Abstract
An early administration of anaesthesia for childbirth occurred on 19 January 1847, when Scottish obstetrician James Young Simpson administered diethyl ether to facilitate the delivery of a child to a woman with a deformed pelvis. Simpson advocated for its use to reduce pain both in surgery and in childbirth. Obstetric anaesthesia was controversial for many reasons, and objections came not only from fellow obstetricians, but also from the public and members of the clergy. While James Young Simpson shed light upon religious objections to obstetric anaesthesia, modern scholars have debated whether such objections truly existed. The aim of this study is to determine whether religious objections to obstetric anaesthesia were endorsed by medical professionals in France during the mid-19th century. A search of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (National Library of France) was conducted. Primary source documents reveal that French physicians were interested in studying the effects of ether and chloroform during labour and delivery. Nevertheless, the introduction of obstetric anaesthesia was controversial for many reasons, including concerns about its effect on natural labour. The evidence suggests that these objections were not endorsed by the medical community. Much of the controversy surrounding obstetric anaesthesia involved the perceived necessity of the practice during low-risk vaginal deliveries. It appears that French physicians were aware of religious objections to the use of anaesthesia in childbirth but did not endorse them. The use of obstetric anaesthesia in France was guided by scientific evidence and clinical experience, without interference from religious leaders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
