DOCSLIB.ORG

Vaccination and the Law in Ontario and Nova Scotia (1800 – 1924)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vaccination and the Law in Ontario and Nova Scotia (1800 – 1924) Vaccination and the Law in Ontario and Nova Scotia (1800 – 1924) by Ubaka Leo Ogbogu A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Ubaka Ogbogu 2014 Vaccination and the Law in Ontario and Nova Scotia (1800 – 1924) Ubaka Ogbogu Doctor of Juridical Science Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2014 Abstract Since the discovery of smallpox vaccination in the late eighteenth century, Western societies have often confronted the question of whether the state can justifiably impose the procedure on its citizens in the interest of safeguarding general public health. This question is at the heart of ongoing controversies regarding whether to require mandatory vaccination to check a resurgence of childhood diseases such as measles. While there are social and medical histories of the application of vaccination to the problem of infectious diseases in Canada, much remains unknown about the legal history of the procedure, including, specifically, the nature and scope of legal mechanisms used to enforce vaccinations and the factors — legal, social or otherwise — that account for the effectiveness, success or failure of these mechanisms. This dissertation addresses this gap through the lens of the legal history of smallpox vaccination in Ontario and Nova Scotia in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. It provides an original, comprehensive account of vaccination law and policy in nineteenth century Canada, encompassing the factors and ideologies that triggered and shaped the legal regulation of ii smallpox vaccination, the processes, design, content and outcomes of legal regulation, challenges associated with the implementation and enforcement of vaccination laws, and the influence or impact of broader social and political arrangements and norms. It also provides a firsthand account of why and to what extent mandatory approaches to vaccination were utilized in preventing the introduction and spread of smallpox, how such approaches were fashioned, and the reasons why they succeeded or failed to achieve stated regulatory aims. The study shows that approaches to vaccination varied between Ontario and Nova Scotia, and that the effectiveness of vaccination policies depended on the design of legal measures utilized, strong and responsive (local) government, holistic approaches that eschew a singular focus on vaccination over other methods of fighting infectious diseases, the absence of ideological contests over the legitimacy of mandatory vaccination, availability of financial resources to support the administration of vaccination, heightened and sustained threats of infectious diseases, and a population that is generally supportive of public health interventions. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is dedicated, first, to Gift, Maya and Amaka, my support team. Your love and encouragement is the force that propels me forward. I also dedicate this work to my parents, Maria Uzochikwa and Kenneth Nwachukwu, who instilled and nurtured a love of learning in me. And finally, to the Canadian taxpayer and my dear Aunt Esther, for funding my studies. I am immensely grateful to my supervisors, Professors Trudo Lemmens and Jim Phillips, for their guidance, patience, and mentorship. I could not have asked for a better duo to oversee my development as an academic. Dālụ́ . I would also like to thank my dissertation committee, including Professors Angela Fernandez, Philip Girard, Martin Friedland and Angela Miles, for their thoughtful consideration of this work. Sarah Hamill, Maeghan Toews, Adam Ollenberger and Carmelita Robertson provided research and editorial assistance. Thank you. I am grateful for the assistance of the wonderful staff at the Archives of Nova Scotia, Archives of Ontario, Argyle Township Court House Archives, and the Halifax Regional Municipality Archives. My colleagues at the Faculties of Law and Pharmacy and at the Health Law Institute, University of Alberta helped with this project in various ways. I am grateful for your collegiality and camaraderie. I am also grateful to the Faculty of Law for various grants to support my archival research. Gift, my dear wife, read the entire dissertation and loved it. You’re tops, hon. Lastly, my eternal gratitude to all my wonderful family and friends, whose companionship and encouragement has made all the difference. iv Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Aims .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Why Smallpox Vaccination? .............................................................................. 14 1.3 Why Ontario and Nova Scotia? .......................................................................... 16 1.4 Contribution and Thesis ..................................................................................... 18 1.5 Approach and Outline ........................................................................................ 24 1.6 A Brief History and Historiography of Smallpox in Canada ............................. 24 1.7 A Brief History of Vaccination .......................................................................... 33 1.8 A Brief Historiography of Vaccination and the Law in Canada ........................ 38 Plate A: Advertisement for inoculation services by Doctors Kerr and Muirhead (25 January 1797) ................................................................................................................ 45 CHAPTER TWO – ONTARIO ........................................................................................ 46 2.1 Slow Starts and Unfulfilled Responsibilities: Smallpox and Infectious Disease Management in Ontario ................................................................................................ 46 2.2 Smallpox, Vaccination and the Law: From Union to Centralized Governance of Public Health ................................................................................................................. 73 2.2.1 Legislative Developments in the Union Era ............................................... 73 2.2.2 Smallpox, Vaccination and the Path to Legal Management of Infectious Diseases..................................................................................................................... 78 2.2.3 Britain’s influence on the legal adoption of vaccination in Canada ........... 80 2.2.4 Legal regulation of vaccination in Ontario: A new era in public health governance emerges, and Britain’s influence wanes ................................................ 95 2.2.5 Vaccination and the professionalization of medicine in Ontario .............. 104 2.3: Advancing the People’s Welfare through Legal Action: Re Provincial Board of Health for Ontario and City of Toronto ...................................................................... 123 2.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 160 Plate B: Pen-marked letter from a number of doctors to Ontario Premier James Whitney opposing vaccination (1 December 1900) (2 pages) .................................... 162 Plates C - G: Telegrams sent by doctors to the Attorney General of Ontario in support of medical legislation (1925) (5 pages) ...................................................................... 164 CHAPTER THREE – NOVA SCOTIA ......................................................................... 169 3.1 Introduction: A Concerted and Efficient Response to Infectious Diseases ..... 169 v 3.2 Preliminary Observations and Chapter Structure ............................................. 180 3.3 Smallpox, Vaccination, Infectious Diseases, and Public Health: Overview of the Legal Framework ........................................................................................................ 185 3.3.1 Pre-1800 .................................................................................................... 185 3.3.2 Post-1800: Quarantine and infectious diseases become distinct subjects of legislation ................................................................................................................ 200 3.3.3 The role played by local officials in implementing the infectious disease statutes ................................................................................................................... 204 3.3.4 The Province adopts vaccination legislation ............................................. 208 3.3.5 Payment Disputes...................................................................................... 227 3.3 Central Administration, and the Emergence of a Formal Public Health Bureau ... .......................................................................................................................... 240 3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 245 Plate H: Document showing number of persons that received the smallpox vaccine in Halifax (circa 1841) (2 pages) .................................................................................... 248 Plate I: Board of Health Regulations for the Ports of Bridgewater & LaHave in the County of Lunenburg, in relation to Small-Pox (1885) .............................................. 250 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS.......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Compendium of the Findings of the OPCAST Pandemic Subgroup 12
    1 A Compendium of the Findings of the Obama PCAST Ad Hoc Subgroup on Pandemic Preparedness and Response December 23, 2020 Introduction A subset of the former members of President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (here OPCAST)—ten individuals who played particularly important roles in producing the six OPCAST reports between 2009 and 2016 that dealt with issues related to pandemic preparedness and response1—came together starting in March of this year to consider how insights from those studies might be combined with more recent research and current observations to develop suggestions about how the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic could be improved. The Subgroup has produced six reports, addressing • the national strategic pandemic-response stockpile (May 20) • the role of contact tracing (June 18) • the role of public health data in controlling the spread of COVID-19 (July 28) • testing for the pathogen (August 18) • recommendations for the coming COVID-19 commission (September 21) • needs for improved epidemiological modeling (September 28) Each report was distributed, upon completion, to selected members of the Trump COVID-19 team and the Biden campaign staff, selected governors and members of Congress, selected public health experts outside government, and the media. The reports have also been posted on the OPCAST team’s website, http://opcast.org, together with a few opinion pieces based on them. In the current volume, we have assembled all six reports in full, preceded by a set of brief summaries. Four of the reports are followed by short updates taking account of developments since the reports first came out.
    [Show full text]
  • School Vaccination Requirements in the Commonwealth
    School Vaccination Requirements in the Commonwealth Joint Commission on Health Care Healthy Living / Health Services Subcommittee Meeting August 3, 2016 Stephen Weiss Senior Health Policy Analyst Study Background • HB 1342 (Delegates Filler-Corn and Stolle) was introduced during the 2016 General Assembly session. As written the bill amended § 32.1-46 by striking subsections D.1. and D.2. removing religious and medical exemptions and by adding “if the vaccine is medically contraindicated” as the only exemption. • HB 1342 was stricken by the patron. • Delegates Filler-Corn and Stolle requested that the JCHC study the requirements surrounding school vaccinations and make recommendations as to whether non-medical exemptions should be tightened for children attending public schools, private schools, child care centers, nursery schools and family day care home or developmental centers. • The request asked the Commission include the following information in its study: How the inoculation serum is discovered, What do the different states require, and their laws, developed and marketed – the science behind related to vaccinations for children entering public the making of a vaccine; schools and private schools; What is “vaccine efficacy” and how accurate is What is required for passports in order to travel to other it in terms of effectiveness; countries; What childhood illnesses are making a Is there a scientific reason why people oppose comeback due to public attitudes toward vaccinations; immunization and where is this occurring in Is there a medical reason why people oppose the country; vaccinations; How do vaccinations get on the CDC What religions traditionally oppose vaccinations; recommended schedule lists; Do the risks scientifically outweigh the rewards of vaccination? 2 Additional Questions to Consider • During the May 26, 2016 meeting of the Joint Commission on Health Care Delegate Bulova asked the Commission to consider 17 additional questions submitted to him by Barbara Caceres.
    [Show full text]
  • Meningitis: Immunizations on Pennsylvania College
    JOINT STATE GOVERNMENT COMMISSION General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania MENINGITIS: IMMUNIZATIONS ON PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES APRIL 2020 Serving the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Since 1937 - 1 - REPORT Meningitis: Immunizations on Pennsylvania College and University Campuses Project Manager: Susan Elder, Fiscal Analyst Allison Kobzowicz, Public Policy Analyst Stephen Kramer, Staff Attorney Project Staff: Wendy Baker, Executive Assistant Kahla Lukens, Administrative Assistant (Dec. 2019) Maureen Hartwell, Public Policy Analyst Intern (Aug. 2019) The report is also available at http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us - 0 - JOINT STATE GOVERNMENT COMMISSION Telephone: 717-787-4397 Room 108 Finance Building Fax: 717-783-9380 613 North Street E-mail: [email protected] Harrisburg, PA 17120-0108 Website: http://jsg.legis.state.pa.us The Joint State Government Commission was created in 1937 as the primary and central non- partisan, bicameral research and policy development agency for the General Assembly of Pennsylvania.1 A fourteen-member Executive Committee comprised of the leadership of both the House of Representatives and the Senate oversees the Commission. The seven Executive Committee members from the House of Representatives are the Speaker, the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Majority and Minority Whips, and the Majority and Minority Caucus Chairs. The seven Executive Committee members from the Senate are the President Pro Tempore, the Majority and Minority Leaders, the Majority and Minority Whips, and the Majority and Minority Caucus Chairs. By statute, the Executive Committee selects a chairman of the Commission from among the members of the General Assembly. Historically, the Executive Committee has also selected a Vice-Chair or Treasurer, or both, for the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • MERS-Cov Data Sharing Case Study Report November 2018
    MERS-CoV Data Sharing Case Study Report November 2018 1. Introduction a. Background to the ongoing MERS-CoV outbreak: In September 2012, Dr Ali Mohamed Zaki reported the isolation of a novel betacoronavirus on ProMED-mail, the internet infectious disease alert system run by the International Society for Infectious Diseases.1 The patient, a 60-year-old male from Saudi Arabia presenting with pneumonia- like symptoms died from an unknown viral infection in June 2012.2 Later dubbed the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV),3 this emerging infectious disease has now been responsible for more than 2,200 laboratory-confirmed infections in people from 27 countries, and close to 800 deaths.4 The vast majority of these cases have been recorded in Saudi Arabia, however MERS-CoV is considered a severe emerging disease with the potential to cause a major global health emergency.5 Epidemiological investigations have revealed that primary human infections with MERS-CoV are often, but not always associated with contact with dromedary camels around the Arabian Peninsula.6 Human-to-human transmission of MERS-CoV has been responsible for case clusters in family groups and healthcare facilities. The incidence of hospital-acquired infections have been reduced with the employment of strict infection control measures,7 and the international public health community remain on high alert for new introductions. In 2015, South Korea saw the largest outbreak of MERS- CoV outside of the Eastern Mediterranean with 186 confirmed cases and 38 deaths.7 New cases of MERS-CoV infection continue to be reported mostly from the Eastern Mediterranean.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Vaccines & Vaccination in India
    [Downloaded free from http://www.ijmr.org.in on Wednesday, August 26, 2020, IP: 14.139.60.52] Review Article Indian J Med Res 139, April 2014, pp 491-511 A brief history of vaccines & vaccination in India Chandrakant Lahariya Formerly Department of Community Medicine, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, India Received December 31, 2012 The challenges faced in delivering lifesaving vaccines to the targeted beneficiaries need to be addressed from the existing knowledge and learning from the past. This review documents the history of vaccines and vaccination in India with an objective to derive lessons for policy direction to expand the benefits of vaccination in the country. A brief historical perspective on smallpox disease and preventive efforts since antiquity is followed by an overview of 19th century efforts to replace variolation by vaccination, setting up of a few vaccine institutes, cholera vaccine trial and the discovery of plague vaccine. The early twentieth century witnessed the challenges in expansion of smallpox vaccination, typhoid vaccine trial in Indian army personnel, and setting up of vaccine institutes in almost each of the then Indian States. In the post-independence period, the BCG vaccine laboratory and other national institutes were established; a number of private vaccine manufacturers came up, besides the continuation of smallpox eradication effort till the country became smallpox free in 1977. The Expanded Programme of Immunization (EPI) (1978) and then Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) (1985) were launched in India. The intervening events since UIP till India being declared non-endemic for poliomyelitis in 2012 have been described. Though the preventive efforts from diseases were practiced in India, the reluctance, opposition and a slow acceptance of vaccination have been the characteristic of vaccination history in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Alex Haslam Is a Social Psychologist and an Australian Laureate Fellow at the University of Queensland, Australia
    Alex Haslam is a social psychologist and an Australian Laureate Fellow at the University of Queensland, Australia. He is also a Senior Fellow of CIFAR’s Social Interactions, Identity & Well-Being program. His work examines how social identities and group memberships influence our interactions with others. He researches such questions as: How does belonging to groups and organizations shape the way we think, feel and behave? And how do individuals and groups in turn shape the nature of organizations and society? Dr. Haslam approaches these questions by identifying and explaining how people’s membership in groups and teams affects a range of social and organizational processes including stereotyping and prejudice, leadership and motivation, communication and decision-making, and stress and mental health. Dr Haslam is on the editorial board of seven international journals, including Scientific American Mind. He has published and edited 11 books on social and organizational psychology including the seminal book The Social Cure: Identity, Health and Well-being. His work has received numerous honours including the British Psychology Society's Award for Excellence in the Teaching of Psychology, and a National Teaching Fellowship from the Higher Education Academy. John Berry is a cross-cultural psychologist, and a member of CIFAR Advisory Board for the Social Interactions, Identity, & Well-being program. His research involves two domains. First is the examination of how individual behaviour is developed and displayed in different cultural contexts; much of the work has been with Indigenous Peoples in Canada, Africa and Asia. Second is research with immigrant and ethnocultural groups who are settled into plural societies in many parts of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations for the Coming COVID-19 Commission
    Recommendations for the Coming COVID-19 Commission By a Pandemic-Response Subgroup of Former Members of President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology September 21, 2020 Introduction The United States confronted a succession of biological threats over the first two decades of the twenty-first century. These included the 2001 anthrax attacks, the 2002-2004 SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1) pandemic, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, the 2012 MERS-CoV coronavirus epidemic in the Mideast, the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa, and the 2015-2016 mosquito-borne Zika virus epidemic in the Americas. This pace of emerging disease outbreaks had been anticipated by leading microbiologists and epidemiologists in the late twentieth century.1 In 2004, the National Intelligence Council in its report Mapping the Global Future, noted that “Some experts believe it is only a matter of time before a new pandemic appears, such as the 1918–1919 influenza virus ... Such a pandemic… would be devastating and could spread rapidly throughout the world.”2 In 2008, a careful accounting catalogued the emergence of 335 infectious diseases into humans between 1940 and 2004.3 While a small number of these spread widely or even became established (for example, the HIV virus that causes AIDS), nearly all subsided quickly. But it was clear to microbiologists that the threat was ever-present, and likely increasing. The executive branch first put a national strategy in place for pandemic disease outbreak surveillance and response with Presidential Decision Directive PDD NSTC-7, issued by President Clinton in 1996.4 Since then there has been a series of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • @Risk: the Last COVID Mile with Helen Branswell [Music] Jodi: Hey, I’M Jodi Butts
    @Risk: The Last COVID Mile with Helen Branswell [Music] Jodi: Hey, I’m Jodi Butts. And welcome to @Risk, brought to you by Interac. It's been a long risky year in large part due to COVID-19 and its sprawling health and economic consequences. Thanks to the development of effective vaccines, we can finally see some light at the end of the pandemic tunnel. Let's be buoyed by this over the holidays, but not get too ahead of ourselves either. What about this last mile of our COVID-19 journey? What are the potential bottlenecks and stumbling points that we should be looking out for? What should we be considering to ensure we reach our zero COVID-19 destination? To explore these questions I’m joined by Helen Branswell. Helen is Stat News's infectious diseases and global health reporter. She's Canadian and was introduced to epidemic reporting during Toronto's SARS outbreak in 2003. In the years since, she has written about bird flu, the H1N1 flu pandemic, Ebola, Zika, and now leads stats coverage of the coronavirus pandemic. Helen spent the summer of 2004 embedded at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a CDC knight fellow. In 2010 and 2011, she was a Neiman global health fellow at Harvard where she focused on polio eradication. Nobody covers the COVID-19 vaccine beat more thoughtfully or with more rigor than Helen. Our journey to this point has been long. Let's not stumble now with the end in sight. Lucky for us, Helen Branswell has us covered.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Vaccination: Trends and U.S
    Global Vaccination: Trends and U.S. Role October 18, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45975 SUMMARY R45975 Global Vaccination: Trends and U.S. Role October 18, 2019 For more than 50 years, the United States has taken an interest in the eradication of vaccine- preventable diseases (VPDs) in children worldwide, as well as vaccine research and Sara M. Tharakan development, particularly since playing a vital role in the global campaign to eradicate smallpox Analyst in Global Health in the 1960s. Since then, vaccinating children against VPDs has been a major U.S. foreign policy and International effort. Development Vaccinations are one of the most cost-effective ways to prevent infectious disease and associated morbidity and mortality. According to UNICEF, immunizations save around 3 million lives per year. As of 2019, VPDs continue to cause high levels of morbidity (illness) and mortality (death), and the World Health Organization (WHO) notes that the adoption of new vaccines by low- and middle-income countries (which often have the highest disease burdens) has been slower than in high-income countries. Receiving a vaccination during childhood can protect the recipient from VPDs, decrease the spread of related diseases, and improve child survival prospects (as children, particularly those under five years old, are more likely than adults to die from VPDs). Recently, a global resurgence of certain VPDs has caused concern among public health officials and drawn attention to the challenges of vaccine hesitancy and stigma. For example, polio continues to elude global eradication and remains endemic in three countries. In 2019 measles has seen a resurgence in some middle- and high-income countries due to a variety of factors, including reluctance among some individuals and religious communities to vaccinate their children.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2020 ACIP Meeting Minutes
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report February 26-27, 2020 Atlanta, Georgia This document has been archived for historical purposes. (3/1/2020) https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2020-02-508.pdf Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Summary Report February 26-27, 2020 Table of Contents Page Agenda 4-5 Acronyms 6-11 Wednesday: February 26, 2020 Welcome and Introductions 12-14 Ebola Vaccine Introduction Review of Ebola Virus Disease and rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Vaccine GRADE 14-49 EtR and Summary of Work Group Considerations and Proposed Policy Options Vote 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCov) Informational Session 49-55 Influenza Vaccines Introduction Older Adult (65+) Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine (aIIV4) ‘ 2019-20 US Influenza Surveillance Update 56-72 2019-20 US Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Update Safety of Adjuvanted vs. High-Dose Inactivated Influenza Vaccines in Older Adults Summary and Work Group Considerations Thursday: February 27, 2020 Agency Updates Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Department of Defense (DoD) Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 73-77 Heath Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Indian Health Services (I HS) National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Infectious Disease Policy and HIV/AIDS (OIDP) o National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) o National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) Rabies Vaccine Introduction Background on PrEP, Vaccine Safety, and Work Group Considerations 78-96 Rabies Vaccine Schedule & Duration of Immunity (Systematic Review Data) Work Group Next Steps 2 This document has been archived for historical purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1.1: General introduction Your Committee having carefully considered the Message of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, and having also communicated with the principal Medical Practitioners in Hobart Town, Launceston, and other parts of the country, and ascertained their opinions as to the best mode of promoting vaccination, (which is admitted by all competent authorities to be extremely desirable, as affording the best protection against the ravages of that dreadful disease the Small-pox), have arrived at the unanimous conclusion that the most, if not the only effectual means of rendering vaccination general throughout the Island, will be by passing an Act of the Legislature imposing a pecuniary penalty on the parent or guardian of any child, above the age of six months and under that of fourteen years, who shall, without reasonable cause or excuse, be found after the 1st day of April next not to have been vaccinated.1 With this seemingly uncontroversial recommendation in September 1853, the chairman of the Tasmanian Select Committee on Smallpox and Colonial Secretary, William Champ, set into motion the first Compulsory Vaccination Act in the Australian colonies. Carefully considered in light of expert opinion and local conditions, it also represents an early instance of the extension of state authority into the private lives of citizens and an integral component of the development of public health in the colonies. The presence of smallpox in Sydney caused this exotic and terrible disease to appear immediately threatening, making the widespread implementation of preventive measures reasonable. When Champ was writing the above statement, vaccination was not a new technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7. Developments in Vaccination and Control Between
    CHAPTER 7 DEVELOPMENTS IN VACCINATION AND CONTROL BETWEEN 1900 AND 1966 Contents Page Introduction 277 Vaccine production and quality control before 1967 278 Production of vaccine lymph 279 Preparation of liquid vaccine 282 Preparation of dried vaccine 283 Quality control 289 Vaccination techniques before 1967 291 Vaccination site 291 Methods of vaccination 292 Age for primary vaccination 293 Interpretation of the results of vaccination 294 Complications of vaccination 296 Types of complication 299 Frequency of complications 302 Contraindications to vaccination 307 Prevention and treatment of complications 308 Reconsideration of vaccination policies in non-endemic countries 309 Complications : the overall picture 310 Programmes for vaccination and revaccination 311 Vaccination and revaccination of the general public 311 Simultaneous vaccination with several antigens 311 Vaccination of international travellers 312 INTRODUCTION The latter half of the 19th century saw the emergence of microbiology and immunology By the year 1900 vaccination was in as scientific disciplines . Because of their widespread use throughout the industrialized familiarity with vaccination, many of the countries as well as in some cities in what were pioneers in these new sciences used vaccinia then the colonies of various European virus for their studies (see Chapter 2) . In powers . Although variolation was no longer consequence, the empirical practices of Jenner practised in Europe and North America, it and his early followers were placed on a more was still widely employed in many parts of scientific basis . Vaccine production was no Africa and Asia . Smallpox persisted as an longer the province of the local physician, endemic disease in virtually every country of who had maintained the virus by arm-to-arm the world (see Chapter 8, Fig.
    [Show full text]