The preservation of so valuable a part of the human Species as pregnant women, as well as that of their dear and tender charge, their children, so powerfully recommended by the voice of Nature and Reason, to all possible human providence for their safe birth, forms an object so sensibly intitled to the private and national care, and even to that of universal society, that all enforcement of its importance would be an injury to the human understanding, or at least to the human heart. It would look too like imagining that it could be wanted.

What I have then to say preliminarily, must chiefly arise from my own due sense of my inequality to the subject of which I presume to treat. Though, if example could be any countenance, I might plead that of so many authors who have, with the utmost confidence and the utmost absurdity, written upon the art of midwifery, without understanding any thing at all of it. The truth is, that my very natural and strong attachment to the profession, which I have long exercised and actually do exercise, created in me an unsuppressible indignation at the errors and pernicious innovations introduced into it, and every day gaining ground, under the protection of Fashion, sillily fostering a preference of men to women in the practice of midwifery: a preference first admitted by credulous Fear, and admitted without examination, upon the so suspicious recommendation of those interested to make that Fear subservient to their selfish ends.

Of these disorders, pernicious as they are to society, I have however been long with-held from taking public notice by far from groundless scruples. Being myself a practitioner, I had just reason to fear, that my representation would have the less influence, from a supposition of personal interest in them. They might naturally enough be construed as the result of a jealousy of profession. I had yet a reason more particular to myself against interfering in this matter. My husband is unhappily for me a surgeon-apothecary: I say unhappily, because though of a business I maintain to be so foreign and distinct from the function which I profess, there might not be wanting, among such as would imagine their private interest attempted at least to be hurt by me, a suspicion that I was indirectly aiming at recommending his advantage in prejudice to theirs. Yet so far, so very far is this from being the case, that the main scope of my essay is to prove, that his business has no relation at all to mine, and that especially as to the particular point I would wish to establish, he is absolutely as indifferent to me as any other person, either of his own profession, or of any other whatsoever. This prejudice then of self-interest being fairly annulled by the appeal to the manifest drift of the work itself, which gives him as formally the exclusion as to any other of his sex, I had still a repugnance to the entering into a discussion of abuses, that could not be laid open without exposing truths, that might have an air of invidiousness or detraction.

Some friends of mine, to whom I communicated my doubts, agreed with me, that there are faults which cannot innocently be revealed, where their manifestation may be attended with some greater evil, but that it could not be right to rank among the faults to be spared any error in an art, where one single false idea, suffered to subsist, may prove the occasion of wounds or torturous death to thousands. On the contrary, the due knowledge of faults of this nature is, in fact, a public benefit. They serve, as one may say, for beacons to the art, they hold a light to it, and show it the rocks it should avoid.

It is certain then, that I have not the least intention to attack any particular persons, any farther than in what I conceive to be false theory, or mispractice in the art I profess; I hope then it will not be imputed to me as unfair or over-presumptuous, if I especially do not over-respect writers or practitioners, who themselves have not respected either common-sense or common-humanity.

Have not some of our modern authors, especially the male-practitioners, who in these later times have treated of midwifery, added new and worse errors of their own to those bequeathed to us by the antients, whom they have insulted, as they themselves will probably one day be, but with more reason, by their successors, if the world should continue blind enough for them to have any in this profession? One would even imagine, that in the criticisms in which they indulge themselves of one another’s systems and instruments, they are inflicting part of the punishment due for their common offences against Nature, in the abuse of an Art, originally intended to assist her. At the same time, even from their own showing, nothing can be plainer, than that their boasted inventions have, under the specious pretence of improvement, fallen from bad to worse, as is ever the case of superstructures on the crazy foundation of false principles.

Read the men-writers on this art, and you will find interspersed in most of them, amidst the most flagrant proofs of their own ignorance of it, reproaches to that of the midwives, too just, perhaps as to some, but shamelessly absurd in them, who to that ignorance substitute their own subtilities of theory, which, when reduced to practice, are infinitely worse than any deficiency in some particular female-practitioners; being mostly, in truth, fit for nothing so much, as to prepare dreadful work for their instruments.

But if they so falsely exalt their own learning above the ignorance of women; they have their reason for it. They seek to drive out of the practice those who stand in the way of their private interest: that private interest, to which the public one is for ever sacrificed under the specious and stale pretext of its advancement.

Can it then be wrong in any of our sex and profession to endeavour, at least, to justify ourselves, and to undeceive the public, of the ill and false impressions which have been given it of our talents and ability? Pernicious prejudices have sometimes their run, like epidemical distempers: and surely it is more for the service of mankind, that their duration should be shortened, than suffered to proceed without at least an endeavour to oppose them.

I should, however, be much more pleased with an exemption from the disagreeable task of composing the apology of our sex in this matter, it being contrary to that modesty which becomes us so well; but as the men-midwives, in their system of exalting their powers of Art over ours of Nature, keep no measures with truth, I see myself forced to do justice to our function, and to manifest the unreasonableness of that contempt, with which they treat and depreciate our services; and with which they have, in favor of their own interest, perhaps too successfully imbued the public.

In this attempt of mine there is no blamable ostentation. If I set in their just light of utility the qualifications of the women of our profession, as to industry, dexterity, ease of execution, patience, constitutional tenderness, and especially natural aptitude, it is no more than practical truth warrants, and the throwing a due light into the matter of comparison requires. Yet I do not wish, that we should pass for any thing beyond what we really are. All the partiality, all the tender feelings it is so natural for me to have for the sufferings of my own sex, would be sufficient to with-hold me from desiring to establish any opinion or practice tending to endanger the personal safety of women in child-birth, or of any thing so dear to them as their children. I am myself a mother.

I own however there are but too few midwives who are sufficiently mistresses in their profession. In this they are some of them but too near upon a level with the men-midwives, with this difference however in favor of the female practitioners, that they are incapable of doing so much actual mischief as the male-ones, oftenest more ignorant than themselves, but who with less tenderness and more rashness go to work with their instruments, where the skill and management of a good midwife would have probably prevented the difficulty, or even after its coming into existence, prove more efficacious towards saving both mother and child; always with due preference however to the mother.

I will also, with the same candor, own that there are some not intirely incapable men-midwives: but they are so very rare, and must forever necessarily be so, and even, at the best, so inferior to good midwives, that a worse office could scarce be done to mankind, that on so false a supposition as that of a sufficient ability in them, to explode the practice of the art by women, because some of them might be exceptionable. And how should it be otherwise, than that some should be more deficient than others? is there that art in the world, to which the same objection does not lie of different degrees of merit in the professors of it, as well as that of the imperfection of all human arts in general?

In the mean time, the consequences of this unfair conclusion against the women professors of midwifery, in affording the men a plea for supplanting them, do not hitherto appear very advantageous ones to the public. It remains, I fancy, to be proved, that population is any gainer by the diminution of that evil, to which the instruments or other methods of practice, employed by the men, are pretended to be such a remedy.

To examine this point is the object of the following sheets; the work being divided into two parts.

The first treats of our title to the practice of this art, of the pleas used by the men for arrogating to themselves the preference, of the knowledge of Anatomy, of the necessity of the instruments, of the incapacity of women, of the Fashion: and whether the superior safety is on the side of employing men-practitioners.

The answers inserted to each objection, all together, constitute an essay to remove the prejudices, which have been so industriously, and too successfully disseminated against the female practice of this art; and to show that the substitution of the men, more especially of their iron and steel-implements, is attended with greater danger, greater mischiefs, than those which that substitution is pretended to prevent or redress.

The second has more particularly for object to demonstrate the insufficiency, danger, and actual destructiveness of instruments in the art of midwifery. To this purpose I therefore pass all that is needful of them in review, in the several cases, in which the antients and moderns would persuade us they are necessary. I set myself to establish my exceptions to them by incontestable examples; but above all, by the authority of reason and experience. I take notice of some of the manifest contradictions to be met with in almost all the authors, to one another. I have ventured to subjoin some observations, taken from my own observations and practice, in lieu of what I condemn, and to point out a method of operation, much more plain, more tender, more secure, than the one by instruments. I support this by those general principles, which have happily guided me on all occasions, and from which it is even easy to refute the pretentions and system of the instrumentarians, in which I shall note here only three essential defects.

The first, in that the origin of the men, insinuating themselves into the practice of midwifery, has absolutely no foundation in the plea of superior safety, and, consequently, can have no right to exact so great a sacrifice as that of decency and modesty.

The second, for that they were reduced first to forge the phantom of incapacity in the women, and next the necessity of murderous instruments, as some color for their mercenary intrusion. And, in truth, the faculty of using those instruments is the sole tenure of their usurped office.

The third, their disagreement among themselves about, which are the instruments to be preferred; a doubt which, the practices tried upon the lives and limbs of so many women and children trusted to them, have not yet, it seems, resolved, even to this day.

But reserving to treat upon these and other points more at large, in their place, I am to bespeak the reader’s candid construction, of my having, especially in the beginning of the first part, transiently availed myself of the authorities of authors, sacred and prophane. It is less that I think truth stands in need of such corroboratives, than to show that it is not destitute of them. It is not by authority, but by reason, that truth, in matters of temporal concernment, claims acceptance from reasonable beings. At the worst, those to whom they may present a tiresome prospect, have but to skip them over; or if they peruse them, they are desired not to forget that no stress is laid on them, beyond their being answers to arguments of the like nature, urged on the opposite side of the question.

Though instruments are not within my sphere of practice; though consequently I have the honor of not being personally very well acquainted with them, nor have I at hand all the original authors who have published their own inventions of them, I have been sufficiently enabled to do justice to their pretentions, by a recourse to those who professedly and fully treat of them. My guide is commonly Monsieur Levret, who is one of the exactest describers of them. Not most certainly that I otherwise prefer him, for of the utility of his forceps I think just as ill as I do of all the rest.

I should have been glad to avoid at once the barren driness of abridgments furnishing no distinct ideas, and the tedious exactness of particularized descriptions and histories; as for example, of the forceps, as well as of errors committed by practitioners; but this medium I could rather wish than hope to keep. I have then been so afraid of obscuring matters by brevity, that of the two I have perhaps run too far into the contrary and less agreeable excess: which, however, in consideration of its favoring explicitness, is not perhaps the most inexcusable one.

I wish I could make an apology as receivable by a reader, who will doubtless be justly disgusted at the repetitions I have too little scrupled the making of the same thoughts, and even sometimes of the same expressions. Yet I dare bespeak, from his candor, some indulgence to the confession of a fault, it will easily be perceived I could not well escape, without the worse inconvenience to himself, of his being perplexed with references back to past pages, besides, that sometimes a chain of argument would be broke, consequently weakened, by the suppression of some link of it, on account of the matter having been elsewhere already employed in other connexions.

Upon the whole, I throw myself, with the more confidence, on the favorable acceptance of the public, from my consciousness of its not being but with the best intentions for the good of society that I hazard this production: and have therefore reason to hope, that it will occasionally be remembered, that my object is purely that of representing a truth, and not of recommending a composition.

Page 20. For blood into water read water into blood.