ls it right to control people's actions during a pandemic?

The town of Orrington’s records show how the local government tried different things to stop smallpox from spreading in their town. The town destroyed people’s things in the name of public health. They helped pay to care for people who got sick, and also paid for large groups of people to get the smallpox vaccine. In this report, “smallpox” is abbreviated as, “small pox,” “Samm Pox,” “S. Pox,” and so on.

Smallpox can be spread through items like bedding and clothing that are touched by a sick person. It was more often spread between two people, but the government tried to limit the illness’s spread through contact with objects. The town of Orrington paid people when their things were burned. This helped them buy new things. It also might have made people more likely to be more careful. How might burning have affected people differently based on economic class?

These records also show town payments to regular citizens for care of individuals infected with smallpox.

The newly formed Maine Legislature (at only one year old!) created a law to try to stop the spread of smallpox and other illnesses.

The act outlines the role of selectmen (local government officials) whose job was to manage local outbreaks of infectious disease. Duties under this overarching goal included quarantining and/or securing medical care for individuals and families.

Additionally, the act provided protections for local residents from outsiders who may have brought illness into Maine. Visitors from high-risk areas could be asked to leave the state, and fined if they disobeyed this request. Anyone who housed these visitors could also be fined.

The act continues to list powers granted to local governments to limit visitors from high-risk areas at ferries and other points of entry at the discretion of local authorities.

This letter, written from a local selectman to the Maine State Legislature, shows the local impact of the Legislature’s 1821 act (Source 2). It describes a man who decided to stop a group of people moving into Maine from Quebec. The letter, or petition, is asking the State to pay the man as thanks for his time and help, as well as to make up for the money he spent.

The anti-immigrant sentiment towards Quebec was likely a result of the 1832 cholera epidemic of Lower Canada. In June 1832, a ship from Ireland docked in Quebec with a few sick immigrants. Soon, a cholera epidemic had begun in the area, with its first death only three days after the ship’s arrival. By the end of 1832, over 4,500 people had died from cholera in Lower Canada.

This is likely why a local citizen was concerned about the influx of immigrants from Quebec. Under the 1821 act, individuals were authorized to take action on behalf of the state government to stop people from entering the state who might bring sickness. Then, they could petition the state for financial reimbursement for their services to the public good.

This photograph shows the women’s ward of the Central Maine Sanatorium in 1915 or 1916. This was one of three state-operated tuberculosis treatment facilities in Maine. It was located in Fairfield, Maine, and was designated for the sickest patients (while more healthy patients went to the Western or Northern Maine Sanatoriums).

Today, state-run facilities like this are uncommon in the United States. Most patients are treated in hospitals. While they existed, sanatoriums like this had an impact on how people thought about their civic duty during pandemics.

With spaces like sanatoriums where sick patients could isolate from anyone that was healthy, we know that people realized it was an important way to keep other people from getting sick. There was a culture of quarantine. Today, it has become less common to have spaces that are built just for the purpose of isolation and quarantine.

The Maine State Sanitorium (later renamed the Western Maine Sanitorium) in Hebron was taken over by the state government in 1915. These detailed records of the innermost workings of the treatment center between 1915 and 1916 tracked every aspect of the patient experience, including what patients ate, what treatment they received, their identities, and why they were discharged.

In this year, 103 patients left the facility, 48 of them against medical advice. That means that almost half of the patients that stopped treatment did so against their doctor’s orders.

Sanatoriums had strict routines and rules which may have contributed to people leaving. The transition from living in your own home to living in a strictly controlled environment may have been difficult for some. Others may not have been able to financially support their families while they were at the sanatorium, so they left even though they were still sick.