Protection of Conscience Project Library
Service, not Servitude
Opening
(Paper read at the International Eugenics Congress, 1921) That the mental and moral qualities of mankind are inherited to the same extent as are the physical characters is now so firmly established that we have some difficulty in realising the opposition which early investigators encountered in establishing this fact. . . .
Fisher RA. The evolution of the conscience in civilised communities: in special relation to sexual vices. Eugen Rev. 1922 October; 14(3): 190–193.
Extract
Closely interlinked with the subject of a Revaccination Act is that of the Conscience Clause. When the Royal Commission on Vaccination published its final report and boldly recommended a Conscience Clause, a great part of the medical profession and probably also of the public were startled at what they regarded as a lowering of the vaccination flag. Some opponents of vaccination appeared at first to be jubilant over what they professed to regard as an antivaccination victory. . .
McVail JC. The Vaccination Acts: the conscience clause. Br Med J. 1903 January 17; 1(2194): 142–145
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.