Vaccinæ vindicia; or, defence of vaccination : containing a refutation of the cases, and reasonings on the same, in Dr. Rowley's and Dr. Moseley's late extraordinary pamphlets against vaccination. In two letters to Dr. Moseley. With the Report of the Medical Council of the Royal Jennerian Society. And the debate in the House of Commons (July 2, 1806) on a motion by Lord Henry Petty, for enlightening the people of England on the subject of vaccination, [&c] / By Robert John Thornton.

  • Thornton, Robert John, 1768?-1837.
Date:
1806
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Vaccinæ vindicia; or, defence of vaccination : containing a refutation of the cases, and reasonings on the same, in Dr. Rowley's and Dr. Moseley's late extraordinary pamphlets against vaccination. In two letters to Dr. Moseley. With the Report of the Medical Council of the Royal Jennerian Society. And the debate in the House of Commons (July 2, 1806) on a motion by Lord Henry Petty, for enlightening the people of England on the subject of vaccination, [&c] / By Robert John Thornton. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

    509/524 (page 463)
    « is of such vast importance to the public at large, that I do not think a few minutes will be At all mis-spent upon this occasion, althoucrh there is to be an ulterior discussion. I cannot iiclp think- ing with the honourable gentleman who spoke last, that if there were also to be a reference to the College of Surgeons as well as to the College of Phifsicians^ considerable advantage would be derived, for this plain and obvious reason, that Surgeons^ more than Physicians^ have had occa- sion to practise the Vaccine inoculation, and to enter into tlie merits of the ars^uments wluch have been raised concerning it. [A loud cnj of Hear! Hear!) With respect to the reasons which have prevented the propagation of this measure for saving the lives of the people in this country, as it has done in others, I must admit that my learned friend (Dr. Mathews) has hit upon the very sentiments I wished to have expressed. , I do not believe that any dffectual plan has been adopted in order to prevent mistakes in the performance of the operation. I really am of opinion, that a great part of those prejudices which have arisen, proceeded entirely from the circumstances of its having been conducted by the hands of persons who from carelessness or ignorance have communicated to tiieir patients a false and spurious species of tiiis disorder.* * Vide Vaccinas yindicia, passim.