( 16 )
where the disease has not made its appearance, and is in no danger of spreading; "are not the fears of those, on the other hand, of equal force and validity in favour of inoculation, who are exposed to take the infection, least they should be seized with it in the natural way; and is it not equally just that those persons should be allowed to guard themselves and their families from the dangerous effects of the natural small-pox, by employing inoculation as that others should forbid them; or is the interest of that part of the community who wish to preserve themselves from the ravages of a destructive disease by means of it, less to be regarded than of that other part who do not choose to practise it? To forbid it, when thus circumstanced, is a greater volation of the natural rights of mankind to make use of the means of self-preservation, than to employ them, though others may be averse to the measure; especially when the society at large is benefited by it". How wise is it, then, in every community, where there is danger of spreading the disease, to provide for the safety of its members by rendering the practice of inoculation as universal as possible.
By it whole countries are freed from constant dread of the mischiefs that might arise from its racing amongst them, at a time when they are least prepared, and when few amongst them having had the disease, are in a situation to succour their friends, by which means, thousands fall daily victims to its destructive rage.
