Surely, therefore, there is no individual or personal right more inherent and natural and more sacred and obvious or more surely guaranteed in Declaration and Constitution than the right to medical freedom of the body, the right to health and life and the right of the individual to select and decide freely for himself the medical treatment of his own body, and the right to guard it against any medical treatment or operation which in his own judgment and conscience may be unnecessary or undesirable or may involve great risk or suffering to himself or may seriously endanger his health or life. This right is, I think, so obvious, so fundamental and necessary and so unquestionable under the letter and spirit of our basic laws and constitution, and by the decisions of our courts as well as by all common sense, logic and ethics, that I do not think another word of argument is necessary to establish this right in the conscientious conviction of every rational mind. DECISION OF U. S. SUPREME COURT FURTHER ANALYZED In further consideration of the meaning and significance of this important decision of the U. S. Supreme Court it may be now explained that the law of Massachusetts here considered was a Statute passed by the Legislature requiring the vaccination of all persons, child or adult, under penalty of fine of $5 for refusing vaccination. This law made an exception for children or minors in delicate health or such physical condition as would be injured by vaccination, but made no such exception for adults like the defendant Jacobson. The Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts in its decision, from which this appeal was taken, had already decided, as I have shown, that the State could not enforce actual compulsory vaccination upon any person, but could only enforce the fine of $5 if vaccination was not voluntarily adopted. The U. S. Supreme Court concluded its decision in these words: “We now decide only that the statute covers the present case, and that nothing clearly appears that would justify this Court in holding it to be unconstitutional and inoperative in its application to the plaintiff in error.” From this conclusion Justices Brewer and Peckham dissented, thus evidently holding that the law of Massachusetts, which inflicts a fine of $5 for refusing vaccination, was unconstitutional, whereas the majority of the Court seem to hold that this State law, which can enforce the fine but cannot compel the vaccination, was legal and constitutional, but that nevertheless this fine could not be enforced against any persons who could show that vaccination was dangerous to their health and life, and that the Courts would interfere to prevent its enforcement in all such cases and thus protect the constitutional rights of the individual within that “sphere” of preëminent individual right as already quoted.