Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2081559370> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 83 of
83
with 100 items per page.
- W2081559370 endingPage "86" @default.
- W2081559370 startingPage "65" @default.
- W2081559370 abstract "William Smellie's Use of Obstetrical Machines and the Poor PAM LIESKE In 1722 the British obstetrician William Smellie began taking notes on his most notable midwifery cases, a practice he continued throughout his professional life. These case notes eventually made their way into his A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Midwifery (1752).' One case from 1724 involved a midwife who had no education and who had formerly vaunted that she always did her own work, as he writes, and would never call in a man to her assistance.2 When the child presented wrong and the midwife had difficulty delivering it, the woman's husband insisted on sending for Dr. Smellie. On hearing the news, the midwife fell to work immediately , and pulled at the child with [such]... force and violence ... [that] the body was pulled from the neck, and she fell down on the floor... [after which she] was immediately seized with faintings and convulsions, and ... put to bed in another room (7). Arriving to find the house in an uproar, Smellie claims he quickly determined that the mother's vaginal bleeding was not from the uterus, but from the child's head, which to my great joy, I found lying in the vagina and pelvis (7). In meticulous detail, he describes his successful delivery of the head through careful use of his fingers , a crochet, and the exact positioning of the mother's body. This amazing story concludes with Smellie reflecting that, this accident was lucky for me, and rendered the midwife more tractable for the future (8). 65 66 / LIESKE While Smellie's story is noteworthy for a number of reasons, what is of primary interest to me is not the opposition between male and female midwives . In the early eighteenth century, it was common for midwives to call in a surgeon or man-midwife when a laboring woman's health was in danger and the unborn child was either soon to be or already dead; it was also routine for many, if not most, female midwives to distrust male midwives. They were seen, with good reason, as a potential threat to a female midwife's reputation and livelihood. Thus the mutual dislike between Smellie and his female counterpart is not surprising.3 What interests me, rather, is the way Smellie constructs his narrative. There is an immediacy and urgency to his story, as if he wanted his readers to peer over his shoulder and see firsthand exactly what he experienced moment by moment. The effect is more reminiscent of an epistolary novel than of a medical case history. With the focus clearly on Smellie's task, the mother who experiences this grisly birth recedes from view and virtually disappears from the narrative. We are not told her reaction to the decapitation of her baby or to Smellie's attempts to remove its head from her vagina—nor, tellingly, is the baby's sex ever identified. She is merely the body that he works on; he locates the baby's head within her and positions her for delivery. In such an obstetrical emergency, one could argue that Smellie has no time for patient empathy or social niceties. He has to think and act quickly or the mother may die of hemorrhage. While any absolute judgment about Smellie's treatment of women based on this one case would be suspect, his detached way of reporting events and of ignoring maternal subjectivity is suggestive. The purpose of this paper is to examine William Smellie's career in more detail, so we can come to a firmer sense of how he, and other male midwives, perceived women and used them in their clinical practice. Since ideas about gender and sexual difference accompany all relationships between and among the sexes, it stands to reason that analyzing the doctor-patient relationship where the doctor is male and the patient is female will yield new insights into eighteenth-century assumptions and beliefs about women. We will find that for Smellie, as for many male midwives of the eighteenth-century, the mother is important, but only as a vehicle for the scientific study of childbirth. In addition to treating their female..." @default.
- W2081559370 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2081559370 creator A5080846516 @default.
- W2081559370 date "2000-01-01" @default.
- W2081559370 modified "2023-10-06" @default.
- W2081559370 title "William Smellie's Use of Obstetrical Machines and the Poor" @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1548105792 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1568833079 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1972305031 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1972488614 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1976679897 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1977700661 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1991454263 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1994517439 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W1999644515 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2011103647 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2021969057 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2030880170 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2043851482 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2056936322 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2068425252 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2113766930 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2115962315 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2156161768 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2160148161 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2160668099 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2329768459 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2407812109 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2412933052 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2796713715 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W2971141104 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W3115059988 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W579438607 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W582940712 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W585603988 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W659337890 @default.
- W2081559370 cites W573370421 @default.
- W2081559370 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sec.2010.0332" @default.
- W2081559370 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
- W2081559370 type Work @default.
- W2081559370 sameAs 2081559370 @default.
- W2081559370 citedByCount "4" @default.
- W2081559370 countsByYear W20815593702013 @default.
- W2081559370 countsByYear W20815593702016 @default.
- W2081559370 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2081559370 hasAuthorship W2081559370A5080846516 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConcept C109167261 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConceptScore W2081559370C109167261 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConceptScore W2081559370C11171543 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConceptScore W2081559370C144024400 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConceptScore W2081559370C151730666 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConceptScore W2081559370C15744967 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConceptScore W2081559370C71924100 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConceptScore W2081559370C86803240 @default.
- W2081559370 hasConceptScore W2081559370C95457728 @default.
- W2081559370 hasIssue "1" @default.
- W2081559370 hasLocation W20815593701 @default.
- W2081559370 hasOpenAccess W2081559370 @default.
- W2081559370 hasPrimaryLocation W20815593701 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W2330834524 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W2808981633 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W2998727424 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W3044916863 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W3136492548 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W4238840132 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W4387306830 @default.
- W2081559370 hasRelatedWork W636242660 @default.
- W2081559370 hasVolume "29" @default.
- W2081559370 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2081559370 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2081559370 magId "2081559370" @default.
- W2081559370 workType "article" @default.