[81] “The most natural proof that, in the first ages of the world, the man-midwife (accoucheur) was unknown, is, that there is no word whatsoever in the mother or original tongues to signify this profession in a man, whereas that which signifies a midwife (accoucheuse) is found in all languages.”—Hecquet de l’Indecence aux Hommes d’accoucher les Femmes, p. 1.
[82] Let any man who disputes this position peruse the case of D——against D——, in Robertson’s Reports of Cases in the Ecclesiastical Courts, a terrible picture of conjugal contention and wretchedness in high life, all clearly attributable to the accoucheur, who insisted upon the husband leaving the lying-in chamber, and influenced the wife, fatally for her husband’s peace and her own, to concur in his exclusion. A more flagrant instance of medical presumption and insolence could not readily be found.
“Here then,” says Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, in his judgment, “is the clue to everything that subsequently took place—an end of all that happiness and comfort which might have been expected to attend the union between these parties.”
The archives of the law would afford the inquirer many a fearful example of similar evils consequent on the unnatural and sinful practice of man-midwifery.
Transcriber’s Notes:
Punctuation has been corrected without note.
Two lines on page 62 were transposed in the original text. This printing error has been corrected.