data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/092a3/092a308ac12e173c1ecad3b43e4e3a9dbc9e47e6" alt="A title page for "Reasons against the Practice of Inoculating the Small-Pox.""
Before the Small Pox vaccine, an option for protecting oneself from infection was the rather gruesome process of inoculation. Simply put, the fluid from a infected person's pustule would be applied to a small cut in the skin. The result was
usually a mild case of Small Pox that would leave the inoculated person safe from further infection.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9a6f2/9a6f26880040005cd98abf29a6da45f857f56705" alt="A title page for "A Narrative of the Method and Success of Inoculating the Small Pox in New England.""
But sometimes it did not work so well. Jonathan Edwards died from a failed inoculation attempt and there were legitimate fears that a group of people undergoing inoculation could foster an epidemic. The debate over the moral and medical implications of inoculation turned into a pamphlet war in the 1720s. Here we have two such pamphlets: Legard Sparham's
Reasons against the Practice of Inoculating the Small-Pox (London: Benj. and Sam. Tooke, 1722), and Benjamin Coleman's
A Narrative of the Method and Success of Inoculating the Small Pox in New England (London: Emanuel Matthews, 1722).
Sparham's
Reasons, in it's third edition, answers his critics from the earlier editions, while Coleman's
Narrative contains a point-by-point refutation of a series of objections to inoculation on moral grounds.
You can see them both by asking for Rare
RA644.S6S63 1722 and
Rare RM786.C68
No comments :
Post a Comment