the name of physicians, are justly stigmatised as quacks, and excluded
from honourable fellowship, for they have refused the straight and
direct path as too laborious, and have sought admittance by crooked
ways. It is right enough to impose heavy penalties on them for
practising without a diploma which it needs only industry on their
part to obtain; but what shall we say when women are refused admission
to every regular Medical School, and then, when they have perhaps
painfully and laboriously gathered their own education, either in
England or abroad, are excluded from the fellowship of the profession,
for the sin of having been unjustly treated! That some women have
succeeded in acquiring most competent medical knowledge and skill can
hardly be denied, except by those who really know nothing of the facts,
or are wilfully blind to them; but in almost every case they have done
so at a cost of money, effort, and personal sacrifice, that can be
expected only from the few. Imagine all medical students met by the
difficulties which female students must encounter;--how many properly
educated doctors should we have?
Many persons, however, who would gladly see women engage in the
practice of Medicine, yet think it undesirable that they should
obtain their education in the same schools as men; and here another
practical point arises for consideration. If it is indeed true that no
one is fit for the profession of Medicine unless able to banish from
its practice the personal idea of sex, it certainly seems as if all
earnest students seeking the same knowledge for the same ends, ought
to be able to pursue their studies together. We are constantly told
(and I think rightly) that no woman _need_ object, when necessary,
to consult a medical man on any point, because the physician will
see in it simply an impersonal “case,” and will, from his scientific
standpoint, practically ignore all that would be embarrassing as
between persons of opposite sexes. If this is and ought to be true, it
does not seem too much to demand equal delicacy of feeling among those
who will in a year or two be themselves physicians; and, from personal
experience when studying in large American hospitals with students
of both sexes, I believe that no serious difficulty need ever occur,
except in cases of really exceptional coarseness of character on one
side or the other. That such joint study will be for the first few
days novel and embarrassing is of course natural; but I believe that,
as the first novelty wears off, the embarrassment too will disappear
in the interest of a common study, and that no thoroughly pure-minded
woman, with an ordinary amount of tact, need ever fear such association
with students of whom the majority will always be gentlemen. It is of
course a radically different thing to study any or all subjects with
earnest scientific interest, and to discuss them lightly in common
conversation.[68]
Not only in America has the system of joint education been tried, but
at Paris and at Zurich ladies are at the present moment studying in
the regular Medical Schools, and friends at each place assure me of the
complete success of the experiment, if such it is considered. Dr Mary
Putnam (the first lady ever admitted to the Parisian Medical School) in
1869 wrote thus: “There is not the slightest restriction on my studies
or my presence at the Classes.... I have never found the slightest
difficulty in studying with the young men with whom I am associated,
not only at lectures, but in the hospitals, reading-room, laboratory,
&c. I have always been treated with a courtesy at once frank and
respectful.” A lady studying Medicine at the University of Michigan
in 1870, wrote--“We are very much pleased with the way in which we
have been received here, both by professors and students; they have
treated us in every respect with great courtesy.” Another lady, when
studying at Zurich, reported that “in the Medical School of Zurich,
no advantage which is afforded to the male students is denied to the
women. Every class is open to them, and they work side by side with the
men. The students have invariably been to me most friendly, helpful,
and courteous.” In answer to an official letter of enquiry, the Dean
of the Medical Faculty at Zurich wrote: “Since 1867, ladies have been
regularly admitted as matriculated students, and have been allowed all
the privileges of _cives academici_. As far as our experience has gone,
the new practice has not in any way been found to damage the interests
of the University. The lady students we have hitherto had have all been
found to behave with great good taste, and to be diligent students.”
Such evidence must surely carry more weight than the opinions of those
who merely theorize about probabilities, especially when such theorists
start, as is often the case, with a predisposition to find “lions in
the way.”
If the admission of women to the regular Medical Schools has been
proved to bring no evil consequences, wherever teachers and professors
have shown good will, it needs strong arguments to justify their
exclusion from advantages which they can hardly obtain elsewhere; for
it has been well remarked, that nothing can be more false than to
confound a “small injustice” with “injustice to a small number.”
It is simply a mockery, and one calculated to mislead the public, when
a medical journal[69] announces that “We would offer no obstacle
to any steps which women may think would be conducive to their own
benefit. But if it be indispensable that they should study Anatomy
and Medicine, let them, in the interests of common decency, have an
educational institution and licensing body of their own.” And again,
“If women are determined to become Medical Practitioners, they are at
perfect liberty to do so; but it is only consistent with decency that
they should have their own special Schools and examining bodies.” Such
writers know perfectly well that it is utterly impossible for two or
three struggling women students to found “their own special Schools,”
(though, when a sufficient number of women are educated, they may
gladly make such provision for those who will succeed them,) and that,
if in truth women as well as men have a right to claim opportunities of
education, the duty of providing separate instruction for them clearly
falls on the existing Schools, if the authorities refuse to admit them
to share in the general advantages offered.
For myself, I cannot see why difficulties that have in France and
Switzerland been proved chimerical, should in England be supposed
(without any fair trial) to be insurmountable; as I, for one, cannot
believe that less good and gentlemanly feeling should be expected from
English and Scotch students, wherever their Professors set them an
example of courtesy, than is found among the undergraduates of foreign
Universities.
But this is a point which I do not greatly care to urge; although
Medical Science can undoubtedly be most favourably studied under those
conditions which only large institutions can command, and which
could for many years be but imperfectly attained in a Medical College
designed for women only. Still there is no doubt that women, thoroughly
in earnest, and with a certain amount of means at their command,
_can_ obtain adequate medical instruction without entering any of the
existing Schools for men, and no doubt arrangements could be made to
secure all that is necessary with much less effort and expense than at
present. We should be very thankful to have the Medical Schools thrown
open to us, to be allowed some share in the noble provision made,
chiefly with public money, for the instruction of medical students; but
this is not absolutely indispensable; we may be refused this, and yet
gain our end, though with greater toil and at greater expense. As time
goes on, and as the number of women attracted by the study of Medicine
increases, it will probably, apart from all extrinsic considerations,
be both natural and convenient that they should have a Medical School
of their own, in which every means of study should be specially
provided for, and adapted to, their needs. It is not, however, I think,
desirable that this should be done until the number of students is
sufficient to guarantee funds for the liberal payment of first-rate
teachers, and the ample provision of all needful facilities. If no
women are to be made competent physicians till they have a school of
their own, there never will be any at all; for those who broadly oppose
the movement will always be able to say, “Women have never proved
that they can use such advantages as will be thus furnished; do not
establish a College for them till they have.”
So the double argument would run thus: “Do not found a Female Medical
School till we are sure that women can successfully study Medicine; do
not let any woman study Medicine except in a Medical School of their
own.” Between such a Scylla and Charybdis who can steer clear?
Supposing, however, that this dilemma were escaped, and that adequate
means of instruction were provided, (with men, or apart from them,
I care not,) it would still, I think, be essential, not only to the
interests of women doctors, but to those of the public at large,
that the standard for medical practitioners of both sexes should be
identical; that women should be admitted to the examinations already
established for men, and should receive their medical degree on exactly
the same terms. I do not for a moment desire to see degrees granted
to women by a College of their own, or to see a special examination
instituted for them; for there would be extreme difficulty in measuring
the exact value of any such diplomas, and danger would arise, on the
one hand, of injustice being done to those thoroughly competent, but
possessing “only a woman’s degree,” and, on the other, of the standard
being really lowered, and the medical degree coming to possess an
uncertain and inferior value.
Of this latter danger we have abundant warning in America, where every
fresh College is allowed the right of “graduating” its own students
on whatever terms it pleases, and where, indeed, one is confounded
by the innumerable diplomas granted by all sorts of Colleges to all
sorts of people, so that one has need to inquire whether the M.D.
attached to a name represents a degree granted by some “Eclectic” or
“Hygeio-therapeutic” College of mushroom growth, or by the Universities
of Harvard and Yale.
We cannot wish for such a state of things in England. Let British
degrees continue to be of perfectly definite value; make the conditions
as stringent as you please, but let them be such as are attainable by
all students, and are clearly understood by the general public; and
then, for all that would worthily win and wear the desired honours, “a
fair field and no favour.”
Is there not one of the English, Scotch, or Irish Universities that
will win future laurels by now taking the lead generously, and
announcing its willingness to cease, at least, its policy of arbitrary
exclusion? Let the authorities, if they please, admit women to study in
the ordinary classes with or without any special restrictions (and it
is hard to believe that at least the greater part of the lectures could
not be attended in common); or let them, if they think needful, bid the
women make their own arrangements, and gather their knowledge as they
can;[70] with this promise only, that, when acquired, such knowledge
shall be duly tested, and, if found worthy, shall receive the Hall-mark
of the regular Medical Degree.
Surely this is not too much to ask, and no more is absolutely
essential. If, indeed, the assertions so often made about the
incapacity of women are true, the result of such examinations (which
may be both theoretical and practical, scientific and clinical,) will
triumphantly prove the point. If the examinations are left in the hands
of competent men, we may be very sure that all unqualified women will
be summarily rejected, as indeed it is to be desired that they should
be.
If, on the contrary, some women, however few, can, under all existing
disadvantages, successfully pass the ordeal, and go forth with the full
authority of the degree of Doctor of Medicine, surely all will be glad
to welcome their perhaps unexpected success, and bid every such woman,
as she sets forth on her mission of healing, a hearty God-speed!
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See _Note A_.
[2] _Athenæum_, Sept. 28, 1867.
[3] In his “Essai sur les Femmes,” Thomas points out that “Chez la
plupart des sauvages ... la médecine et la magie sont entre les mains
des femmes.”
[4] The passage is thus rendered by Professor Blackie:--
“His eldest born, hight Agamede, with golden hair,
A leech was she, and well she knew all herbs on ground that grew.”
(Iliad, xi. 739).
In his Notes the translator remarks that “it seems undeniable that
women have a natural vocation for exercising certain branches of
the medical profession with dexterity and tact.... It is gratifying
therefore to find that a field of activity which has been recently
claimed for the sex ... finds a precedent in the venerable pages of
the Iliad.... In fact, nothing was more common in ancient times than
medical skill possessed by females,” in proof of which assertion he
mentions Œnone and others. (Professor Blackie’s “Homer and the Iliad.”
Edmonston & Douglas.)
[5] Odyssey, iv. 227.
[6] Hippolytus, 293–7.
[7] Finauer’s “Allgemeines Verzeichniss gelehrten Frauenzimmer.”
[8] I subjoin as a curiosity the quaint version of this story that is
given in a letter from Mrs Celleor (a fashionable midwife of the reign
of James II.), published in 1687, and now to be found in the British
Museum. After saying that “Among the subtile Athenians a law at one
time forbade women to study or practise medicine or physick on pain of
death, which law continued some time, during which many women perished,
both in child-bearing and by private diseases, their modesty not
permitting them to admit of men either to deliver or cure them,” she
continues, “Till God stirred up the spirit of Agnodice, a noble maid,
to pity the miserable condition of her own sex, and hazard her life to
help them; which to enable herself to do, she apparelled her like a
man, and became the scholar of Hierophilos, the most learned physician
of the time; and having learned the art, she found out a woman that had
long languished under private diseases, and made proffer of her service
to cure her, which the sick person refused, thinking her to be a man;
but, when Agnodice discovered that she was a maid, the woman committed
herself into her hands, who cured her perfectly; and after her many
others, with the like skill and industry, so that in a short time she
became the successful and beloved physician of the whole sex.” When her
sex became known to the public, “she was like to be condemned to death
for transgressing the law ... which, coming to the ears of the noble
women, they ran before the Areopagites, and the house being encompassed
by most women of the city, the ladies entered before the judges, and
told them they would no longer account them for husbands and friends,
but for cruel enemies that condemned her to death who restored to them
their health, protesting they would all die with her if she were put
to death.... This caused the magistrates to disannul the law, and make
another, which gave gentlewomen leave to study and practise all parts
of physick to their own sex, giving large stipends to those that did it
well and carefully. And there were many noble women who studied that
practice, and taught it publicly in their schools as long as Athens
flourished in learning.”
[9] “Thornton Romances,” Camden Society.
[10] “Ivanhoe,” chap. xxviii.
[11] “Nuovo Dizionario Istorico;” Bassano, 1796.
[12] Fachini’s “Prospetto Biografico delle Donne Italiane,” Venezia,
1824.
[13] Medici’s “Scuola Anatomica di Bologna.”
[14] Finauer.
[15] _New York Medical Gazette_, April 24, 1869.
[16] 34 Henry VIII. 8.
[17] Maitland, in giving an account of the foundation of the
Edinburgh College of Physicians in 1681, begins by saying that “the
Practice of Physick had been greatly abused in Edinburgh by foreign
Impostors, Quacks, Empirics, and illiterate Persons, _both men and
women_.”--Maitland’s History of Edinburgh, 1753.
[18] The statutes of 1268 ordained that “les matrones ou sages
femmes sont aussi, de la dite confrairie et subjects ausdits deux
chirurgiens jurez du Roy au Chastelet, qui ont dressé certains statuts
et ordonnances tant pour les droicts de la confrairie que pour leur
estat de sage femme, qu’elles doivent observer et garder.”--Du Breul’s
“Antiquités de Paris,” pub. 1639.
[19] “The Midwive’s Deputie ... composed for the use of my wife (a
sworne Midwife), by Edward Poeton, Petworth, Licentiate in Physick and
Chyrurgery.”
[20] “Letter to Dr----” written by Elizabeth Celleor, “from my house in
Arundel Street, Strand, Jan. 16, 1687–8.”
[21] “A Short Account of the State of Midwifery in London. By John
Douglas, Surgeon. Dedicated to the Right Hon. Lady Walpole.”
[22] It may be interesting to give the following quotation on this
subject from a popular magazine of thirty years ago:--“The accoucheur’s
is a profession nearly altogether wrested out of the hands of women,
for which Nature has surely fitted them, if opinion permitted education
to finish Nature’s work. But women are held in the bonds of ignorance,
and then pronounced of deficient capacity, or blamed for wanting
the knowledge they are sternly prevented from acquiring.”--_Tait’s
Magazine_, June, 1841.
[23] _Lancet_, April 13th and 20th; May 4th; June 1st; 1872.
[24] It will be remembered that an attempt was made to throw doubt on
the birth of this prince, but Dr Aveling remarks that “Dr Chamberlen,
in his letter to the Princess Sophia, showed the absurdity of this
hypothesis”--(_i.e._, of the charge of conspiracy).
[25] “Delicacy had in those days so far the ascendancy, that the
obstetrical art was principally practised by females, and on this
occasion the Queen was delivered by Mrs Stephen, Dr Hunter being
in attendance among the ladies of the bedchamber, in case of his
professional assistance being required.”--HUISH’S “_Life of
George IV._”
[26] “It is a curious coincidence, considering the future connection of
the children, that Madame Siebold, the accoucheuse spoken of above as
attending the Duchess of Coburg at the birth of Prince Albert (August
1819), had only three months before attended the Duchess of Kent at the
birth of the Princess Victoria.”--_Early Years of the Prince Consort._
[27] “Rites and Customs of the Greco-Russian Church,” by Madame
Romanoff. Rivingtons, 1868.
[28] Ballard’s “Memoirs of several Ladies of Great Britain.” Oxford,
1752.
[29] “An Account of the Life and Death of Mrs Elizabeth Bury.” Bristol,
1721.
[30] “Scuola Anatomica di Bologna,” by Medici.
[31] Fachini.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Fachini.
[35] “Gazette Medicale,” du 10 Janvier 1846.
[36] Klemm, “Die Frauen.”
[37] _Athenæum_, July 1859.
[38] Arnault’s “Biographie nouvelle des contemporains.”
[39] Quérard’s “Littérature Française.”
[40] “The Boke of the Cyte of Ladyes,” by Christine Du Castel, 1521.
[41] See _Note B_.
[42] “There is one subject in which I have long felt a deep, and
deepening concern. I refer to _man-midwifery_.... Nature tells us
with her own voice what is fitting in these cases; and nothing but
the omnipotence of custom, or the urgent cry of peril, terror, and
agony--what Luther calls _miserrima miseria_--would make her ask for
the presence of a man on such an occasion, when she hides herself
and is in travail. And, as in all such cases, the evil reacts on the
men as a special class, and on the profession itself.”--“_Locke and
Sydenham_,” by Dr JOHN BROWN.
“Nothing probably but the deadening force of habit, combined with the
apparent necessity of the case, has induced us to endure that anomalous
person against whose existence our language itself bears a perpetual
protest--the man-midwife. And this single instance suggests a whole
class of others in which the intervention of a man is scarcely less
inappropriate.”--_Guardian_, Nov. 3, 1869.
[43] _Delhi Gazette_, 1866.
[44] “In many parts of India--I think I may say most parts--native
ladies are entirely shut out from any medical assistance, however
great may be their need, because no man who is not one of the family
can enter their apartments or see them; and though thousands thus
die from neglect and want of timely help, yet nothing can be done to
assist them until we have ladies willing and able to act in a medical
capacity.”--_The Queen_, June 8, 1872.
[45] _Treasurer_, T. B. WINTER, Esq., 28 Montpelier Road,
Brighton.
[46] _Scotsman_, Oct. 26, 1870.
[47] _Brit. Med. Journal_, May 25, 1872.
[48] _Macmillan’s Magazine_, September 1868.
[49] _Spectator_, April 13, 1867.
[50] See _Note C_.
[51] “_Theologia Moralis_,” by St Alphonsus.
[52] A curious coincidence recently occurred which may illustrate
this feeling. Not long ago I was attacked in the newspapers for
having alluded to this subject, and a certain doctor published three
letters in one week to prove that “ninety-nine out of every hundred
Englishwomen suffering from female diseases freely consulted medical
men.” During that very week no less than three women, in different
classes of society, appealed to me for advice and treatment for
sufferings about which they “did not like to ask a gentleman.” In each
case I advised them to consult a medical man, as I was not yet myself
in practice, and there were no women doctors in Edinburgh; but in each
case I found that their feeling in the matter was too strong to allow
them to do so.
[53] “Concerning her death, it was magnanimous and answerable to the
courage of heroes,” &c.--_Gallerie of Heroick Women_, written in French
by Pierre le Moyne, and translated by the Marquess of Winchester, 1652.
[54] See _Note D_.
[55] “_Handbook of Uterine Therapeutics_,” by Edward John Tilt, M.D.
[56] See _Note E_.
[57] Besides these we have, at Bologna,--Maddalena Buonsignori,
Professor of Laws, 1380; Laura Bassi, Professor of Philosophy, 1733;
Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Professor of Mathematics, 1750; Clothilde
Tambroni, Professor of Greek, 1794; and also other instances in various
Italian Universities.
[58] Ghirardacci, “Historia Bologna,” Bologna, 1605.
[59] _Lancet_, June 18, 1870.
[60] _Lancet_, August 26, 1871.
[61] See _Note F_.
[62] _Scotsman_, March 22, 1870.
[63] _Pall Mall Gazette_, August 1870.
[64] _Medical Gazette_, New York, February 27, 1869.
[65] _British Medical Journal_, October 1871.
[66] _British Medical Journal_, May 18, 1872.
[67] For a _reductio ad absurdum_ of the whole question, let me refer
to Dr Henry Bennet’s letter, containing the above words, in the
_Lancet_ of June 18, 1870. An answer to it occurs in the _Lancet_ of
July 9, 1870, and is referred to in _Note B_.
[68] See _Note G_.
[69] _Medical Times and Gazette_, Feb. 23, 1867, and April 24, 1869.
[70] It would have been perfectly easy in Edinburgh, during 1871–72, to
make complete arrangements for instruction, partly inside and partly
outside the walls of the University, if only the authorities would have
authorised the lady students to organize the necessary classes for
themselves at their own expense. But the obstructive party took refuge
behind the traditional non-possumus, and could not be driven from their
position, though the Lord Advocate of Scotland gave a distinct opinion
to the effect that any needful arrangements might legally be made, and
though the more far-sighted Professors strongly deprecated such an
abnegation of University power for the purpose of subserving a merely
temporary object. In point of fact, the whole history of this struggle
is one long illustration of the good old proverb,--“Where there’s a
will, there’s a way.”
II.
Medical Education of Women,
THE SUBSTANCE OF A LECTURE
DELIVERED ON APRIL 26TH, 1872, IN ST GEORGE’S HALL, LONDON,
THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY IN THE CHAIR.
“You misconceive the question like a man,
Who sees a woman as the complement
Of his sex merely. You forget too much
That every creature, female as the male,
Stands single in responsible act and thought,
As also in birth and death.
. . . . .