[35]. Even this very Mauriceau allowed, by his brother practitioner M. De la Motte, to have been an excellent man-midwife, is however very justly animadverted upon by him for his weakness in giving into such nonsense, as prescribing histeric medicines by way of hastening the delivery. His capital receipt was the juice of a Seville orange in an infusion of Sena. Let any one imagine, what an effect such a laxative potion must have on a woman, commonly rather wanting to have her strength recruited by proper restoratives, than diminished by purges, on so senseless a view. But how many other instances might be brought of these same most learned men-midwives, making almost as pitiful a figure in the character of physicians, as they must for ever do in that of manual practitioners of our art! Even the works of Daventer, who has such glimpses of true theory, prove him not uninfected with a spice of quackery. This is generally speaking so true of the men-dabblers in practical midwifery, that one would imagine the extension of that meanness of theirs, in putting their nose into such a function, even to their collateral profession, whatever it be, of physician, surgeon, chemist or apothecary, was the revenge of Nature, for the outrages of their pretended art upon her.
[36]. Page 249, of his treatise of midwifery.
[37]. That is to say, if he touched the woman at all with it, and did not sometimes, at least, make believe that he delivered her with it though Nature alone should have done the work. Sure I am that that piece of quackery in him of pretending to hide the instrument, might justify such a suspicion, of a less guilt however than that of really applying an instrument insignificant to any purpose but that of torture in vain.
[38]. How few are there such? consequently how great the danger of such instruments, even if they were good for any thing, to be introduced into common practice?
[39]. As the practice of midwifery is, properly speaking, under no regulation, may not this be too often the case?
[40]. If any one doubts of this, he, in order to settle his opinion, needs but to peruse the instructions given by Levret, and other instrumentarians, for the use especially of the forceps. He will find such obscurity, such intrepidity of practices upon flesh not their own, as would make one shudder. The very cautions against locking in a part of the uterus between the blades of the instrument, prove the existence of a danger no caution can scarce answer for its being able to avoid. What do you think of young or unskilful practitioners thrusting up instruments at RANDOM into such a place? yet Dr. Smellie, p. 288, expressly tells you, there is a case in which “The forceps MUST be introduced at random.” This however may give the practitioner boldness, that whatever is his fault, the poor woman it is that is sure to suffer for it, and how cruelly!
[41]. “The forceps may be introduced with great ease and safety, like a pair of artificial hands, by which the head is very little (if at all) marked, and the woman very seldom tore.” Smell. p. 257.
[42]. In this case of a monster of two heads, which happens so rarely as that it might almost be reputed null or of no consideration, once more, it is neither a midwife’s business, nor even of one of the common men-practitioners of midwifery. Application should be instantly made to one of the best and ablest surgeons procurable, for reasons too obvious to need specification.
[43]. Smellie, p. 248.
[44]. See Reaumur’s art of hatching domestic fowls, &c.