>...Wasn't it typical of Victorian medical idiocy (at least as applied to
>women of the middle and upper classes) to treat even a healthy
>pregnancy as if it were a severe illness and attempt to severely curtail
>the woman's lifestyle?
>
>Mike
>Mike, wasn't this the time when midwifes were
>condemned as witches and the men who specialised in women's >pregnancies were
not allowed to llok at their cunts as it was another >man's property
Actually no! This is the Victorian age we're talking about, not the C17th. May
I suggest that anyone interested in this subject reads Ornella Moscucci's
excellent and evenhanded study 'The Science of Woman' (Cambridge University
Press, 1991) which is one of the best books going on obstetrics and
gynaecology in the C19th? It does not let doctors off the hook but shows that
the situation was much more complex; e.g. strong demand by women for male
obstetricians rather than midwives (?possibly fashion).
Incidentally--historian of medicine pedantry--research on witchcraft trials
and midwifery in C17th Britain (which is a rather special case in that
witchcraft was never a major moral panic--except for a few years in Essex at a
time of major political/social upheaval, and I would except Scotland) suggests
that it was not midwives who were being accused of witchcraft but that they
were often employed by the relevant legal authorities during the examinations
involved. Midwives in England had to be licensed by the local bishop in order
to practice.
Lesley
Lesley_Hall@classic.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:41 PDT