I have here said few countries have hitherto countenanced men-midwives. That I presume is too notorious to require proof: for even those Saracen or Arabian physicians, Avicen, Rhazes, &c. who, by the by, are little more than servile translators or copists of the Grecian ones, wrote only theoretically in quality of physicians; for it does not appear that they ever practised midwifery themselves, nor ever got the practice of it by men introduced into their countries. Among the Orientals there is no such being known as a man-midwife; that refinement of real barbarism, under the specious pretext of humanity, is happily unknown to them. But if it should be said, that the jealousy so constitutional to the inhabitants of the warmer climes, has a share in the exclusion of men-practitioners; the women have, at least in that point, a weakness to thank for its production to them of so great a good, as the greater safety of their persons and children, in that capital emergency of their lying-in. For, after all, the art of midwifery is, in the hands of men, like certain plants, which, by dint of a forcing culture, exhibit more of florish, or a broader expansion; but besides ever retaining a certain exotic appearance, they never come up to the virtue of those spontaneously growing in the full vigor of a soil of nature’s own choice for them. Art may often indeed improve nature, but can never be a supplement to her, where she is essentially wanting. Deep learning may, in very extraordinary cases perhaps, repair the errors, or assist the deficiencies of the manual function, but the deepest learning will never bestow the manual function, nor indeed can in the same person exist, but at the expence of the manual function, which must have been in some measure neglected for it. And yet the greatest practical skill that any man can with the utmost labor and experience acquire, will hardly ever equal the excellence in it of the women, Great Nature’s chosen instruments for this work: an excellence by them attained with scarce any learning at all, or at least of that abstruse theoretical sort, on which the men make their superiority principally depend.
But that I may not herein be taxed of maintaining any thing that has only the air of a paradox, or of begging the question, I shall implicitly, in the course of my answer to the following objection, endeavor to remove any remaining doubt on this head.
Objection the Eleventh.
In like manner, as there are particular parts of the human body which have their appropriate undertakers or protectors under their proper distinctive names, as oculists, dentists, and corn-cutters, who by making respectively one part their particular care and study, arrive at a greater perfection, at least in the practical operations on it, than regular physicians or surgeons, whose object is the whole fabric; Why, by parity of reasoning, should not the men-practitioners in midwifery be preferable to the midwives, since a man has to his manual function superadded a theory superior to that of the women, who, it is confessed, stand sometime in need of calling in the physician to their assistence? As a man then will have laid in a stock of medical knowledge, peculiarly adapted to the exigencies and disorders incident to women during their pregnancy and lying-in, he must consequently excel the midwife, or the physician singly considered; he who with so much greater convenience will have united in one person both their faculties, besides that of the surgeon.
ANSWER.
That certain parts of the human body enjoy the protection of practitioners, who respectively devote themselves to their service, I confess. Such appropriations may also be beneficial, at least, to the practitioners. I can even conceive, that a professed dentist may clean, scale, and draw teeth, or an oculist couch a cataract, better than either a physician or surgeon. These may in their respective practice be excelled by those partial artists. But I much doubt, even as to these, whether their trusting too much to that partial excellence, does not sometimes do more mischief than good, for want of duly consulting the relation of such parts to the universal fabric, of which physicians and surgeons must be so much better judges. Galen does not appear in contradiction to common sense, where he observes, that to rectify a disorder of the eye, the head must be rectified, which cannot well be done without rectifying the whole body. In confirmation of which, I once myself knew a gentleman, whom a professed oculist, at Paris, assured of the loss of his eyes being infallible; and who upon his despondingly consulting a regular physician, was by him as positively assured, that those very condemned eyes might be saved by a proper regimen. The gentleman happily believed him, and his eye-sight was not only saved, but perfectly restored.
Another instance of the like nature occurs to me, which seems applicable to the dentist, and which I quote here from a translation of the learned and ingenious Dr. Huxham’s observations on the constitution of the air.
“Many years ago I knew a gentleman of a hale, robust habit of body, who, from being too much addicted to the drinking of brandy, fell into a violent jaundice, from which however he would have recovered well enough, would he have conformed himself to the advice of his physicians: but he on the contrary, because his gums were very apt to bleed, and his teeth stunk from the scorbutic taint, put himself into the hands of an ignorant pretender to physic for the cure of these inconveniencies. This fellow immediately set about scaling his teeth, and rubbing his gums with his famous teeth-powder, till at last, by perpetually fretting and irritating the loose texture, he brought on such a hemorrhage, that baffled all the stiptics that could be invented by the most expert surgeons, and continuing to spout forth in small streams from the little arteries of the gums, which were now every where divided: in the space of sixteen hours the poor man died through mere loss of blood.”
These instances are however only adduced to justify that doubt which I expressed of these partial artists being always to be beneficially consulted in those local affections, to which their talent is supposed exclusively appropriated.
Corn-cutter is indeed a homely plain English term, but if the teeth give from the Latin the appellation of dentist, as the eye that of oculist, what name, taking it from the part in question, will remain for that language, to give the men-practitioners of midwifery, in substitution to that hermaphrodite appellation, that absurd contradictory one in terms, of man-midwife, or to that new-fangled word accoucheur, which is so rank and barefaced a gallicism? But let what name soever be given them, it can hardly be too burlesque an one, considering the gross revolting impropriety of men, addicting themselves to a profession naturally so little made for them.