they may earn a livelihood; a career in which they may do missionary
work among the poor of our own country, and among their own sex in
foreign lands; a career that is practical, that is useful, that is
scientific.”[89]
Even when a theoretic demand is not entirely realized in the actual
facts of the case, its distinct enunciation remains a great achievement;
and, in an almost mysterious way, constantly tends to effect its own
ultimate realization. And so it has been here.
During the current year, the college has emerged from its original
chrysalis condition within the inconvenient precincts of a private house
building, and entered upon a new phase of existence in a suitable
building especially erected for its needs. The money for this building
was collected from private subscriptions, by the indefatigable exertions
of the friends of the college, and may be said to some extent to measure
the growth of interest in the medical education of women, which had
become diffused through the community.
In the West, two medical schools for women were opened in the same year,
1869; in Chicago a separate women’s school; in Michigan the medical
department of the State University.
The State University was founded and controlled by the State
Legislature. On this account, in accordance with a principle generally
recognized in the West, the youth of both sexes are equally eligible to
its schools, as being equally children of the citizens who support the
schools by means of taxation.[90] The application of this simple
principle to the medical school at once solved the question of “medical
co-education of the sexes,” which had been such a bugbear in the East.
The difficulties which had elsewhere been considered so insolvable, were
arranged in the simplest manner. In regard to all subjects liable to
create embarrassment, if discussed before a mixed audience of young
students, the lectures were duplicated, and delivered to the male and
female students separately. These were thus a double course for
obstetrics, gynæcology, and some sections of internal medicine and
surgery. The lectures, lecturers, and subsequent examinations of the
students were, however, identical, and the clinics are held in common.
The value to women of this State recognition, and of opportunity to
study at a university school, was immense. There were numerous
disadvantages due to the youth and undeveloped character of the school,
and still more to its control by a popular legislature, unversed in the
requirements of learned professions. Yet there was promise of indefinite
growth in the future, and in all the development of the future, women
might hope to share.
At first the course of instruction was limited to two years; it has
lately been extended to three; though it still has the serious defect of
demanding no thesis from students as a condition of graduation. Clinical
instruction has been necessarily inadequate in a small country town. It
has been lately proposed to transfer this part of the curriculum to
Detroit, where large hospitals furnish clinical material in abundance.
In Chicago, application to admit women was made in 1865 to the Rush
College, where Emily Blackwell had studied during the winter of 1851.
The appeal was refused.
In 1868, application was made at a rival school, the Chicago Medical
College, and was accepted. For a year female students attended the
lectures and clinics in company with young men. “The women,” observes a
Chicago writer, “were all right; but the men students were at first
embarrassed and afterwards rude. The mixed classes were therefore
abandoned, but the woman’s movement, being essentially just and
correct,”[91] was not abandoned, but led to the founding of a special
school for women in 1869.
The pioneer woman physician in Chicago was Dr. Mary H. Thompson, who,
having graduated at Philadelphia, and spent a year as interne at the New
York Infirmary, settled in the West in 1863. At this period she was
often introduced as a curiosity. Western curiosity, however, is rarely
ill-natured, and in this case was soon exchanged for respect and a
substantial sympathy, which enabled Dr. Thompson to establish the
Hospital for Women and Children. In 1869, when the medical school was
opened for women, its students found in this little hospital their first
opportunities for clinical instruction. From 1869 till 1877, the
collegiate course was conducted in a “small two-story building
containing a dissecting room and one little lecture room furnished with
two dozen chairs, a table, a portable blackboard, and a skeleton. There
were scarcely any means for practical demonstration in the lectures,
there was no money to procure them.”[92] Worse than all, several among
those who had consented to teach the students seemed, strangely enough,
to have done all they could to discourage them. “One lecturer only
delivered two lectures in the entire term, and then took up part of the
time in dwelling upon the ‘utter uselessness of teaching women.’ The
professor of surgery went on the staff with great reluctance, and
remarked in his introductory lecture that he did not believe in female
doctors, and that the students were greatly mistaken if they imagined
the world was waiting for them. His lectures chiefly consisted of
trifling anecdotes.”[93] The class which graduated in 1871 under these
discouraging circumstances consisted of three students. No one would
study more than two years, “because it was found that in that time could
easily be mastered all the college had to teach.” But in 1881, the
graduating class rose to 17, and in 1889, to 24. There is now a Faculty
of twenty members, with eight lecturers and assistants. There were 90
students in the current year, and it was announced that in twenty years
had been graduated 242 pupils.
In 1863, the same year in which Dr. Thompson settled in Chicago, another
graduate of the Philadelphia school penetrated still further west, and
tried to establish herself in San Francisco. But this pioneer enterprise
failed. In 1872, Mrs. Charlotte Blake Brown applied to be admitted to
the medical colleges of San Francisco, but being refused, went to
Philadelphia to study. In 1874 Mrs. Lucy Wanzer applied at the Toland
Medical School. This had been founded by a generous millionaire, who
presented it to the State University,—and as the State laws provide for
the admission of both men and women to the State schools, the regents
were compelled to receive Mrs. Wanzer, who thus was the first woman to
graduate in medicine on the Pacific Coast. In 1875 the rival school, the
Cooper Medical College, also opened its doors to women, Mrs. Alice
Higgins being the first candidate. Both colleges now freely admit women,
and there are about half a dozen in each class.
Three of the ladies at present practicing in San Francisco are, however,
graduates of Paris.[94]
Two other medical schools, both in Western New York, have for several
years admitted women: the school of the Syracuse University, and the
school at Buffalo.
Finally, in 1882, a fourth woman’s school was opened in Baltimore, and
has connected with it a hospital, which is not, however, managed by
women. The total number of students annually attending the various
institutions which have now been enumerated may be approximately
tabulated as follows:
Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania, report in 1890, 181 students.
Woman’s Medical College, N. Y. Infirmary, report in 1890, 90 students.
Woman’s Medical College, Chicago, report in 1890, 90 students.
University of California, report in 1890, 8 female students out of total
of 27.
Cooper College, San Francisco, report in 1890, 18 women out of total of
167.
From Ann Arbor I have only obtained the list of female graduates, which
is 88.
The total number of graduates from the Philadelphia School, who have
been enrolled among the alumnæ, is 560.
The total number of graduates of the New York School is 135.
During the current year, a movement has been inaugurated to obtain
admission for women to the medical school of the Johns Hopkins
University for the purpose of advanced study.[95]
Future advance for the education of women in medicine must be in the
line of their admission to the schools where the highest standard of
education is maintained; and to such affiliation of their own schools
with universities, as may bring them under the influence of university
discipline. There is no manner of doubt that, with a few unimportant
restrictions, co-education in medicine is essential to the real and
permanent success of women in medicine. Isolated groups of women cannot
maintain the same intellectual standards as are established and
maintained by men. The claim of ability to learn, to follow, to apply
knowledge, to even do honest original work among the innumerable details
of modern science, does not imply a claim to be able to originate, or to
maintain by themselves the robust, massive intellectual enterprises,
which, in the highest places, are now carried on by masculine strength
and energy.
Whether, as has been asserted,[96] the tendency to quackery among women
is really more widespread than among men, may well be doubted. It is
true that their lesser average strength peculiarly inclines women to
follow the lines of the least resistance. On that very account, it is
singularly unfortunate that the greatest, indeed in this country an
invincible, resistance has been offered to woman’s entrance at the best
schools, while inferior and “irregular” colleges have shown an odd
readiness to admit them. It would seem that co-educational anatomy is
more easily swallowed when administered in homœopathic doses! Evidently,
however, for the maintenance of these irregular schools,[97] the women
are not responsible: and they only have two of their own.
Because women require the intellectual companionship of man, to be able
to recognize the highest intellectual standards, or to attain them in
some cases, and to submit to their influence in others,—it does not
follow that they have no special contributions of their own to offer to
the work of medicine.
The special capacities of women as a class for dealing with sick persons
are so great, that in virtue of them alone hundreds have succeeded in
medical practice, though most insufficiently endowed with intellectual
or educational qualifications. When these are added, when the tact,
acuteness, and sympathetic insight natural to women become properly
infused with the strength more often found among men, success may be
said to be assured.
The sixth period is that of the struggle to obtain for women physicians
official recognition in the profession. In the prolonged debate which
followed, the women’s cause was defended by many distinguished men, with
as much warmth as it was opposed by others. This debate began long
before the close of the period which has just been described. It was the
Philadelphia County Medical Society, which assumed the responsibility of
being the first to check the alarming innovation of women’s schools and
female doctors. In 1859, was introduced the resolution which has already
been mentioned,[98] declaring that any member who should consult with
women should forfeit his membership. Upon this resolution the censors
declined to express an opinion. Endorsement was, however, obtained from
a committee of the State Medical Society. The recommendations of this
society were supposed to be mandatory on all the county societies
throughout the State. But one of these, that of Montgomery County, under
the chivalrous inspiration of Dr. Hiram Corson, early distinguished
itself by a revolutionary independence in this matter. It passed a
resolution “that females, if properly educated, should receive the same
treatment as males, and that it was not just to deny women admission to
male colleges, and then, after they had with great perseverance
established one for themselves, to refuse it recognition.” This
resolution being brought before the State Medical Society in 1860, a new
resolution was passed, which reaffirmed the decree of excommunication.
In 1866, the State Society met at Wilkesbarre, and Dr. Corson, who then
entered the lists as a champion for women, moved that this motion be
rescinded. Dr. Mowry offered a resolution declaring that the resolution
in question was not intended to prevent members from consulting with
“regularly” educated female physicians, who observe the code of ethics.
This latter resolution was finally referred for discussion to the
different county societies, and in 1867, was the subject of an elaborate
report from a special committee, of which Dr. Condie was the
chairman.[99]
Dr. Condie opposed the repeal of the resolution of 1860, because (he
claimed) “the present condition of female colleges is rather worse than
it was when the resolution was adopted.” He strongly “objected to women
having schools of their own, where any physician, of any kind of
notoriety, no matter what his moral or professional standing, might be
admitted to teach. We will have female practitioners. We must decide
whether they shall be properly educated. It cannot be doubted that there
are women well qualified by nature and who could be thoroughly
instructed as practitioners in medicine. To such women should be freely
extended the advantages of the leading medical colleges,—and they should
graduate, if at all, at the same schools and under the same conditions
as men.” To this recommendation, Dr. Bell objected that there were no
means at present existing where the women could be instructed. Dr.
Coates said he had no doubt but that women were perfectly competent
under favorable circumstances to make good practitioners, but it seems
to be very rarely the case that they do. He did not believe it possible
at that date to give women a proper medical education. “The tendency of
female medical schools seems to be of the cheapening kind.”
Dr. Condie remarked that the report [which, however closed with a
resolution not to “recognize” the woman’s college], begins by stating
that females are competent, if properly educated, to practice medicine.
History instructs us that the female mind is competent to anything the
male mind has accomplished. Nevertheless females ought not to be
encouraged to become physicians. God never intended them to be
physicians. Dr. Atlee[100] urged that the policy of non-recognition, if
persisted in, should be placed absolutely on the ground of the status of
the female colleges. “Have not women applied year after year at our
doors and begged to be received, yet been rejected? In self-defense they
had to organize their own college, which had now been in existence
seventeen years.” Dr. Atlee then warmly defended the college on the
basis of its published curriculum and on the reputation of such of the
gentlemen as had dared to incur professional odium by teaching in it.
In reply to this, Dr. Maybury declared that “he knew some of his nurses
who could hardly read the directions accompanying a prescription, who
entered the woman’s college, and emerged shortly after, fully equipped
with their legal diploma.”
Dr. Lee observed that the committee report and its concluding resolution
might be considered to read about as follows: “Whereas in the opinion of
this society, the female mind is capable of reaching every stage of
advancement to which the male mind is competent: and whereas all history
points out examples in which females have mastered every branch of
science, art and literature: _therefore_, be it resolved, that any
member of this Society who shall consult with a female physician, shall
forfeit his privileges as a member of this society.” “The resolution
completely stultifies the report.”
Nevertheless the resolution was adopted, and the County Medical Society,
notwithstanding so many internal protests, reaffirmed its former
position. The doughty little society from Montgomery then rushed to the
rescue with a counter resolution, flung at its big Philadelphia neighbor
like the pebble of David at the face of Goliath:
“Whereas the Woman’s Medical College _is_ properly organized, with an
intelligent and efficient corps of instructors, in possession of good
college buildings, and of all the appliances necessary for medical
instruction; that the students and graduates are irreproachable in
habits and character, as zealous in the pursuit of knowledge, as
intelligent and conscientious, as any of their male compeers; we hold it
to be illiberal and unworthy the high character of our profession to
withhold from them the courtesies awarded to male physicians.”—E. M.
Corson, M.D., Recording Secretary.
In 1870, the Montgomery County Society elected Dr. Anna Lukens to
membership.
In these debates the reasoning of the “opponents,” was always secretly
hampered by the lack of a definite standard with which the curriculum of
the condemned female schools could be compared. It was perfectly true
that the idea prevailed in them, that the real preparation for medical
practice was to be “picked up” by beginning to practice; and that, when
a legal diploma had once been obtained, all essential difficulties had
been removed, and the graduate could at once enter upon her “life work,”
with a light heart and assured prospects of success. But then this same
idea prevailed also in the men’s schools, that were nevertheless
recognized as perfectly “regular,” and whose graduates were readily
admitted to membership. On this account, detailed argument upon a
legitimate basis soon broke down, and resolutions were substituted which
declared the views of the Supreme Being in regard to female
physicians.[101]
The question was now transferred to the larger area of discussion in the
American Medical Association. This is a great national body, composed of
delegates from all the State societies, and meeting only once a year in
a session of three days, at different portions of the country. In 1871,
the annual meeting was held at San Francisco, and the “female physician
question” was there subjected to a long and animated debate.[102]
The preceding year, 1870,[103] Dr. Hartshorne of Philadelphia, a
physician of excellent standing, and professor of physiology in the
Woman’s Medical School, had moved such an amendment to the constitution
as would permit teachers in such schools (if men) to be received as
delegates of the association. In 1871, Dr. Harding of Indiana moved the
adoption of the resolution. But Dr. Davis of Illinois asked solemnly
whether “the time had come by deliberate action to open the door and
welcome the female portion of the community, not only into our
profession, but into all professions. Do we desire this time ever to
come? Is there any difference in the sexes? Were they designed for any
different spheres? Are we to heed the law plainly imprinted on the human
race, or are we as a body to yield to the popular breeze of the times
and say it must come, and therefore we will yield to it?”
Dr. King of Pittsburgh remarked that this matter had been debated in the
society many years, and on one occasion a vote was taken, 47 on one
side, 45 on the other, a majority of only two against the women. This
war against women was beneath the dignity of a learned society of
scientific men. Prof. Gibbons of California said: “If a woman showed
herself to be the equal of a man, I cannot for the life of me see what
objection there should be to it.”
Prof. Johnson of Missouri did not understand that woman has asked
admission to this floor. The questions only related to the admission of
her teachers as delegates to the association. “I am wholly opposed to
the admission of women here. Let women have their own associations. This
body will stultify itself by the admission of women.”
Dr. Atlee of Philadelphia remarked that “the opposition to female
colleges generally comes from the professors or controllers of other
colleges. These women’s colleges stand in many respects better than many
of the colleges represented in the association; they give obstetrical
and clinical instruction, _as is not given in a majority of the colleges
represented here_.... By the rules of our medical association, I dare
not consult with the most highly educated female physician, and yet I
may consult with the most ignorant masculine ass in the medical
profession.”
Prof. Thomas asked that a committee be appointed to examine the Woman’s
College, [which, amid all the discussions, had never yet been done, and
indeed never was done.] The Pennsylvania State Medical Society had never
dared to enforce its resolutions of excommunication. One physician had
even challenged it publicly to “dare to enforce this most unjust law.”
Dr. Johnson pointed out that the president of the association, Dr.
Stillé, was, by its rules, under the ban, because he was in the habit of
consulting with women.
Dr. Storer of Boston seized the occasion in the evening session to
pronounce a discourse on his favorite subject, the physiological
incapacities of women. Dr. Storer had been for two years a visiting
surgeon to the New England Hospital; but the boldness and ill success of
many of his operations having alarmed the women physicians and the
trustees, rules were passed subjecting future operations to the decision
not only of the surgical, but of the medical, staff. Such rules were
distinctly contrary to medical etiquette, and possibly unnecessary for
the purpose in view. Dr. Storer resigned, which was not altogether
unreasonable, but the letters in which he proclaimed his annoyance to
the world exhibited less of reason than of irrelevant petulance. The
main argument of this earlier letter was now reproduced in the memorable
San Francisco debate,—although this, on the face of it, was not
concerned with the philosophy of the female physician at all.
“There is,” declared the Boston orator, “this inherent quality in their
sex, that uncertain equilibrium, that varying from month to month in
each woman, that unfits her from taking those responsibilities which are
to control questions often of life and death.”
To this Dr. Gibbons of San Francisco replied: “If we are to judge of
this proposition by the arguments of my friend from Boston, I think it
would prove conclusively the weakness of his side of the question.... It
is a fact that a large majority of male practitioners fluctuate in their
judgment, not once a month with the moon, but every day with the
movement of the sun. I ask whether it be not true that one half of the
male practitioners of medicine are not to a greater or less extent under
the influence of alcohol at some period of the twenty-four hours? I do
not say that they get drunk, but their judgment is certainly more or
less affected.” A rude rejoinder to a gentleman who had traveled all the
way from Boston to San Francisco to make himself heard on the eternal
verities of physiology and psychology in regard to “female physicians,”
which must be rescued from the “popular breeze” of contemporary opinion!