Board of Curators of the University of Missouri Opinion on Compulsory Smallpox Vaccination - April 21, 1942

Sep 18, 2026

Upload by Anda

Legal correspondence dated April 21, 1942 requesting and providing an attorney opinion on the validity and enforceability of a University of Missouri regulation requiring universal smallpox vaccination for all students. The document cites public health medical findings about the effectiveness of vaccination and judicial precedents holding that the Board of Curators may impose the rule, including against students asserting religious objections, even when no epidemic is present nearby.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

April 21, 1942

Request for opinion and regulation summary

Medical rationale for universal vaccination

Legal authority and constitutional/statutory basis

Application of precedents to religious objections

HEALTH:Regulation made bs Board of curators of University ofM1ssouri,requiring all students to sub4t t?vac inationto prevent smallpox and their failure so to do consti-tuting grounds for exclusion from the University,is aressonabie regulation ana can be made and enforced bysuch Board of Curators. # April 21,1942 4-2 Mr.Leslie CowanSecretary University of MissouriColumbia,Missouri Dear Sir: Your letter of April 13,1942,requesting anopinion has been referred to me.The opinion request 1sas follows: "The Curators of the University ofMissouri desire to have your opinionon the valiaity of 1ts regulation re-garding vaccination against smallpoxwhich regulation reads as follows: \#1 Beginning with the fall of 1911compulsory vaccination,underproper regulation,be required ofall students of the University asrecommended by the Universityfaculty. 1It is ordsred that students whofail to comply with the regulationregarding vaccination shali berequired to withdraw from the un1-versity.The director of theStudent Health Service shall ad-minister this provision. "From time to time some protest hasbeen made by students who believe thatthe enforcement of this rule infringestheir personal 1berty and denies theirabsolute right to attend the University.However,our medical advisors have re-ported(1)that the only certain method April 21,1942 of controlling and preventing small-pox in a given community 1s by un1-versal vaccination before any epidemiebreaks out or is threatened;(2)thatif vaccination is delayed until anepldenic,or even individual cases,oreaks out in the community,there isa atrong probability of the first out-break occurring ainong University students,who by reason of their congregation inroomlng houses,dornitor1es,and class-rooms,are particularly susceptible tothe transmission of contagious diseases; # (3)that there is no suostantial disputeamong medical authorities on this questionand public health records throughout thecivilized world naaintain their recommenda-tion. It being the desire of the Boardof Curators to preserve their regulation,the opinlon of the University Attorneywas asked on the question of their powerto enact and enforce it, "It has been his opinion,based upon thedecision of in re Rebenack,62 Mo.App.8,and State vs.Cole,2201ssour1697,119s.W。424,that the above regulation wasnot an abuse of the diseretion vested inthe Board of Curators by the Constitutionof M1ssouri(Article II,Section 5)andthe statutes of the State(Revised stat-utes of Missouri,1939,Section 10782)and that it could be enforced against astudent protasting on grounds of personalrel1g1on oven though no epidomic w&Sthreatening in the immediate vicinity,Hehas pointed out that while section 10341of the Revised Statutes,1939,probablydoes not apply to the University of missouri,both of the above cases were expressly de-cided upon the general powers of the schoolboard in question,and the latter casepartieularly rejected the argument thatthe power granted by section 10341 in regardto excluding students in public schoolssuffering from conmunicable diseases wasexclusive. While section 10814 in turn April 21,1942 —3— # authorizes the admission of all youthsresident of the state of Missouri,thatSection has been interpreted as aItuition!prov1s1on oniy(State ex rel.Gaines vs.Canada,342 Missouri 121,113S.W。(2nd)783)。Moreover,the MissouriConstitution granted the right to freeeducation between the ages of six andtwenty to the students before the courtsin the two cases cited above. The Cura-tors were advised that while the Colecase,supra,was concerned only with asituation where an actual epidemic ofsinallpox was in progress and the opinionexpressly confined itself to the factsbefore the court,it is unquestionableauthority for the proposition that in-dividual religious convictions or per-sonal beliefs Ln mattors of health,nomatter how sincere,cannot be allowed toprevent the exercise of the aiseretiongranted the 1governing¹body of the schoolwhen t

FAQs

What regulation was the University of Missouri considering enforcing in relation to smallpox?

A regulation requiring all students to receive compulsory smallpox vaccination under proper supervision, with withdrawal from the university for those who fail to comply.

Why did the medical advisors support universal smallpox vaccination?

They reported that universal vaccination is the only certain method to control and prevent smallpox in a community, and that delaying until an outbreak increases the probability of cases spreading among students due to close living and schooling conditions.

Does the opinion indicate that religious objections can prevent enforcement of the vaccination rule?

No. The document states that individual religious convictions or personal beliefs regarding health cannot be allowed to prevent the governing body from exercising its discretion when the rule is supported by generally accepted medical opinion.

Sep 18, 2026

Upload by Anda