More on midwives
Dec. 6th, 2006 08:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bunnyjadwigaThe preceding information on women physicians, midwives and empirics in general, shouldn't be taken to say that the Colleges of Physicians were not trying to get women out of the medical profession. They were, though not steadily. But I would still characterize the problem as a trade dispute first, and misogynistic second.
There is, for instance, the singular case of Jacoba Felice, brought to court in Paris on charges of practicing, successfully, as a physician. The argument of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris was that she could not practice not because she was a quack, or untrained, but because she was a woman. However, the charges brought against her were specifically on the grounds of not being licensed, not of being a woman:
"That, in these actions, she has often exercised and continues to exercise a medical practice in Paris and its suburbs, that she has practiced and practices it from day to day, although she has not been approved in any official school in Paris or elsewhere, and that she does this without the license of the chancellor of the church of Paris and of the said dean and masters."
(However, I have found no credible evidence that Felice was burned for practicing medicine, as one Canadian journal author claims.)
Even in places where the Colleges of Physicians regulated the activities of 'empirics,' women empirics were often allowed to practice on women, due to the argument that many women would be embarrassed to talk about their illnesses or be examined by a male medical professional. Also as a result, midwifery flourished well into and through the 18th century, since male professionals were generally banished from the birthing-room until the advent of special birthing equipment.
"A memorial of Eleanor Willughby, a seventeenth century midwife," Adrian Wilsong, in Women, science and medicine 1500-1700: mothers and sisters of the Royal Society , describes a country midwife who practiced in concert with her physician father, and sometimes smuggled him into her cases to examine the patient. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's A midwife's tale : the life of Martha Ballard, based on her diary, 1785-1812 speaks of the process by which physicians began to take over the midwives' practice in the early 19th century.
Even when medicine began to be more scientific and less literary/philosophical -- so that a physician's education didn't have to discuss whether the human female had a single or double-horned uterus -- male physicians usually had little practical experience in birthing. What they did have was metal implements, specifically forceps, which were used to assist in difficult births. (In the hands of a rough or inexperienced professional, however, those forceps could do great damage to mother and baby alike.) In fact, 17th and 18th century physicians could, and did, do something similar to partial-birth abortions to save women's lives when the child could not be extracted (since there was no reliable or actually survivable Cesarean section operation). Still, in rural areas, midwives practiced in concert with doctors into the early 20th century.
There is, for instance, the singular case of Jacoba Felice, brought to court in Paris on charges of practicing, successfully, as a physician. The argument of the Faculty of Medicine of Paris was that she could not practice not because she was a quack, or untrained, but because she was a woman. However, the charges brought against her were specifically on the grounds of not being licensed, not of being a woman:
"That, in these actions, she has often exercised and continues to exercise a medical practice in Paris and its suburbs, that she has practiced and practices it from day to day, although she has not been approved in any official school in Paris or elsewhere, and that she does this without the license of the chancellor of the church of Paris and of the said dean and masters."
(However, I have found no credible evidence that Felice was burned for practicing medicine, as one Canadian journal author claims.)
Even in places where the Colleges of Physicians regulated the activities of 'empirics,' women empirics were often allowed to practice on women, due to the argument that many women would be embarrassed to talk about their illnesses or be examined by a male medical professional. Also as a result, midwifery flourished well into and through the 18th century, since male professionals were generally banished from the birthing-room until the advent of special birthing equipment.
"A memorial of Eleanor Willughby, a seventeenth century midwife," Adrian Wilsong, in Women, science and medicine 1500-1700: mothers and sisters of the Royal Society , describes a country midwife who practiced in concert with her physician father, and sometimes smuggled him into her cases to examine the patient. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's A midwife's tale : the life of Martha Ballard, based on her diary, 1785-1812 speaks of the process by which physicians began to take over the midwives' practice in the early 19th century.
Even when medicine began to be more scientific and less literary/philosophical -- so that a physician's education didn't have to discuss whether the human female had a single or double-horned uterus -- male physicians usually had little practical experience in birthing. What they did have was metal implements, specifically forceps, which were used to assist in difficult births. (In the hands of a rough or inexperienced professional, however, those forceps could do great damage to mother and baby alike.) In fact, 17th and 18th century physicians could, and did, do something similar to partial-birth abortions to save women's lives when the child could not be extracted (since there was no reliable or actually survivable Cesarean section operation). Still, in rural areas, midwives practiced in concert with doctors into the early 20th century.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 01:01 am (UTC)I've written a paper or two on this topic (the shift from folk medicine to institutionalized "healthcare") - I'll see if I can find 'em and at least raid my bibliographies for you. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-28 03:59 am (UTC)P.s. I'm sorry that the jars I sent were mostly large; I have more small ones I can send with the next SCA post.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-28 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 05:46 am (UTC)This is fascinating, thank you for taking the time to write all of this out!!
Catching up on my comments:
Date: 2007-01-28 03:58 am (UTC)Forceps were sometimes used to assist a difficult birth, and to save both baby and mother. The crochet was used to remove a fetus in order to save the mother-- think of the ancient Egyptian brain hook and you get the picture.
Willoughby apparently generally tried turning babies to the feet in order to draw them out by traction in cases of difficult birth, though I don't know how often that practice was followed. (The information in a Memorial of Eleanor Willoughby suggests that turning the baby, at least in the 17th century, was a known skill, and used. I don't know when turning the child for a different presentation was discontinued by medical doctors, whether it continued right up to the heyday of Cesearian, or not.)
Cesearian was generally only resorted to in cases where the mother was dying or dead, as far as I can tell. With the strong possibility of death from infection or the surgery itself, that's not surprising.
I'd like to hear more about your theories though. Thanks!