Colgrove James
Bull Hist Med. 2004 Summer;78(2):349-78. doi: 10.1353/bhm.2004.0062.
Two major outbreaks of smallpox occurred in Brooklyn and New York around the turn of the twentieth century. Health officials moved aggressively to contain the disease, conducting mass vaccinations from house to house and in workplaces. Although these programs were ostensibly voluntary, the manner in which they were conducted was often coercive, giving many people the impression they had no choice but to submit. Officials portrayed their programs as voluntary because they lacked a clear legal basis for their actions and because they believed this was the most effective strategy for gaining public cooperation. This essay examines the events that surrounded a series of legal cases challenging the use of coercive measures to enforce vaccination during and after the smallpox epidemic of 1894, and the repercussions that this litigation had on disease-control efforts and popular attitudes toward vaccination and other measures. The cases described here were part of an extensive body of nineteenth-century jurisprudence on vaccination that was crucial for the evolution of public health police powers in general, and of vaccination policy in particular.
在二十世纪之交前后,布鲁克林和纽约发生了两次大规模天花疫情。卫生官员积极采取行动控制疫情,在挨家挨户和工作场所开展大规模疫苗接种。尽管这些项目表面上是自愿的,但实施方式往往具有强制性,给许多人的印象是他们别无选择只能服从。官员们将这些项目描述为自愿的,是因为他们的行动缺乏明确的法律依据,也因为他们认为这是获得公众合作的最有效策略。本文考察了围绕一系列法律案件的事件,这些案件质疑在1894年天花疫情期间及之后使用强制措施强制接种疫苗的做法,以及这场诉讼对疾病控制努力以及公众对疫苗接种和其他措施的态度所产生的影响。这里描述的案件是19世纪关于疫苗接种的大量法学案例的一部分,这些案例对于公共卫生警察权力的总体演变,尤其是疫苗接种政策的演变至关重要。