"As To Yellow Fever"
Author: Author: Wall, John P. (John Perry), b. 1867
Date: n.d.
Series: S 915
(Page 3 of 6)
Transcript
Page 4/Column 1
That their system merits further considera-
tion at our hands. Up to this present time,
and this even in the Red Sea, which is looked
upon as the gateway by which cholera may
at any time enter Europe, the quarantine
stations are not even provided with the
common decencies of life.
“Since our system of medical inspection
came into operation it has gone hand-in-
hand with a steady sanitary progress far ex-
ceeding anything to be met with in those
European countries where the inhabitants
are led to believe that quarantine restric-
tions will be imposed for their protection in
times of danger; it has been accom-
panied by a great diminution of mor-
tality, and it has spared the inhabitants
of this country from an untold amount of
misery and destitution, which ‘is the more
burdensome because it follows in the track
of preventable disease and death.’ That our
system is complete we do not for a moment
pretend, and we would make no boast of
the fact that imported cholera has on each
occasion, for many years past, been at once
checked in this country; but we do hold
that the experience of the past few years has
once again indicated the uselessness of
quarantine and the great advantages of the
system we have substitute for it. Quaran-
tine has a blighting effect on sanitary pro-
gress; it leaves the people unprepared to
face a disease which disregards the antiquat-
ed barriers which nations have opposed to
its extension, and so it prepares the way for
panic. On the other hand, the steady pro-
gress of true measures of prevention tell us
to impart that feeling of confidence which is
of such value in the face of an impending
epidemic, and at the same time it promotes
the healthiness and well-being of the popu-
lation.”
In the same article the editor points out
that Spain, France, Italy and Algeria, rely-
ing on quarantine for protection, have suf-
fered from the ravages of cholera during the
European epidemic of 1884-87.
In the New York medical Record of the 29 th
ult. we find the following editorial article:
“ England’s commercial interests have al-
ways led her to doubt the need and distrust
the efficacy of quarantine. She has held
what she is pleased to consider the ‘common
sense view,’ viz: that , though theoretically
quarantine may succeed in keeping out
disease, practically, in any large count-
try, it amounts simply to an irrational
derangement of commerce. England
has long since, says the British Medical
Journal, discarded quarantine as a means of
preventing cholera, and now places her
trust in the security afforded by purity of
local surroundings – of soil, air and water
on land’ and a system of watchful medical
inspection at her seaports. The success of
this policy, continues our contemporary, has
been complete, and there are not wanting
indications that this success is exercising a
beneficial effect on public opinion abroad.
It is added that at the recent International
Hygienic Congress, at Vienna, opinion seemed
to be turning against quarantine. Italy and
Austria, in particular, are wavering in their
allegiance to the older methods.”
Column 2
If, then, a quarantine of detention for
Cholera has proven to be useless, it is cer-
tainly much more senseless for the preven-
tion of yellow fever. And on this point –
the detention of persons – let us quote some
of our latest text books on the practice of
medicine.
Flint, in his edition of 1884, page 1026,
says:
“Measures for the prevention of yellow
fever relate, 1 st, to the removal of local con-
ditions which favor the multiplication of
the disease-germs, 2d, to quarantine regula-
tions, and 3d, to disinfection. The first of
these three divisions embrace all that per-
tains to public and private hygiene. The
local conditions especially important as
auxiliary causes are unknown, and, there-
fore it can only be hoped that they will be
reached by rendering sanitary measures as
complete as practicable. But, be these
measures never so complete, they do not
make superfluous those of quarantine and
disinfection. The object of quarantine reg-
ulations is that the disease-germs shall not
be imported. To effect this object, either
there must be non-intercourse with places in
which the disease prevails, or all articles of
merchandise, clothing, etc., brought there-
from must be thoroughly disinfected. To
be efficient, quarantine regulations must in-
clued, not only vessels from infected ports,
but inland transportation by railroads and
other conveyances. There is no danger of
the disease being carried by the living body
after disinfection of the wearing apparel,
nor by the bodies of the dead. Detention of
the well or the sick is, therefore, a needless pre-
caution, except to prevent groundless popu-
lar apprehension. (Italics mine.) If impor-
tation of germs have taken place, the houses
with their surroundings in which cases
occur, should be instantly and completely
disinfected. The object now is to ‘stamp
out’ the disease. There is ground for the
belief that this object may be effected if
measures of disinfection be promptly and
thoroughly carried out.
“During the prevalence of an epidemic,
unacclimated persons should avoid going
within the infected areas, except under a
sense of duty, and they who are already with-
in the areas should leave it, unless there are
motives fro remaining which render the
risk of life justifiable and praiseworthy.”
Bartholow in his work on practice, says:
“A germ or germs are introduced. Ac-
cumulated filth, decomposing animal or
vegetable matters, bad or no drainage,
crowding and other hygienic evils are in-
dispensable to impart the necessary vitality.
Lodging thus in a suitable soil and with the
appropriate atmospherical conditions present
the disease grow and infect those in
the proper personal state to receive the
poison. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
It is not by personal contact that the dis-
ease is communicated – in other words, it is
not a contagious, but an infectious disease,
and it is not against individuals that
quarantine restrictions should be enforced,
but against articles of clothing, bedding or
the like or against all fomites.”
Again, in the Lamb Prize Essay, for the