THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 1881. THE HEALTH OFFICER AND DR. PRINS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2332, 23 September 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 1881. THE HEALTH OFFICER AND DR. PRINS.

In an article published on the 3rd instant wo took occasion to refer to the system of persecution from a certain quarter to which the Health Officer has been subjected while discharging his onerous duties with satisfaction to the public at large. We also drew attention to a pamphlet, entitled “ A Few Notes Respecting the Public Notification of Infectious Diseases. By a Practitioner”—a production printed with much kind forethought for the enlightenment of the members of the Legislature, and the evident and highly charitable intention of which was to deprive the Health Officer of all private practice. Dr. Nedwill has thought fit, in a letter to the public journals, to take exception to one of the remarks made in the above pamphlet, which was to the effect that a single pustule is sufficient to secure the constitution from the smallpox, and he stated that “ the opinions sot forward in this quotation are certainly not in accord with our present knowledge, and are calculated, therefore, to mislead, if allowed to go unchallenged.” The Health Officer further gave some elaborate statistics furnished by Dr. Ballard, one of the medical officers of the Local Government Board of England, in support of his argument. Dr. Prins, whose genial feelings towards the “Practitioner” are somewhat touching, has, on the other hand, taken up the cudgels on behalf of the theory laid down in the pamphlet, and has given to the public his view of the case. It is, of course, not our intention to say anything as to the scientific aspect of this correspondence. Doctors proverbially disagree, and are, apparently, never averse to backing their opinions with their pens. It is probable that further discussion on the general subject of vaccination will ensue, and those interested will have an opportunity of weighing the arguments brought forward as to the different methods in which that operation should bo performed. But the letters from the Health Officer and Dr. Prins are now public property, and, apart altogether from tho technical view of tho case, it may be well to compare what has been said on either side, because the subject is one in which our readers naturally feel a very wide interest. A comparison between the two sets of statements can bo made with the aid of common sense alone, and without any special knowledge whatsoever. Speaking generally, it may be said that Dr. Prins is, to say the least of it. bold when be takes exception to Dr. Mangon'a tables, used by Dr. Ballard. We fancy that most people will think these tables indisputable, and at all events they

havo been treated as such by the Local Government Board. This body has so completely adopted the conclusions arrived at through the said tables that, in its instructions to Public Vaccinators, we find the following passage “In all ordinary cases of primary vaccination, if yon vaccinate by separate punctures, make such punctures as will produce at least four separate good-sized vesicles, not less than balf-an-inch from one another; or, if you vaccinate otherwise than by separate punctures, take care to produce local effects equal to those just mentioned.” The Local Government Board evidently has quite made up its minds on the subject, and to it Dr. Ballard’s arguments and statistics appear unanswerable. But what do wo find Dr. Prins saying on the subject? Ho at all events does not agree in any way with the Local Government Board. On the contrary, he considers that, seeing that one good vesicle is sufficient for all practical purposes, it is wrong to secure any more. He says it is cruel to make four marks on an infant. If such is, indeed, the case the Local Government Board of England stand convicted of an amount of harshness which it is impossible to contemplate without a shudder, seeing that it has issued instructions that those infants who are operated on by Public Vaccinators should be marked with four vesicles. “When the number of children affected by this order is considered, the Local Government Board can hardly bo absolved from a charge of inhumanity. Dr. Prins further asks the curious question why, if four scars are necessary, it should not be well to increase the number of places to eight or ton. The Local Government Board havo acted on what experience has taught them ; they place the minimum that give a moderate security at four, and there is no question of increasing the number of vesicles unless a larger number were found by practical experience to be preferable. There is no evidence to prove this latter proposition, and that is the reason why the vesicles should not be increased to eight or ten. And, finally, Dr. Prins in his letter leads the public to believe that they are perfectly safe if one vesicle is pronounced, basing his remarks on his own experience. But, however specious the argument may sound, does Dr. Prins pit his Christchurch experience in smallpox against the evidence obtained in the London Smallpox Hospital ? Dr. Prins seems to object to the Health Officer using the valuable statistics furnished by officers who are at the present moment struggling in the thick of the fight wi:n the disease. We would ask the public if they would be satisfied were the Health Officer to baso his recommendations on such limited experiences in the smallpox line as must by necessity fall to the lot of any Christchurch practitioner. Does not common sense suggest that the light thrown by eminent medical men who are hard at work combatting the evil should be utilized when obtainable ? A perusal of the letters written by the Health Officer and Dr. Prins have suggested these few remarks. The purely technical aspect of the question will, we trust, be further ventilated by the medical men of Christchurch themselves. In a matter of such importance, however, every man should use his common sense and best judgment in applying the information he may obtain from professional sources