Читать книгу The Physical Training of Children - Pye Henry Chavasse - Страница 11

Table of Contents

45. Are you an advocate for vaccination?

Certainly. I consider it to be one of the greatest blessings ever conferred upon mankind. Small-pox, before vaccination was adopted, ravaged the country like a plague, and carried off thousands annually; and those who did escape with their lives were frequently made loathsome and disgusting objects by it. Even inoculation (which is cutting for the small-pox) was attended with danger—more especially to the unprotected—as it caused the disease to spread like wildfire, and thus it carried off immense numbers.

Vaccination is one and an important cause of our increasing population; small-pox, in olden times, decimated the country.

46. But vaccination does not always protect a child from small-pox?

I grant you that it does not always protect him, neither does inoculation; but when he is vaccinated, if he take the infection, he is seldom pitted, and very rarely dies, and the disease assumes a comparatively mild form. There are a few, very few fatal cases recorded after vaccination, and these may be considered as only exceptions to the general rule; and, possibly some of these may be traced to the arm, when the child was vaccinated, not having taken proper effect.

If children and adults were revaccinated,—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 only be known 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 revaccinated?

I decidedly do; it would be an excellent plan for every person, once every seven years, to be revaccinated, and even oftener, if small-pox be rife in the neighborhood. 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 is 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 civilized 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 revaccinated once every seven years, or even oftener, if there was an epidemic of small-pox in the neighborhood.

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 tenfold 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 be deprived of its protecting power.

50. At what age do you recommend an infant to be first vaccinated?

When he is two months old, as the sooner he is protected the better. Moreover, the older he is the greater will be the difficulty in making him submit to the operation, and in preventing his arm from being rubbed, thus endangering the breaking of the vesicles, and thereby interfering with its effects. If small-pox be prevalent in the neighborhood, he may, with perfect safety, be vaccinated at the month’s end; indeed, if the small-pox be near at hand, he must be vaccinated, regardless of his age and regardless of everything else, for small-pox spares neither the young nor the old, and if a new-born babe should unfortunately catch the disease, he will most likely die, as at his tender age he would not have strength to battle with such a formidable enemy. “A case in the General Lying-in-Hospital, Lambeth, of small-pox occurred in a woman a few days after her admission and the birth of her child. Her own child was vaccinated when only four days old, and all the other infants in the house, varying from one day to a fortnight and more. All took the vaccination; and the woman’s own child, which suckled her and slept with her; and all escaped the small-pox.” Communicated by Sir Charles Locock to the author.

51. Do you consider that the taking of matter from a child’s arm weakens the effect of vaccination on the system?

Certainly not, provided it has taken effect in more than one place. The arm is frequently much inflamed, and vaccinating other children from it abates the inflammation, and thus affords relief. It is always well to leave one vesicle undisturbed?

52. If the infant has any “breaking-out” upon the skin, ought that to be a reason for deferring the vaccination?

It should, as two skin diseases cannot well go on together; hence the cow-pox might not take, or, if it did, might not have its proper effect in preventing small-pox. “It is essential that the vaccine bud or germ have a congenial soil, uncontaminated by another poison, which, like a weed, might choke its healthy growth.” The moment the skin be free from the breaking-out, he must be vaccinated. A trifling skin affection, like red gum, unless it be severe, ought not, at the proper age, to prevent vaccination. If small-pox be rife in the neighborhood, the child must be vaccinated, regardless of any “breaking-out” on the skin.

53. Does vaccination make a child poorly?

At about the fifth day after vaccination, and for three or four days, he is generally a little feverish; the mouth is slightly hot, and he delights to have the nipple in his mouth. He does not rest so well at night; he is rather cross and irritable; and, sometimes, has a slight bowel complaint. The arm, about the ninth or tenth day, is usually much inflamed—that is to say, it is, for an inch or two or more around the vesicles, red, hot, and swollen, and continues in this state for a day or two, at the end of which time the inflammation gradually subsides. It might be well to state that the above slight symptoms are desirable, as it proves that the vaccination has had a proper effect on his system, and that, consequently, he is more likely to be thoroughly protected from any risk of catching small-pox.

54. Do you approve, either during or after vaccination, of giving medicine, more especially if he be a little feverish?

No; as it would be likely to work off some of its effects, and thus would rob the cow-pox of its efficacy on the system. I do not like to interfere with vaccination in any way whatever (except, at the proper time, to take a little matter from the arm), but to allow the pock to have full power upon his constitution.

What do you give the medicine for? If the matter that is put into the arm be healthy, what need is there of physic? And if the matter be not of a good quality, I am quite sure that no physic will make it so! Look, therefore, at the case in whatever way you like, physic after vaccination is not necessary; but, on the contrary, hurtful. If the vaccination produce a slight feverish attack it will, without the administration of a particle of medicine, subside in two or three days.

55. Have you any directions to give respecting the arm AFTER vaccination?

The only precaution necessary, is to take care that the arm be not rubbed; otherwise the vesicles may be prematurely broken, and the efficacy of the vaccination may be lessened. The sleeve, in vaccination, ought to be large and soft, and should not be tied up. The tying up of a sleeve makes it hard, and is much more likely to rub the vesicles than if it were put on in the usual way.

56. If the arm, AFTER vaccination, be much inflamed, what ought to be done?

Smear frequently, by means of a feather or a camel’s-hair brush, a little cream on the inflamed part. This simple remedy will afford great relief and comfort.

57. Have the goodness to describe the proper appearance, after the falling off of the scab, of the arm?

It might be well to remark that the scabs ought always to be allowed to fall off of themselves. They must not, on any account, be picked or meddled with. With regard to the proper appearance of the arm after the falling off of the scab, “a perfect vaccine scar should be of small size, circular, and marked with radiations and indentations.”