The history of medical women in the United States, to which these pages exclusively apply, may be divided into seven periods, as follows:
First, the colonial period of exclusively female midwifery,[[33]] many of whose practitioners, according to their epitaphs, are reported to have brought into the world one, two, or even three thousand babies apiece. The Mrs. Thomas Whitmore of Marlboro, mentioned in the note, is especially described as being “possessed of a vigorous constitution, and frequently traveling through the woods on snow-shoes from one part of the town to another by night and by day, to relieve the distressed.”[[34]]
During this period of female midwifery, the medical profession proper of the colonies remained entirely unorganized and inarticulate.[[35]] Without making especial inquiry, a superficial observer could have almost overlooked the existence of doctors, as a special class, in the community.
There followed, however, a second period, that, namely, of the Revolution, and the years immediately preceding and following it. During the former, physicians began to travel to Europe for instruction. During the Revolutionary war their public services in the military hospitals, though apparently not very useful to the sick,[[36]] yet served to bring the profession, for the first time, out of obscurity; and the opportunities afforded for the collective observation of disease on a large scale, first breathed the spirit of medical science into the American profession. The first achievement of the new-born interest in medical art and education was the expulsion of “females,” from even the outlying provinces of the profession, and from their world-old traditional privileges as accoucheurs.[[37]] It was a harsh return to make for the services rendered to the infant settlements by these valiant midwives, who had been tramping through the snow by night and by day to bring into a very cold world the citizens of the future republic![[38]]
Third. After this, however, came a period of reaction. In 1848, a Boston gentleman, Mr. Samuel Gregory, began to vehemently protest against the innovation of “male midwives,” and, opened a crusade on behalf of the women, with something of the pathetic ardor of the Emperor Julian for a lost cause.[[39]] To judge by the comments of the public press, Mr. Gregory’s protest against “man-midwifery” awoke sympathetic echoes in many quarters. At the present day the interest in the movement thus roused, at once progressive and reactionary, lies chiefly in the remarkable similarity between the arguments which were then advanced against the intrusion of men into midwifery, and those which were subsequently urged against the admission of women to medicine. Thus:
“The employment of men in midwifery practice is always grossly indelicate, often immoral, and always constitutes a serious temptation to immorality.”—Summary of Mr. Gregory’s argument in “Man-Midwifery Exposed,” 1848.
“I view the present practice of calling on men in ordinary births, ... as a means of sacrificing delicacy and consequently virtue.”—Thomas Ewell, M.D., of Virginia.
“The practice (of male midwifery) is unnecessary, unnatural, and wrong,—it has an immoral tendency.”—W. Beach, M.D., New York.
“There are many cases of practice among women ... in which the sense of propriety would decide that the presence of a female practitioner is more desirable than that of a man.”—New York Observer, 1850.
“There are a few self-evident propositions which it would be questioning the common sense of mankind to doubt. One is that women are by nature better fitted than men to take care of the sick and the suffering.”—Godey’s Lady’s Book, 1850.