RETURN TO ENGLAND
1869
In 1869 the early pioneer work in America was ended. During the twenty
years which followed the graduation of the first woman physician, the
public recognition of the justice and advantage of such a measure had
steadily grown. Throughout the Northern States the free and equal
entrance of women into the profession of medicine was secured. In
Boston, New York, and Philadelphia special medical schools for women
were sanctioned by the Legislatures, and in some long-established
colleges women were received as students in the ordinary classes.
Our New York centre was well organised under able guidance, and I
determined to return to England for a temporary though prolonged
residence, both to renew physical strength, which had been severely
tried, and to enlarge my experience of life, as well as to assist in
the pioneer work so bravely commencing in London, and which extended
later to Edinburgh.
I soon found that social questions of vital importance to human
progress were taking root in the prepared soil of the older
civilisation—questions which were of absorbing interest. During the
following twenty years the responsibility of the Christian physician
assumed to me an ever-deepening significance.
After a refreshing tour in the lovely Lake District, arranged by my
old friend Herman Bicknell, we attended the Social Science Congress
held in Bristol in September of 1869. This was indeed a noteworthy
experience. I was the guest with Miss Mary Carpenter of her relations
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas. One morning Miss Carpenter came into my room with
her hands full of papers, saying, ‘These papers refer to a subject
that you must take up. It is to be discussed at a sectional meeting
to-day, from which all women are excluded; but you, as a doctor, have
a right to be present, and will be admitted, and you _must_ attend.’
This formed my introduction to that tremendous campaign against
the unequal standard of sexual morality known as the repeal of the
‘Contagious Diseases Acts,’ in which for the following seventeen years
I was to take an active part, and which, from its extended bearings,
moulded the whole of my future life.
The study of the papers thus brought to my notice by Miss Carpenter
was a revelation to me. Perhaps happily for me, during my past life
and medical experiences I had never fully realised the wide bearing
of this subject and the inevitable social degradation produced by a
double standard of morality. My eyes were now suddenly opened, never
to be closed again, to that direful purchase of women which is really
the greatest obstacle to the progress of the race.
Ignorant as I then was of the various aspects of the Contagious
Diseases Acts, I instantly perceived their injustice, and at once
accepted the difficult mission Miss Carpenter laid upon me.
It was hoped by some members of the congress that a resolution
would be passed supporting the one-sided Contagious Diseases Acts
legislation, against which a strong opposition was beginning to arise,
and I resolved that the voice of one member of the congress, at any
rate, should support the foundation of morality—viz. equal justice.
I therefore attended the section, held at the Blind Asylum, sitting
far back in that assemblage of men.
I soon found, however, to my immense relief and gratitude, that the
cause of justice was in able and vigorous male hands, led by Professor
Francis Newman; so I gladly withdrew from a painful position in that
sectional meeting, my advocacy not being needed.
I was privileged at this time to make the acquaintance of the Rev.
Charles Kingsley and his generous-hearted wife. On our first meeting,
at an evening party, Mr. Kingsley overwhelmed me by his enthusiastic
greeting. ‘You are one of my heroes,’ he said—a speech which I really
could not then understand; it seemed to stun me, in my quiet life.
Later, as I learned to know his enthusiastic character and profound
social insight, I knew his meaning. A sincere personal friendship
was then begun. He supported me by constant and wise counsel until
the time of his lamented death, which was indeed a severe personal
loss. I was warmly welcomed to the Rectory of Eversley, and later
to the Deanery of Chester. On the pleasant and historic pine hills
of Bramshill, by the Eversley Parsonage, and on the ancient walls of
Chester, with their noble outlook to the Welsh mountains, when visiting
the Deanery, I enjoyed memorable walks with this generous-hearted
man, when he threw open his delightful stores of natural history and
strengthened me by his social wisdom.
An amusing personal experience at the Bristol Congress was a ‘breakfast
of all the religions,’ organised by my eccentric friend Herman
Bicknell, and at which he insisted that I should help him preside. He
said to me: ‘Holyoake is an Atheist, Cowell Stepney a Materialist,
Baunerjé and Chatterjé are of the Hindoo Brahma Somaj, you are a
Christian, and I am a Catholic. It will be a most remarkable gathering,
and the discussion of such varied opinions extremely interesting.’
I accepted the queer invitation. The breakfast was held in a large
parlour of the hotel. We assembled at table, and one of the first
things the very deaf gentleman on my right hand said to me was: ‘What
an extraordinary, odd notion that of a soul is! I wonder how it could
have arisen.’ But the most interesting remark by far was made by
Holyoake, who, returning from a secularist meeting of Bristol working
men, was at once accosted by our host: ‘Now, Holyoake, pray let us
have your famous demonstration of the non-existence of a God.’ Mr.
Holyoake accepted the demand, and thought for some time in a profound
silence; then, with a puzzled face, he suddenly burst out: ‘Upon my
word, Bicknell, I have really quite forgotten it!’
Mr. Kingsley once said to me, pointing to Holyoake: ‘That man, many
years ago, I put into prison for blasphemy; now I am begging him to
come down and visit me at Eversley!’ Our breakfast of all the religions
as an active contest was a failure. The hostile forces met together,
but, instead of fighting, they fraternised!
It was during this visit to Bristol in 1869 that the curious
experience, already referred to on page 4, occurred, when I visited
the house where my early childhood was spent.
On settling in London as a physician, I resided for some time with my
valued friend Barbara Leigh Smith, then Madame Bodichon, at whose house
in Blandford Square I met her wide and varied circle of literary and
artistic friends and many leaders of social reform. Herbert Spencer,
Dante Rossetti, Mrs. Lewes, the Peter Taylors, Mrs. Crawshay, Miss
Goldsmid, Miss Cobbe, and Keshub Chunder Sen represent a few of the
persons I was privileged to meet.
At this time I had engaged medical consultation-rooms in an apparently
respectable house in York Place, on the front door of which the house
agent allowed me to place my name. I soon found, however, that my
doctor’s sign was intended to conceal the dubious character of the
occupier of the house, and I had unconsciously walked into a trap!
But friends came to the rescue and compelled the cancelling of the
lease with which I was entangled. I then established myself at No. 6
Burwood Place, where the commencement of a promising medical practice
was soon formed.
I eagerly entered upon the varied and intensely interesting social
life now opened to me.
My long-cherished conviction of the supreme importance of the medical
profession as the great conservator of health constantly deepened.
In 1870, being invited to address the Working Women’s College, I took
as the subject of my discourse ‘How to Keep a Household in Health.’
This lecture laid down rules of health for the guidance of poor
women in the management of their households, and was welcomed by the
audience. One person present, however, sent a slanderous account of
this lecture to the ‘Pall Mall Gazette,’ and I was overwhelmed by
the receipt of anonymous letters, and letters from persons in all
classes of society, requesting medical advice on the most important and
delicate subjects—subjects which are only suitable for the confidential
counsel of the physician’s consulting-room, where alone advice adapted
to each individual case can be judiciously given. I mentioned this
experience of the newspaper attack and the subsequent correspondence
to my friend Mr. Kingsley. He exclaimed: ‘Oh, you did not answer
those letters, I trust?’ I assured him that I had always refused to
give the advice asked for by letter, and had invariably returned fees
when enclosed. ‘Thank God for that!’ he exclaimed with an energy that
amazed me; and he then related to me a very painful experience of
his own, saying: ‘Let me warn you, never answer a newspaper attack.
There are some newspapers that delight in getting hold of a scandal
or whatever may make their paper sell, and are utterly unscrupulous
as to the means by which such a purpose is accomplished. You have no
chance against such corrupt speculation; your only weapon is silence
and your own established character.’
On February 19, 1871, under the auspices of the Sunday Lecture
Society, I gave an address, ‘On the Religion of Health,’ to a large
appreciative audience in St. George’s Hall. The same year a small
meeting was held in the drawing-room of 6 Burwood Place, to consider
the important subject of a steady and wide diffusion of sanitary
knowledge among all the people. There ‘The National Health Society’
was formed, for which Mr. Prout Newcombe (who was present) shaped
the stamp of the society, with its motto, ‘Prevention is better than
cure.’ This society, which established its first office in Berners
Street under the intelligent secretaryship of Miss Toulmin Smith,
continues its enlarging sphere of usefulness under the able management
of Miss Fay Lankester.
At this time the medical dispensary established by Miss Garrett for
women and children in Seymour Place was growing and enlisting a large
number of influential friends.
From this small beginning has grown the New Hospital and London School
of Medicine for Women, connected with the Royal Free Hospital. This
is not the place to speak of the intelligent and persevering efforts
to which those institutions owe their origin. The work of Dr. Garrett
Anderson and Dr. Sophia Jex Blake will always be remembered. It was
my privilege and pleasure in some small degree to encourage these
brave workers in their pioneer enterprise in England.
Whilst attending to an increasing medical practice, a visit from Mr.
William Pare, who had written an interesting account of the Ralahine
land experiment in Ireland, which proved so successful under the
management of Mr. E. T. Craig, drew my attention to the important
co-operative movement steadily growing in England.[8] The abortive
attempts at co-operative society which I had watched in the United
States, at Brook Farm, Red Bank, Eagleswood, and other places, in no
way shook the faith that through failure and renewed effort the true
principles of a wise organisation of human relations would gradually
be evolved. The English co-operative movement was characteristic of
the common-sense, unambitious way in which reforms grow in England.
The religious element introduced by such a noble band of Christian
Socialists as Maurice, Kingsley, Hughes, and Ludlow gave a hopefulness
to this movement which no attempts based on a limited view of material
well-being can afford.
Medical experience was daily showing the influence of the mind over the
body, and I eagerly longed to see an embodiment of Christian principles
in society, which embodiment was, as yet, far from attainment.
In pursuance of this investigation, at the end of August 1872
I determined to visit the Familistère of Guise, formed by Godin
Lemaire. His book, ‘Solutions Sociales,’ describing the growth of
the institution, was exceedingly interesting, and contained valuable
suggestions for future workers, and I wished to see its practical
working for myself. At the end of a fatiguing journey to Guise, on
the Belgian frontier of France, for at that time many miles had to
be traversed by diligence, I was cordially welcomed by M. Lemaire,
and spent several very interesting days in the great Familistère,
observing the life there.
The Familistère, which accommodated several hundred people, was
erected on a tract of land almost encircled by the river, which tract
was laid out in gardens and pleasure grounds. Across the river stood
the large factories and workshops for the manufacture of stoves, &c.,
which furnished the remunerative occupation of the little community.
I attended the prize-giving at the schools, saw the theatre, workmen’s
club and choral society, witnessed a ball, and visited the manufactory.
The organisation was a great object-lesson both in its success and its
defects; full of interest to those who seriously study this important
subject of improved social relations. The life at the Familistère,
however, was intense, and rather overpowering to me.
Shortly after my return I was attacked by illness, which proved so
serious in its effects that in 1873 the Burwood Place establishment
was broken up, and my plan of life necessarily changed. During the
next three years I vainly endeavoured to resume my London work, but
was frequently obliged to seek health in change of residence and
foreign travel. This travel included a memorable winter in Rome,
which need not be further referred to, although the approach to the
Eternal City—when, across the Campagna, the dome of St. Peter’s was
first visible—was a thrilling personal joy, never to be forgotten.
But my purely personal experiences will not be dwelt on.
When the London School of Medicine for Women was established I hastened
my return, and accepted the Chair of Gynæcology in the college.
In my lodgings in Dorset Square I again suffered from atrocious biliary
colic, which the able physicians whom I consulted were unable to
relieve, finished my course of lectures with extreme difficulty, and
came to the conclusion, with bitter disappointment, that any future
residence in London under my circumstances must be given up.
The winters of 1876-78 were spent chiefly at Bordighera and in Nice.
An episode there is worth recording.
My enlarging experience in various countries in respect to the
relations between men and women—the customs, the diseases, the social
disaster springing from errors as to human physiology and neglect in
education with regard to the most important functions—showed me the
imperative work which devolved upon the physician in this matter.
I realised that the mind cannot be separated from the body in any
profound view of the scope of medical responsibility. Under the olive
trees of Bordighera, and sitting by its lovely blue sea, I meditated
on the duty of the physician, and finally wrote the small work,
‘Counsel to Parents on the Moral Education of their Children.’
So little at that time was the importance of sexual education
understood, and the necessity of its consideration accepted, that
when I read my manuscript to a warm and enlightened English friend
staying at Mentone, she assured me that if I published that manuscript
my ‘name would be a forbidden word in England.’
I sent the manuscript, however, to about twelve of the leading London
publishers, who all declined the publication. I therefore printed a
small edition myself, which a bookseller consented to keep on sale.
A copy of this little book fell under the notice of Miss Ellice
Hopkins, who, considering that it would be useful in the special work
in which she was engaged, induced Mr. Hudson, the then acting member
of the firm of Hatchard & Co., to reconsider the matter and publish
the book for her use. The arrangement was made and the book printed;
but soon after I received a letter saying that though the firm had
never yet broken faith with an author, yet they feared they must do
so now; for the senior member of the firm, Bishop Hatchard’s widow,
had seen the proof of the book, thrown it into the fire, and desired
that its publication should be stopped!
Finally, a little consultation of elderly clergymen was called to
consider the subject, and it was at last resolved that if the name of
the work could be changed, and the distinct announcement made in the
title that it was a medical as well as a moral work, the publication
might be continued. Of course the change was made, and ‘Counsel to
Parents’ became ‘The Moral Education of the Young, considered under
_Medical_ and Social Aspects.’
I mention this curious experience as an encouragement to those who are
engaged in all branches of moral work. Public sentiment has advanced
since 1876. Looking now at the very reticent way in which the subject
is treated in this little book, it is difficult to believe that such
an episode could have occurred.
It has become clear to me that our medical profession has not yet
fully realised the special and weighty responsibility which rests
upon it to watch over the cradle of the race; to see that human
beings are well born, well nourished, and well educated. The onward
impulse to this great work would seem to be especially incumbent upon
women physicians, who for the first time are beginning to realise
the all-important character of parentage in its influence upon the
adult as well as on the child—i.e. on the race.
To every woman, as well as to every man, the responsible function
of parentage is delegated. Our nature is dwarfed or degraded if the
growth which should be attained by the exercise of parentage, directly
or potentially, be either avoided or perverted.
The physician knows that the natural family group is the first
essential element of a progressive society. The degeneration of that
element by the degradation of either of its two essential factors,
the man or the woman, begins the ruin of a State.
It is a source of deep gratitude in a long medical life to have
been enabled by physiological knowledge, as well as experience, to
perceive the true point of view from which the special nature of man
and woman must be regarded. It is well worth the efforts of a lifetime
to have attained knowledge which justifies an attack on the root of
all evil—viz. the deadly atheism which asserts that because forms
of evil have always existed in society, therefore they must always
exist; and that the attainment of a high ideal is a hopeless chimera.
The study of human nature by women as well as men commences that
new and hopeful era of the intelligent co-operation of the sexes
through which alone real progress can be attained and secured. We may
look forward with hope to the future influence of Christian women
physicians, when with sympathy and reverence guiding intellectual
activity they learn to apply the vital principles of their Great
Master to every method and practice of the healing art.
APPENDIX
I
The following letter, lately published in the New York ‘Church Union’
by a well-known physician of New York, is interesting as the testimony
of a gentleman who was a fellow-student in the Geneva Medical College.
_The Medical Co-education of the Sexes. By_ STEPHEN SMITH, M.D.
Medical circles were recently entertained by a symposium of prominent
physicians discussing the propriety of the medical co-education of
the sexes. All of the writers were opposed to the suggestion; some,
notably Dr. Weir Mitchell, of Philadelphia, expressed the utmost
disgust at the proposition. It happened to me to have witnessed the
first instance of the co-education of medical students of both sexes
in this country, and the results quite upset the theories of these
gentlemen.
The first course of medical lectures which I attended was in a
medical college in the interior of this State in 1847-48. The class,
numbering about 150 students, was composed largely of young men from
the neighbouring towns. They were rude, boisterous, and riotous beyond
comparison. On several occasions the residents of the neighbourhood
sent written protests to the faculty, threatening to have the college
indicted as a nuisance if the disturbance did not cease. During
lectures it was often almost impossible to hear the professors, owing
to the confusion.
Some weeks after the course began the dean appeared before the class
with a letter in his hand, which he craved the indulgence of the
students to be allowed to read. Anticipation was extreme when he
announced that it contained the most extraordinary request which had
ever been made to the faculty. The letter was written by a physician
of Philadelphia, who requested the faculty to admit as a student
a lady who was studying medicine in his office. He stated that she
had been refused admission by several medical colleges, but, as this
institution was in the country, he thought it more likely to be free
from prejudice against a woman medical student. The dean stated that
the faculty had taken action on the communication, and directed him
to report their conclusion to the class. The faculty decided to leave
the matter in the hands of the class, with this understanding—that if
any single student objected to her admission, a negative reply would
be returned. It subsequently appeared that the faculty did not intend
to admit her, but wished to escape direct refusal by referring the
question to the class, with a proviso which, it was believed, would
necessarily exclude her.
But the whole affair assumed the most ludicrous aspect to the
class, and the announcement was received with the most uproarious
demonstrations of favour. A meeting was called for the evening, which
was attended by every member. The resolution approving the admission of
the lady was sustained by a number of the most extravagant speeches,
which were enthusiastically cheered. The vote was finally taken,
with what seemed to be one unanimous yell, ‘Yea!’ When the negative
vote was called, a single voice was heard uttering a timid ‘No.’ The
scene that followed passes description. A general rush was made for
the corner of the room which emitted the voice, and the recalcitrant
member was only too glad to acknowledge his error and record his vote
in the affirmative. The faculty received the decision of the class
with evident disfavour, and returned an answer admitting the lady
student. Two weeks or more elapsed, and as the lady student did not
appear, the incident of her application was quite forgotten, and the
class continued in its riotous career. One morning, all unexpectedly,
a lady entered the lecture-room with the professor; she was quite
small of stature, plainly dressed, appeared diffident and retiring,
but had a firm and determined expression of face. Her entrance into
that Bedlam of confusion acted like magic upon every student. Each
hurriedly sought his seat, and the most absolute silence prevailed. For
the first time a lecture was given without the slightest interruption,
and every word could be heard as distinctly as it would if there had
been but a single person in the room. The sudden transformation of
this class from a band of lawless desperadoes to gentlemen, by the
mere presence of a lady, proved to be permanent in its effects. A
more orderly class of medical students was never seen than this, and
it continued to be to the close of the term.
The real test of the influence of a woman upon the conduct and
character of a man in co-education was developed when the Professor of
Anatomy came to that part of his course which required demonstrations
that he believed should be witnessed only by men. The professor was
a rollicking, jovial man, who constantly interspersed his lectures
with witty remarks and funny anecdotes. Nor did he study to have his
language chaste, or the moral of his stories pure and elevating. In
fact, vulgarity and profanity formed a large part of his ordinary
lectures; and especially was this true of the lectures on the branch of
anatomy above mentioned. On this account, chiefly, he was exceedingly
popular with his class; and during his lectures stamping, clapping,
and cheering were the principal employments of the students.
One morning our lady student was missed at the lecture on anatomy,
and the professor entered the room evidently labouring under great
excitement. He stated that he had a communication to make to the class
which demanded the most serious consideration. He then explained that
he had thought it highly improper that the lady student should attend
certain lectures specially adapted for men, and as he was approaching
that subject he had frankly advised her to absent herself, in a letter
which he read. He dwelt upon the indelicacy of the subject, the
embarrassment under which he should labour if a lady were present,
and the injustice which would be done to the class by the imperfect
manner in which he should be obliged to demonstrate the subject. He
closed by offering her abundant private opportunities for study and
dissection. He then read her reply. It was gracefully written, and
showed a full appreciation of his embarrassing position, when viewed
from the low standpoint of impure and unchaste sentiments. But she
could not conceive of a medical man whose mind was not so elevated and
purified by the study of the science of anatomy that such sentiments
would for a moment influence him. Coming to the practical question of
her attendance upon these lectures, she stated that if the professor
would really be embarrassed by the presence of a lady on the first tier
of seats, she would take her seat on the upper tier; and she trusted
that his interest in his subject would lead him to entirely forget
the presence of student No. 130—her registered number. At the close
of the letter the professor acknowledged the justice of the rebuke
which he had received, and declared that a lady who was animated by
such elevated views of her profession was entitled to every possible
encouragement which the class or faculty could give. He then opened
the door and she entered, only to receive an ovation of the most
overwhelming character. The lectures on anatomy proceeded in regular
order to their conclusion; and it was the universal testimony of the
oldest students that they had never listened to such a complete and
thorough course.
At the close of the term our lady student came up for examination
for graduation, and took rank with the best students of the class.
As this was the first instance of the granting of a medical diploma
to a woman in this country, so far as the faculty had information,
there was at first some hesitation about conferring the degree. But
it was finally determined to take the novel step, and in the honour
list of the roll of graduates for that year appears the name, Dr.
Elizabeth Blackwell.
_Church Union._
New York, 1892.
II
_An M.D. in a Gown_
[The ‘Medical Times’ of the 21st ult. contains a full, true, and
particular account of the admission of a young lady, Miss Elizabeth
Blackwell, by the General Medical College, in the State of New York,
to a physician’s degree. Miss Blackwell had duly attended lectures
at the college, and received a formal diploma, under the title of
‘Domina,’ which was the only feminine that the Senate could find for
Doctor. ‘Punch’ really thinks this is a case for a copy of verses,
which he accordingly subjoins, in honour of the fair M.D.]
Not always is the warrior male,
Nor masculine the sailor;
We all know Zaragossa’s tale,
We’ve all heard ‘Billy Taylor;’
But far a nobler heroine, she
Who won the palm of knowledge,
And took a Medical Degree,
By study at her College.
They talk about the gentler sex
Mankind in sickness tending,
And o’er the patient’s couch their necks
Solicitously bending;
But what avails solicitude
In fever or in phthisic,
If lovely woman’s not imbued
With one idea of physic?
Young ladies all, of every clime,
Especially of Britain,
Who wholly occupy your time
In novels or in knitting,
Whose highest skill is but to play,
Sing, dance, or French to clack well.
Reflect on the example, pray,
Of excellent Miss Blackwell!
Think, if you had a brother ill,
A husband, or a lover,
And could prescribe the draught or pill
Whereby he might recover;
How much more useful this would be,
Oh, sister, wife, or daughter!
Than merely handing him beef-tea,
Gruel, or toast-and-water.
Ye bachelors about to wed
In youth’s unthinking hey-day,
Who look upon a furnish’d head
As horrid for a lady,
Who’d call a female doctor ‘blue;’
You’d spare your sneers, I rather
Think, my young fellows, if you knew
What physic costs a father!
How much more blest were married life
To men of small condition,
If every one could have his wife
For family physician;
His nursery kept from ailments free,
By proper regulation,
And for advice his only fee
A thankful salutation.
For Doctrix Blackwell—that’s the way
To dub in rightful gender—
In her profession, ever may
Prosperity attend her!
‘Punch’ a gold-handled parasol
Suggests for presentation
To one so well deserving all
Esteem and admiration.
1849.
III
_First Annual Report of the New York Dispensary for Poor Women and
Children, 1855_
The design of this institution is to give to poor women an opportunity
of consulting physicians of their own sex. The existing charities of
our city regard the employment of women as physicians as an experiment,
the success of which has not yet been sufficiently proved to admit of
cordial co-operation. It was therefore necessary to form a separate
institution which should furnish to poor women the medical aid which
they could not obtain elsewhere.
The following gentlemen cordially consented to act as trustees of
the proposed institution: Messrs. Butler, White, Haydock, Sedgwick,
Collins, Field, Draper, Greeley, West, Harris, Foster, Raymond,
Flanders, Dana, Manning, Spring, Bowne. Consulting physicians, Drs.
Kissam, Parker, Cammann, Taylor. Attending physician, Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell.
Messrs. Sedgwick and Butler kindly procured an Act of Incorporation. A
meeting for organisation was held on January 30, 1854. A constitution
and bylaws were adopted, and the following members were appointed
an Executive Committee to transact the business for the year: Stacy
B. Collins, Richard H. Bowne, Charles A. Dana, Elizabeth Blackwell,
Charles Foster.
The Eleventh Ward was chosen as the location for the dispensary, it
being destitute of medical charity, while possessing a densely crowded
poor population. The necessary rooms were found in Seventh Street,
near Tompkins Square, and were ready for the reception of patients in
the month of March. The dispensary has been regularly opened through
the year, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday afternoons, at 3 o’clock.
Over 200 poor women have received medical aid. All these women have
gratefully acknowledged the help afforded them, and several of the
most destitute have tendered their few pence as an offering to the
institution.
With all these patients, the necessity of cleanliness, ventilation,
and judicious diet has been strongly urged, and in many cases the
advice has been followed, at any rate for a time. A word of counsel
or information, too, has often been given to the destitute widow
or friendless girl who was seeking work as well as health; the best
methods of seeking employment have been pointed out, suitable charities
occasionally recommended, and pecuniary aid sometimes rendered.
Since the double distress of commercial pressure and severe weather
have weighed so heavily on the poor, many cases of extreme destitution
have come to the dispensary. These have been chiefly emigrants, mostly
Germans, without friends or money, and ignorant of the language.
Several families have been visited where some member was sick, and
found utterly destitute, suffering from hunger, and though honest
and industrious, disappointed in every effort to obtain work. To such
families a little help with money, generally in the form of a loan till
work could be procured, has proved invaluable, and a small poor fund
placed by some friends in the hands of the attending physician, for
this special object, has saved several worthy families from despair
and impending starvation.
The dispensary has been removed since January 1, 1855, to No. 150
Third Street, between Avenues A and B, opposite the large Catholic
church; all persons who are interested in its objects are cordially
invited to call there. It will be open as heretofore from 3 to 5
o’clock on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday afternoons. Poor women and
children may be sent from any part of the city to receive the medical
aid of the dispensary, it being free to all.
This institution was commenced by the subscriptions of a few friends;
its expenses have been kept within its means, but the power of doing
good has necessarily been limited by the smallness of its funds.
It is found desirable to enlarge its operations, and place it on a
permanent basis. For this purpose, the trustees wish to raise the
sum of 5,000 dollars, and contributions are earnestly solicited. The
following members are appointed to receive contributions:
Stacy B. Collins, 155 Bleecker Street,
Robert Haydock, 46 Broadway,
Elizabeth Blackwell, 79 East Fifteenth Street.
The amount raised will be invested as a permanent fund for the
institution. It is the hope of the founders of this charity to make
it eventually a hospital for women and a school for the education of
nurses.
The books of the dispensary are always open to the inspection of
members, on application to the attending physician.
New York: February 8, 1855.
ADDRESSES
The following addresses and publications indicate that ‘search after
righteousness’ which has occupied later life in England.
_How to keep a Household in Health_; given at the Working
Women’s College, 1870.
_Medicine and Morality_, 1881; in the ‘Modern Review.’
_Rescue Work in relation to Vice and Disease_, 1881; before
Mrs. Meredith’s Society.
_Christian Socialism_, 1882.
_Wrong and Right Methods of dealing with Social Evil, based
on Parliamentary Evidence_, 1883.
_On the Decay of Municipal Representative Government: a
Personal Experience in Hastings_, 1885.
_Purchase of Women a Great Economic Blunder_, 1886.
_Criticism of Gronlund’s Co-operative Commonwealth_; given
before the Fellowship of the New Life, 1888.
_A Medical Treatise on the Corruption of Neo-Malthusianism_,
1888.
_Christian Duty in regard to Vice_; a letter to the
International Congress, 1889.
_Christianity a Battle, not a Dream_; given before the
Christo-Theosophical Society.
_Erroneous Method in Medical Education_; Counsel to the
Medical College of the New York Infirmary, 1892.
PUBLICATIONS
_The Moral Education of the Young._ (Longmans, Green, & Co.)
_The Human Element in Sex_; a Medical Work. (J. & A.
Churchill.)
_Christianity in Medicine_; published in ‘Things to Come.’
(Elliot Stock.)
_The Influence of Women in Medicine_; an Address to the
Graduates of the London School of Medicine for Women. (Bell
& Sons.)
_Why Hygienic Congresses fail._ (Bell & Sons.)
_The Religion of Health_; republished by the M. R. Union,
2 Leinster Place, W.
PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON
FOOTNOTES
[1] A term then applied in the West to those who were
dissatisfied with every phase of our social life; they were
generally noticeable for their long hair and peculiar mode
of dressing.
[2] The popular name for the Democratic as opposed to the
Republican candidate.
[3] I was then very shy, and much annoyed by such public
notices as the following:—
‘A very notable event of the year 1848 was the appearance
at the medical lectures of a young woman student named
Blackwell. She is a pretty little specimen of the feminine
gender, said the Boston _Medical Journal_, reporting her
age at twenty-six. She comes into the class with great
composure, takes off her bonnet and puts it under the
seat, exposing a fine phrenology. The effect on the class
has been good, and great decorum is observed while she is
present. The sprightly Baltimore _Sun_ remarked that she
should confine her practice, when admitted, to diseases of
the heart.’—_Springfield Republican._
[4] See Appendix I.
[5] See Appendix II.
[6] I was at that time utterly unaware of the amount of
degrading cruelty perpetrated by many foreign investigators
upon helpless animals under methods erroneously called
scientific. It required the extended observation of the
physician to realise the intellectual fallacy necessarily
involved in experiments which destroy the thing to be
observed; and also to recognise how the constant promulgation
of false theory and practice arising from erroneous methods
of investigation hinders the attainment of scientific
medicine.
I have long since realised that conscience and humanity
must guide intellectual activity and curiosity, or we wander
from the high-road of truth into a labyrinth of error. The
above experience illustrates how the eager young student,
thirsting for knowledge, may be blind to the unscientific
or immoral methods of pseudo-science.
[7] The fine property on Stuyvesant Square, at the corner
of East Fifteenth Street, has since been purchased, and is
now the site of the New York Infirmary and College.
[8] This remarkable experiment of 1831, with its tragic
termination, is related by Mr. Pare (Longmans, Green, & Co.)
and by Mr. Craig (Trübner). It is well worth the careful
study of all co-operative reformers.