Woman's work in America

by Unknown

The question was now transferred to the larger area of discussion in the American Medical Association. This is a great national body, composed of delegates from all the State societies, and meeting only once a year in a session of three days, at different portions of the country. In 1871, the annual meeting was held at San Francisco, and the “female physician question” was there subjected to a long and animated debate.[^[102]]

The preceding year, 1870,[^[103]] Dr. Hartshorne of Philadelphia, a physician of excellent standing, and professor of physiology in the Woman’s Medical School, had moved such an amendment to the constitution as would permit teachers in such schools (if men) to be received as delegates of the association. In 1871, Dr. Harding of Indiana moved the adoption of the resolution. But Dr. Davis of Illinois asked solemnly whether “the time had come by deliberate action to open the door and welcome the female portion of the community, not only into our profession, but into all professions. Do we desire this time ever to come? Is there any difference in the sexes? Were they designed for any different spheres? Are we to heed the law plainly imprinted on the human race, or are we as a body to yield to the popular breeze of the times and say it must come, and therefore we will yield to it?”

Dr. King of Pittsburgh remarked that this matter had been debated in the society many years, and on one occasion a vote was taken, 47 on one side, 45 on the other, a majority of only two against the women. This war against women was beneath the dignity of a learned society of scientific men. Prof. Gibbons of California said: “If a woman showed herself to be the equal of a man, I cannot for the life of me see what objection there should be to it.”

Prof. Johnson of Missouri did not understand that woman has asked admission to this floor. The questions only related to the admission of her teachers as delegates to the association. “I am wholly opposed to the admission of women here. Let women have their own associations. This body will stultify itself by the admission of women.”

Dr. Atlee of Philadelphia remarked that “the opposition to female colleges generally comes from the professors or controllers of other colleges. These women’s colleges stand in many respects better than many of the colleges represented in the association; they give obstetrical and clinical instruction, as is not given in a majority of the colleges represented here.... By the rules of our medical association, I dare not consult with the most highly educated female physician, and yet I may consult with the most ignorant masculine ass in the medical profession.”

Prof. Thomas asked that a committee be appointed to examine the Woman’s College, [which, amid all the discussions, had never yet been done, and indeed never was done.] The Pennsylvania State Medical Society had never dared to enforce its resolutions of excommunication. One physician had even challenged it publicly to “dare to enforce this most unjust law.”

Dr. Johnson pointed out that the president of the association, Dr. Stillé, was, by its rules, under the ban, because he was in the habit of consulting with women.

Dr. Storer of Boston seized the occasion in the evening session to pronounce a discourse on his favorite subject, the physiological incapacities of women. Dr. Storer had been for two years a visiting surgeon to the New England Hospital; but the boldness and ill success of many of his operations having alarmed the women physicians and the trustees, rules were passed subjecting future operations to the decision not only of the surgical, but of the medical, staff. Such rules were distinctly contrary to medical etiquette, and possibly unnecessary for the purpose in view. Dr. Storer resigned, which was not altogether unreasonable, but the letters in which he proclaimed his annoyance to the world exhibited less of reason than of irrelevant petulance. The main argument of this earlier letter was now reproduced in the memorable San Francisco debate,—although this, on the face of it, was not concerned with the philosophy of the female physician at all.

“There is,” declared the Boston orator, “this inherent quality in their sex, that uncertain equilibrium, that varying from month to month in each woman, that unfits her from taking those responsibilities which are to control questions often of life and death.”

To this Dr. Gibbons of San Francisco replied: “If we are to judge of this proposition by the arguments of my friend from Boston, I think it would prove conclusively the weakness of his side of the question.... It is a fact that a large majority of male practitioners fluctuate in their judgment, not once a month with the moon, but every day with the movement of the sun. I ask whether it be not true that one half of the male practitioners of medicine are not to a greater or less extent under the influence of alcohol at some period of the twenty-four hours? I do not say that they get drunk, but their judgment is certainly more or less affected.” A rude rejoinder to a gentleman who had traveled all the way from Boston to San Francisco to make himself heard on the eternal verities of physiology and psychology in regard to “female physicians,” which must be rescued from the “popular breeze” of contemporary opinion!