Part 19

Whether, as has been asserted,[96] the tendency to quackery among women is really more widespread than among men, may well be doubted. It is true that their lesser average strength peculiarly inclines women to follow the lines of the least resistance. On that very account, it is singularly unfortunate that the greatest, indeed in this country an invincible, resistance has been offered to woman’s entrance at the best schools, while inferior and “irregular” colleges have shown an odd readiness to admit them. It would seem that co-educational anatomy is more easily swallowed when administered in homœopathic doses! Evidently, however, for the maintenance of these irregular schools,[97] the women are not responsible: and they only have two of their own.

Because women require the intellectual companionship of man, to be able to recognize the highest intellectual standards, or to attain them in some cases, and to submit to their influence in others,—it does not follow that they have no special contributions of their own to offer to the work of medicine.

The special capacities of women as a class for dealing with sick persons are so great, that in virtue of them alone hundreds have succeeded in medical practice, though most insufficiently endowed with intellectual or educational qualifications. When these are added, when the tact, acuteness, and sympathetic insight natural to women become properly infused with the strength more often found among men, success may be said to be assured.

The sixth period is that of the struggle to obtain for women physicians official recognition in the profession. In the prolonged debate which followed, the women’s cause was defended by many distinguished men, with as much warmth as it was opposed by others. This debate began long before the close of the period which has just been described. It was the Philadelphia County Medical Society, which assumed the responsibility of being the first to check the alarming innovation of women’s schools and female doctors. In 1859, was introduced the resolution which has already been mentioned,[98] declaring that any member who should consult with women should forfeit his membership. Upon this resolution the censors declined to express an opinion. Endorsement was, however, obtained from a committee of the State Medical Society. The recommendations of this society were supposed to be mandatory on all the county societies throughout the State. But one of these, that of Montgomery County, under the chivalrous inspiration of Dr. Hiram Corson, early distinguished itself by a revolutionary independence in this matter. It passed a resolution “that females, if properly educated, should receive the same treatment as males, and that it was not just to deny women admission to male colleges, and then, after they had with great perseverance established one for themselves, to refuse it recognition.” This resolution being brought before the State Medical Society in 1860, a new resolution was passed, which reaffirmed the decree of excommunication. In 1866, the State Society met at Wilkesbarre, and Dr. Corson, who then entered the lists as a champion for women, moved that this motion be rescinded. Dr. Mowry offered a resolution declaring that the resolution in question was not intended to prevent members from consulting with “regularly” educated female physicians, who observe the code of ethics. This latter resolution was finally referred for discussion to the different county societies, and in 1867, was the subject of an elaborate report from a special committee, of which Dr. Condie was the chairman.[99]

Dr. Condie opposed the repeal of the resolution of 1860, because (he claimed) “the present condition of female colleges is rather worse than it was when the resolution was adopted.” He strongly “objected to women having schools of their own, where any physician, of any kind of notoriety, no matter what his moral or professional standing, might be admitted to teach. We will have female practitioners. We must decide whether they shall be properly educated. It cannot be doubted that there are women well qualified by nature and who could be thoroughly instructed as practitioners in medicine. To such women should be freely extended the advantages of the leading medical colleges,—and they should graduate, if at all, at the same schools and under the same conditions as men.” To this recommendation, Dr. Bell objected that there were no means at present existing where the women could be instructed. Dr. Coates said he had no doubt but that women were perfectly competent under favorable circumstances to make good practitioners, but it seems to be very rarely the case that they do. He did not believe it possible at that date to give women a proper medical education. “The tendency of female medical schools seems to be of the cheapening kind.”

Dr. Condie remarked that the report [which, however closed with a resolution not to “recognize” the woman’s college], begins by stating that females are competent, if properly educated, to practice medicine. History instructs us that the female mind is competent to anything the male mind has accomplished. Nevertheless females ought not to be encouraged to become physicians. God never intended them to be physicians. Dr. Atlee[100] urged that the policy of non-recognition, if persisted in, should be placed absolutely on the ground of the status of the female colleges. “Have not women applied year after year at our doors and begged to be received, yet been rejected? In self-defense they had to organize their own college, which had now been in existence seventeen years.” Dr. Atlee then warmly defended the college on the basis of its published curriculum and on the reputation of such of the gentlemen as had dared to incur professional odium by teaching in it.

In reply to this, Dr. Maybury declared that “he knew some of his nurses who could hardly read the directions accompanying a prescription, who entered the woman’s college, and emerged shortly after, fully equipped with their legal diploma.”

Dr. Lee observed that the committee report and its concluding resolution might be considered to read about as follows: “Whereas in the opinion of this society, the female mind is capable of reaching every stage of advancement to which the male mind is competent: and whereas all history points out examples in which females have mastered every branch of science, art and literature: _therefore_, be it resolved, that any member of this Society who shall consult with a female physician, shall forfeit his privileges as a member of this society.” “The resolution completely stultifies the report.”

Nevertheless the resolution was adopted, and the County Medical Society, notwithstanding so many internal protests, reaffirmed its former position. The doughty little society from Montgomery then rushed to the rescue with a counter resolution, flung at its big Philadelphia neighbor like the pebble of David at the face of Goliath:

“Whereas the Woman’s Medical College _is_ properly organized, with an intelligent and efficient corps of instructors, in possession of good college buildings, and of all the appliances necessary for medical instruction; that the students and graduates are irreproachable in habits and character, as zealous in the pursuit of knowledge, as intelligent and conscientious, as any of their male compeers; we hold it to be illiberal and unworthy the high character of our profession to withhold from them the courtesies awarded to male physicians.”—E. M. Corson, M.D., Recording Secretary.

In 1870, the Montgomery County Society elected Dr. Anna Lukens to membership.

In these debates the reasoning of the “opponents,” was always secretly hampered by the lack of a definite standard with which the curriculum of the condemned female schools could be compared. It was perfectly true that the idea prevailed in them, that the real preparation for medical practice was to be “picked up” by beginning to practice; and that, when a legal diploma had once been obtained, all essential difficulties had been removed, and the graduate could at once enter upon her “life work,” with a light heart and assured prospects of success. But then this same idea prevailed also in the men’s schools, that were nevertheless recognized as perfectly “regular,” and whose graduates were readily admitted to membership. On this account, detailed argument upon a legitimate basis soon broke down, and resolutions were substituted which declared the views of the Supreme Being in regard to female physicians.[101]

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!

Notwithstanding the warm championship of many of the debaters, including the venerable president, the distinguished Dr. Stillé, Dr. Hartshorne’s motion was lost, and the whole subject laid on the table without a vote. This, however, seems to have been the last occasion on which the matter was discussed. For in 1876, when the Association met in Philadelphia, Dr. Marion Sims being president, a woman delegate appeared, sent by the Illinois State Medical Society, Dr. Sarah Hackett Stevenson, of Chicago. Dr. Brodie, of Detroit, moved that hers, “and all such names, be referred to the Judicial Council.” A motion that this resolution be laid upon the table was carried by a large vote, amid considerable applause. The president asked if this vote was intended to recognize Dr. Stevenson’s right to a seat. Loud cries of yes, and cheers, emphatically answered the question.[104] Thus this mighty question, which had disturbed the scientific calm of so many medical meetings, was at last settled by acclamation. The following year at Chicago, Dr. Bowditch of Boston, being president, congratulated the Association in his inaugural address that women physicians had been invited to assist at the deliberations.

The State Medical Society of Pennsylvania, where the discussion originated, did not really wait for the action of the National Association to rescind its original resolution of 1860. This did not refer to the admission of women as members, that was not even considered, but forbade “professional intercourse with the professors or graduates of female medical colleges.” In 1871, when the Society met at Williamsport, Dr. Traill Green moved to rescind this resolution, and, “amid intense but quiet excitement,” the motion was carried by a vote of 55 yeas to 45 nays.

“Thus,” writes the now venerable champion of the women, Dr. Hiram Corson, “ended successfully the movement originated by Montgomery County, to blot from the transactions of the State Society a selfish, odious resolution adopted eleven years before.... This report gives but the faintest idea of the bitterness of the contest, of the scorn with which the proceedings of the Montgomery County were received, and the unkindness manifested against all who from year to year asked for justice to women physicians.... What would now be their status, had not the blunder of the Philadelphia Medical Society been committed?”[105] In 1881, the first woman delegate was admitted as member of the State Society; and in 1888, the Philadelphia County Society also yielded, and admitted its first woman member, Dr. Mary Willets.[106]

Pennsylvania was not the first State to admit women to medical societies. It has been mentioned that the American Association, at its Centennial year meeting, received Dr. Sarah Stevenson from the Illinois State Medical Society. But, earlier than this, women had been received in New York State and city. The very first occasion was 1869, when the Drs. Blackwell were accepted as members of a voluntary “Medical Library and Journal Association,” which held monthly meetings for hearing papers on medical subjects read by its members.[107] In 1872, a paper was read before this society by a young lady who had just returned from France with a medical diploma, the first ever granted to an American woman from the Paris _École de Médecine_.[108] In 1873, Dr. Putnam was admitted without discussion to the Medical Society of New York county, at the suggestion of Dr. Jacobi the president, whom she married a few months later. In 1874 she was sent as a delegate from the County Society to the State Medical Society, at its annual meeting at Albany. She also became a member of the Pathological, Neurological and Therapeutical societies, but was excluded from the Obstetrical Society by means of blackballs, although her paper as candidate was accepted by the committee on membership, and she received a majority vote. Finally, and a few years later, she was elected, though by the close majority of one, to membership in the New York Academy of Medicine.

The facile admission of Dr. Putnam to these various privileges, in New York, at a time that the propriety of female “recognition” was still being so hotly disputed in other cities, was due partly to the previously acquired honor of the Paris diploma;[109] partly to the influence of Dr. Jacobi. This physician may be said to have accomplished for women in New York what was done in Philadelphia by Drs. Hartshorne, Atlee, Stillé, and Thomas; in Boston by Drs. Bowditch, Cabot, Putnam, and Chadwick; in Chicago by Dr. Byford. The door was opened, other women entered without difficulty. The County Medical Society was expected to register all regular and reputable practitioners in the city, and at the present date contains the names of 48 regular physicians.

Four other women became members of the Pathological Society,[110] two of the Neurological Society,[111] one of the Neurological Association,[112] and two of the Academy of Medicine.[113] No new application has been made to the Obstetrical Society, a private club. But the obstetrical section of the Academy contains one female member.[114]

In Boston the “admission” of women was debated in three directions: to the Harvard Medical School, to the Massachusetts State Medical Society, and to the Boston City Hospital. The application of Miss Hunt to the Harvard Medical School in 1847 and 1850 have already been described. After the final discomfiture of this first applicant, no other attempt to open the college doors was made until 1879,[115] when a Boston lady, Miss Marian Hovey, offered to give $10,000 toward the new building the college was about to erect on condition that it should receive women among its students. A committee was appointed from among the overseers of the university to consider the proposition;[116] and after a year’s consideration reported, with one dissenting voice, in favor of accepting the conditions. The committee outlined a plan for medical co-education, substantially like that already adopted at the Michigan University, where certain parts of the instruction should be given to both sexes in common; for others, where embarrassment might occur, the instructions should be duplicated. The one dissenting voice, that of Le Baron Russell, disapproved of co-education in any shape, but urged that Harvard University should charge itself with providing a suitable independent school for women.

The majority report expressly advised against the establishment of a separate school for women because “A considerable number of the most highly cultivated women physicians of the country state that the same intellectual standard cannot be maintained in a school devoted to women alone, and that the intellectual stimulus obtained by female students from their association with men is an all-important element of success.”[117]

To guide its deliberations the committee had sent questions to 1300 members of the State Medical Society, to which 712 answers were received; of these 550 were in favor either of admitting women to the school, or of providing in some way for their education and recognition. These answers helped to decide the affirmative character of the majority report. Upon its reception, the Board of Overseers recommended the Medical Faculty to accept Miss Hovey’s $10,000 and admit women to the school. But of the 21 members of the Medical Faculty, seven were strongly opposed to the admission of women, six were in favor of admitting them under certain restrictions, eight were more or less opposed but were willing to try the experiment. It was generally considered too rash an experiment to be tried, at the moment that the school was already embarked on certain improvements in its course of education, which threatened to cause a falling off in the number of its students. So the proposition was finally rejected by a vote of 14 to 4. The overseers of the university, having no actual control over the decisions of the Medical Faculty, were therefore compelled to decline Miss Hovey’s offer. But, in doing so, they strongly recommended as expedient that, “under suitable restrictions, women should be instructed in medicine by Harvard University.”

The defeat at Harvard in May was, however, followed by a triumph in another direction in October of the same year. On Oct. 9, 1879, an editorial in the _Boston Medical and Surgical Journal_ says: “We regret to be obliged to announce that, at a meeting of the councilors held Oct. 1, it was voted to admit women to the Massachusetts Medical Society.”

This society is not, like that of New York and many of the States, composed of delegates from county societies, but it comprises, and indeed consists of, all the legally qualified practitioners of the State. Refusal to enroll women among its members, therefore, meant a refusal to recognize the legality of diplomas that the authority of the State had conferred. The profession, therefore, in this matter deliberately set itself above the law, a most exceptional act in American communities. A precedent for such action had previously been established when the society refused to recognize homœopathic and eclectic physicians, who also held diplomas by legal authority, inasmuch as their schools were chartered by the State. The action of the Medical Society towards women was, in fact, intended as a means of permanently relegating women among classes of practitioners pronounced inferior and unscientific, and whose legal rights merely sufficed to save them from prosecution as quacks, and to recover their fees from such persons as were foolish enough to employ them.