abused, and that its administration is becoming a farce. (3) That it has not succeeded, in the sense of securing more vaccination. . .

Millard CK. The “conscience clause” of the Vaccination Act, 1898. Br Med J. 1903 January 3; 1(2192): 49.

The conscience clause (correspondence)

William Hardman

Extract

Whilst agreeing in toto with your timely and forcible leader as regards the moral it indicates, yet do I take exception to certain statements therein contained. I object to the statement that it is petty sessional doings which have made Section ii of the Act-the conscience clause-a laughing- stock in so many parts of the country. The reason why it is not a laughing-stock in every part of the country is either because of the good sense or correct views of the inhabitants or because the antivaccinationists have neglected to disseminate their pernicious literature and to enforce their dangerous propaganda amongst these fortunate sections. . .

Hardman W. The conscience clause (Letter). Br Med J. 1899 January 14; 1(1985): 122

The duties of magistrates under the Vaccination Act: The conscience clause

British Medical Journal

Extract

The Conscience Clause-the only section of the Vaccination Act as yet in force-appears to have caused some consternation amongst the magistrates upon whom will rest the duty of administering it. To those of the “Great Unpaid” who have heretofore systematically refused to do their duty it will make but little difference; they will continue to disobey the law with perhaps an easier conscience. Setting them aside, however, we anxiously turn to consider the attitude which those who have always endeavoured to do their duty upon the bench are about to adopt. . .

The duties of magistrates under the Vaccination Act: The conscience clause. Br Med J. 1898 September 17; 2(1968): 817–818.

(Correspondence) A Question of Conscience

Arabella Kenealy

Extract
Only this much have I suggested, that in view of that which is plainly a higher mandate; in view of the multiple miseries of the syphilitic infant and child, and its degenerate maturity; in view more especially of the fact that not upon us, but upon these miserable little creatures from whom we avert the mercy of abortion, the consequences of our interference fall, we should in all cases in which Nature is trying to cast off a syphilitic foetus thankfully allow her to do so.

Kenealy A. (Correspondence) A Question of Conscience. Br Med J. 1895;2(1815):934.

(Correspondence) A Question of Conscience

Surgeon Major

Extract
The publication of such distressing cases is of great value, as the more widely they are known the more surely we shall receive the support of all good men and women in our efforts to induce Parliament to sanction preventitive regulation, similar to those which, wisely introduced and unwisely repealed, brought, during this too brief period of existence, the priceless blessing of health, not only to men and women, but also to the little children.

Major S. (Correspondence) A Question of Conscience. Br Med J. 1895;2(1814):870.

(Correspondence) A Question of Conscience

J Foster Palmer

Extract
. . .That syphilis will convert a Caucasian child into a Mongoloid, however, is a statement ethnologists will hardly accept without further proof. The comparison, indeed, is entirely superficial and misleading . . .

Palmer JF. (Correspondence) A Question of Conscience. Br Med J. 1895;2(1814):870.

(Editorial) A Question of Conscience: BMJ comment

British Medical Journal

Extract
We have received so many letters on this subject, containing, often, repetitions of arguments already used by other correspondents, that we find it impossible to publish all. We print below abstracts of some of the communications.

The Author of Mona Maclean thinks that not many practitioners of her sex will agree with Miss Kenealy’s views. . . .

Surgeon-Captain O’Callaghan, A.M.S., congratulates Miss Kenealy -on her courage in formulating in written words one of the many questions of conscience that have perplexed many minds. . .

Mr. Lawson Tait (Birmingham), while thinking Miss Kenealy quite wrong in her line of action, finds ” T. C. A.’s” letter inconclusive and not philosophic. . .

E. E. W., writing as a woman, dependent on the honest and straightforward dealing of medical men, asks whether, in the case instanced by Miss Kenealy, it was not wrong to withhold treatment from the mother. . .

Mr. A. G. S. Mahomed (Bournemouth) considers that in the case instanced by her, Miss Kenealy failed in her duty, since, though she thought mercurials would improve the mother’s condition, she failed to prescribe them. . .

Mr. T. E. Constant (Scarborough), writing as one who is not a medical practitioner, is stirred by a perusal of Miss Kenealy’s letter to inquire whether ladies are fit for a profession so severely practical as that of medicine. . .

BMJ. (Editorial) A Question of Conscience: BMJ comment. Br Med J. 1895;2(1814):870-871.

(Correspondence) A Question of Conscience

AG Welsford

Extract
Miss Kenealy is a lady who possesses the courage of her convictions, for few of her brother practitioners will regard her action as anything but morally indefensible. To purposely refrain from interfering to prevent abortion does not differ in principle from actively bringing it about, and the question she has raised resolves itself into whether it is justifiable in the interest of the child to procure abortion when the parents are syphilitic. If we admit the justifiability of abortion in these cases, we must also admit that it is justifiable . . . whenever there is a chance that the child will inherit any tendency to disease-a radical method of eliminating unhealthy strains in the race. As doctors we must regard life as sacred, and it is our plain duty to strive to save or prolong life as long as we can . . . and only when another life is threatened are we justified in contemplating any measure which will destroy life. Whether the life we are striving to save is or is not of value has nothing to do with us.

Welsford AG. (Correspondence) A Question of Conscience. Br Med J. 1895;2(1813):807.

(Correspondence) A Question of Conscience

RE

Extract
” A Question of Conscience ” opens up the very important question as to how far any individual has the right to make himself the judge of whether or not another human being is fit to live, and to withhold from him his chance of living. To do so is to accept a responsibility which to my mind is far beyond that which any man or woman individually should assume. . . The mother of the foetus in question trusts to the honour of her medical attendant to give both her and her child the best chances of life and health available; and whatever may be the opinion of Miss Kenealy of the exact degree of value of mercury as a ” cure ” for the disease, being convinced, as she seems to be, that it is the one drug offering any chance of improvement, however little, she will in my opinion be neglecting an obvious duty both to her patient and to society if she fails to make use of it.

RE. (Correspondence) A Question of Conscience. Br Med J. 1895;2(1813):807-808.

(Correspondence) A Question of Conscience

John Ormsby

Extract
I explained to her the cause and said ” You will have another dead child, then I shall treat you and you shall have a living one.” Now comes the question of conscience. ” Why not now ?” she asked. ” Because it is not expedient that the child at present in your womb should live.” I considered that no treatment could make such a change in it as to make life anything but a curse. Between seven and eight months she was again delivered of a dead child. I then put her under mercurial treatment. In twelve months she had a perfectly healthy son. I put this son under mercury for twelve months, keeping up the mother’s treatment uninterruptedly for three years. She had three more perfectly healthy children in rapid succession, which were not treated separately. Two years ago I visited the town and found them out and four better grown, better looking (they had all their mother’s beauty) or more intelligent young men and women you could not find in their station in life, two were married and had healthy children. . . Miss Kenealy’s conscience and mine, I think, are at one on the question.

Ormsby J. (Correspondence) A Question of Conscience. Br Med J. 1895;2(1813):806.