Correspondence.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3965, 13 September 1881, Page 2

Correspondence.

These co«uuiu»areopen.toaU<!©rw«poiid<«M:« ofi*4>li interest, but we do not hold ourselves reanoniribWfor the opinions of writer*. Cortaqmideim mint M A oases be authenticated by the real name ami addrete of the writer—not necessarily lor publication, butaa »tP»rantee of good faith. ' '

(I\> the Editor of the Mtmm butf.) '" Sißn-pAs vaccination i$ compulsory, it concerns each and every parent, amongst, us that this procedure should be carried out with the greatest care.. ifencs. %■ grave responsibility rests on every p«bW vaccinator who is paid by Government to, attend to this matter, anid we. cannot but fear more or less lasting mischief to the unfortunate children operated on should the vaccinator exhibit carelessness, and' hurry through his work as if only anxious to' get rid of the irksome duty* not thinking of results except the £ij attached to it. Every enquiring mother here is acquainted with many «caset-of ill consequences after vaccination. The latest that has been made public is the? case of the child of Mrs D. Davies, of Scaly street, which, suffered from the time of its vaccination till death, with a severe eruption of scabs, on its body —the illness so induoed gradually wearing away its strength till it sank. The child was vaccinated by tiw Pa bile vaccinator, and if such a result as this can follow vaccination it is easy ltd under* stand that permanent damage, although in a lesser degree, may be done to others. Speaking for myself neither of my children havo beon 'tatfeinated; nor do I intend that, they should ran the risk of hating their constitutions ruined by vaccination.—"l am, <fee,

Pabbnt.