ONTD Political

Scholars Argue Over Legacy of Surgeon Who Was Lionized, Then Vilified

1:56 pm - 08/27/2012
One would be hard pressed to find a more controversial figure in the history of medicine than J. Marion Sims. Originally lionized as the ''father of gynecology,'' Sims was later reviled by a generation of critics as racist and sexist.

Today, as an operation introduced by Sims is bringing relief to thousands of women in the developing world, a few scholars are quietly hoping to rehabilitate his name. But it is not going to be easy.


Sims, who was born in South Carolina in 1813, was not destined for greatness. He was a lackluster student who showed little ambition after receiving his medical degree.

But he changed after a chance event in 1845. While evaluating a woman with a slipped, or prolapsed, uterus, Sims, then living in Alabama, had her kneel and place her chest close to her knees. This position not only moved the woman's uterus back into place, but it afforded him an excellent view of how childbirth had damaged her anatomy.

Sims used this insight to tackle a most dreaded complication of childbirth, usually caused by prolonged labor. With this disorder, known as the vesico-vaginal fistula, connections develop between a woman's bladder and vagina.

Afflicted women continually drip urine from their vaginas, producing, in the words of one 19th-century physician, ''a most intolerable stench.'' Even worse, fistulas sometimes develop between the bowels and the vagina.

By placing women in his new position, Sims reasoned, he could better visualize the damaged tissues and could surgically repair the fistulas. The logical women to test his theory, he believed, were slaves.

By all accounts, Sims, like a vast majority of his antebellum Southern white counterparts, was a strong proponent of slavery.

Thus, when Sims wanted fistula patients, he simply bought or rented the slaves from their owners.

Sims operated on at least 10 slave women from 1846 to 1849, perfecting his technique. It took dozens of operations before he finally reported success, having used special silver sutures to close the fistulas. Three of the slaves -- Lucy, Anarcha and Betsy -- all underwent multiple procedures without anesthesia, which had recently become available. Sims's records show that he operated on Anarcha 30 times.

Sims's persistence aroused some alarm, and several physicians urged him to stop experimenting. In response, he later reported that the slave women had been ''clamorous'' for the operation and had even assisted him with surgery.

Sims's contemporaries and early biographers heralded his feat. His skillful experiments, according to his obituary in The New York Times in 1883, ''were of great advantage to members of his profession in the treatment of female diseases.'' An inscription near Sims's birthplace termed him ''a blessing and a benefactor to women.''

Statues of Sims were erected in South Carolina, Alabama and New York City, where in 1855 he opened the first hospital exclusively for women. The New York statue stands in Central Park at Fifth Avenue and 103rd Street.

One of Sims's modern legacies is the almost total absence of vesico-vaginal fistulas in the developed world, because of advances in childbirth and the operation he pioneered.

From this lofty perch, Sims had a long way to fall. And fall he did, beginning in the mid-1970's, as Americans dealt with the volatile issues of racial and sexual equality. Historians, many of them sympathetic to the civil rights and women's movements, saw an urgent need to revise Sims's history.

One of the first scholars to weigh in was Dr. Graham J. Barker-Benfield, then a historian at Trinity College in England, who argued that Sims had used slave women as guinea pigs to advance his career.

The women, Dr. Barker-Benfield wrote in 1974, had ''endured years of almost unimaginable agonies'' undergoing repeated surgery. Rather than being willing participants, the women had been powerless to refuse.

Writing in 1985, Diana E. Axelsen, a philosopher at Spelman College, described Sims's patients as ''victims of medical experimentation.'' Wendy Brinker, a South Carolina filmmaker, nicknamed Sims ''Father Butcher'' and asked why the state's monument to him still stood.

Underlying these pronouncements was the belief that Sims's early biographers had been guilty of ''presentism,'' evaluating past events based on their own values at the time. Living in an era that uncritically celebrated white male doctors, the historians contended, these writers had viewed Sims far too favorably.

More recently, a few scholars have been trying to revise this revisionist history. ''To deify or vilify Sims is not the answer,'' said Dr. Deborah Kuhn McGregor, a historian at the University of Illinois at Springfield. Dr. McGregor uses Sims's story in her book ''Sexual Surgery and the Origins of Gynecology'' to discuss the complex ways that race and sex influence medical practice.

One of Sims's strongest defenders these days would have to be Dr. L. Lewis Wall, a Washington University surgeon who believes that the scholars who pilloried Sims were guilty of the same presentism they had identified in others' work.

Dr. Wall has a special reason for coming to Sims's defense. He routinely travels to Africa to repair vesico-vaginal fistulas. Contending that the rest of the world has lost interest in the victims of this disorder, who may still number in the millions, he has founded the Worldwide Fund for Mothers Injured in Childbirth (www.wfmic.org).

''These kinds of pathologies no longer exist here,'' Dr. Wall noted. But women with fistulas are ''absolutely miserable and absolutely outcasts, reeking of urine 24 hours a day,'' he said, noting that he can restore both the health and dignity of such women.

But does this justify what Sims did? Many do not think so. When Dr. Wall made a presentation on Sims at a recent meeting of the American Association for the History of Medicine, members of the audience challenged the idea that his admirable efforts as a surgeon gave him valid historical insights.

Ms. Brinker is not even sure that Sims's procedure worked, pointing out that his logs do not have follow-up data of his ''cured'' patients. ''It was all about his glory,'' she argues.

Probably the only way to definitively resolve the debates over Sims would be to hear the voices of the slave women who were his subjects. But aside from Sims's statements, their words have not been preserved.

At the very least, Dr. Wall suggests on his Web site, someone should build a statue to Lucy, Anarcha and Betsy.

The story of J. Marion Sims is a reminder of how history gets rewritten over time. The hope, of course, is that each new account gets closer to the truth.

Source

metatrix 27th-Aug-2012 06:26 pm (UTC)
I don't get why we should give two fucks about this long dead surgeon.

The Worldwide Fund for Mothers Injured in Childbirth sounds like an awesome organization, though.
beoweasel 27th-Aug-2012 07:01 pm (UTC)
Because he helped advance gynecological health and medicine.
metatrix 27th-Aug-2012 07:14 pm (UTC)
yeah, but IME people in the medical field don't really know/care about who advanced their field. Very few doctors actually know anything about the history of medicine or care about it. It just seems strange to me that this particular dude is getting so much attention (statues, etc.)
tabaqui 27th-Aug-2012 06:59 pm (UTC)
I'm baffled. Nothing justifies what he did, nothing. However, no one is going to stop performing this operation because of what he did, because it is urgently needed.

But i see no need to argue about his 'legacy' - he was a racist asshole who is right up there with Mengele but who, astonishingly, actually came up with something useful instead of merely running wild with vivisection and torture in the name of 'research'.
beoweasel 27th-Aug-2012 07:03 pm (UTC)
I don't know if I'd use the comparison per-say, while what he did was abhorrent, he was trying to fix a legitimate problem. Mengele did what he did for shits and giggles.
tabaqui 27th-Aug-2012 07:05 pm (UTC)
It's true, he was. But he went about it with pretty much the same level of empathy for his patients, which, just reading about, makes me physically ill.

You can have all kinds of lofty ideals, but it kind of tarnishes the fuck out of them when the means to your ends are so frigging horrific.
metatrix 27th-Aug-2012 07:21 pm (UTC)
yeah, what really clinched it for me is the fact that he didn't even bother to use anesthesia, even though it had recently become available. That's just fucking sick.
tabaqui 27th-Aug-2012 07:30 pm (UTC)
This exactly. I cannot even begin to imagine the horror, misery and despair of these woman facing one operation without surgery, much less multiple ones.
mirhanda 27th-Aug-2012 08:03 pm (UTC)
Back then though, a lot of "new things" were scorned by doctors. Look how long it took Lister to get serious consideration for handwashing!
metatrix 27th-Aug-2012 08:15 pm (UTC)
lol, the sad thing is that 150 years after Lister, we still don't wash our hands. :(
mirhanda 27th-Aug-2012 08:16 pm (UTC)
Seriously.

Every time I go to a public restroom I see those people who just walk out or do that "pretend to wash by dabbing a bit of water on my hands for a couple of seconds" thing that is the same as not even bothering to wash at all. So gross.
sankaku_atama Somewhat OT:28th-Aug-2012 01:37 am (UTC)
Heh. Ignaz Semmelweis had a similar issue with doctors of the time who would work on cadavers and then go right to working with expectant mothers. Their rejection of his theories on hand washing came up with the term Semmelweis Reflex.

Yay vaguely useful knowledge! :D
moonbrightnites 27th-Aug-2012 08:25 pm (UTC)
This.
JFC.
ms_maree 27th-Aug-2012 10:53 pm (UTC)
But I didn't think anesthesia came into wide practice until the 1860s? ETA: I have no idea, ignore me, for some reason that stuck in my head from an article I read a few weeks back.

Edited at 2012-08-27 11:19 pm (UTC)
kitanabychoice 27th-Aug-2012 07:05 pm (UTC)
So basically he accomplished a few medical advances using shitty means and history has, as it should, not responded well to the shitty means. I really don't think this guy needs his reputation cleared. You can discuss the benefits of his research results without condoning the appalling way he conducted said research.

I am horrified that all of those women underwent surgery without any available anesthetics. That's just... beyond cruel. But pretty indicative of how pervasive the idea was that blacks were not human.
akashasheiress 27th-Aug-2012 07:17 pm (UTC)
I dislike how the article seems to present this as an either-or issue. The useful stuff that he came up with should naturally be used, but that doesn't excuse what he did. It's like saying that the fact that a lot of our current technology was developed during wars means that war is a good thing.
mirhanda 27th-Aug-2012 08:04 pm (UTC)
THIS. Perfectly stated.
ladypolitik 27th-Aug-2012 08:53 pm (UTC)
Exactly.
ebay313 28th-Aug-2012 11:35 am (UTC)
Is anyone actually arguing that the treatments based on his work that currently are helping people not be used? Because I didn't notice that in the article. It seemed mostly to be simply an issue of history and whether or not folks admit to the horrible shit he did.
akashasheiress 28th-Aug-2012 02:41 pm (UTC)
I was referring to the implications that if the results of his experiments were useful, then his methods were justified and he should be honoured, rather than just accepting that while the discoveries he made were good, his methods were awful.
beoweasel 27th-Aug-2012 07:18 pm (UTC)
I think he should be treated as an object lesson. On one hand, we should celebrate his accomplishment as it helped advanced medical science and women's health (Which has been for centuries poorly understood and poorly treated.).

However, we should temper that celebration, as Sims used inhumane methods to obtain that success, and while it was a success, it's still tainted by human experimentation.

So basically, while he did good for society, he still committed wrong to the individual.
layweed 27th-Aug-2012 07:40 pm (UTC)
I don't get what the problem is. People who make amazing discoveries or invent new medical procedures or industrial processes aren't always nice people! Fritz Haber, who developed the Haber process, was also the father of chemical warfare for the Germans in WW1. Johannes Stark who discovered the Stark Effect was a Nazi and had anti-Semitic beliefs about science/scientists. You don't have to be like, "HEY THAT GUY WAS REALLY AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!" Recognize that he made important contributions to science but recognize he was an awful human being. It's not mutually exclusive.
korppi_ravn 27th-Aug-2012 08:03 pm (UTC)
ia
akashasheiress 28th-Aug-2012 02:44 pm (UTC)
Exactly. The article almost seems to suggest that if we admit that the inventions/discoveries were good, then we automatically have to excuse everything that was done to achieve it.
mingemonster 27th-Aug-2012 08:23 pm (UTC)
Medical history is just full of assholes. What he did ended up being useful in the end, but treating him like a hero is so disrespectful to his victims and other victims like them.
rebness 27th-Aug-2012 09:13 pm (UTC)
As others have pointed out, the article is flawed in giving us either/or reasoning. The man was an arsehole, but to refuse to use the medical advances he gave us would be absurd. We don't have to lionise him.

It reminds me of the ethical dilemma facing doctors and scientists today when it comes to medical knowledge from Nazi experimentation, particulary with regard to the human body's reaction to freezing.
carmy_w 27th-Aug-2012 10:23 pm (UTC)
Yes, my first thought was about that article last week on that subject.
akashasheiress 28th-Aug-2012 02:48 pm (UTC)
I honestly feel that not using knowledge that can save lives would be immoral. Not using it won't do the victims of the experiments any good.
kishmet 27th-Aug-2012 10:04 pm (UTC)
Like other people have said, we don't need to paint this guy as a saint in order to use the knowledge he gained via some horrible, inhumane methods

tbh I think the best course of action would be a) not to sugar coat the history involved here and b) to publicly acknowledge the women who suffered at his hands as human beings, basically, and maybe do some of these good works in their names instead of his
ms_maree 27th-Aug-2012 10:49 pm (UTC)
all underwent multiple procedures without anesthesia


That's nasty...but I don't think they had anesthesia then.

Edited at 2012-08-27 10:49 pm (UTC)
pandaseal 27th-Aug-2012 11:04 pm (UTC)
Umm, it says right in the article that they did, but he made other injured slave women hold other women down. Let's not try to diminish the horror of what he did. The common thought around that time said that Black people didn't feel pain like white people and didn't need to have it alleviated.

I've done quite a bit of reading on Sims and although his techniques shouldn't be scrapped, it is very important that we acknowledge the way this knowledge was gained.
ms_maree 27th-Aug-2012 11:07 pm (UTC)
Oh sorry, I read an article about anesthesia at the doctors surgy a few weeks ago and for some reason I was sure it said it wasn't introduced until then (ETA, the 1860s) (I probably got the decade wrong), and then it took another twenty years or so for doctors to trust it.

Edited at 2012-08-27 11:07 pm (UTC)
pandaseal 27th-Aug-2012 11:20 pm (UTC)
It's cool. Part of the issue is that Western medicine was slow to jump on the anesthesia train for various reasons.
sephystabbity 28th-Aug-2012 01:06 am (UTC)
Yeah fuck no. I'm not going to start hailing this dick to the seven heavens just because what he discovered has become useful now. That's bull tbh.
ebay313 28th-Aug-2012 11:41 am (UTC)
"a blessing and a benefactor to women."

This saying, even if one didn't know the background, is rubbing me the wrong way. Something about celebrating a man being a "blessing to women". Particularly given that as this time in history, weren't women basically denied the education to advance our own healthcare needs? It just seems like celebrating a situation in which women were forced to be dependent on men, and glamorizing it because some men were nice to women. Women don't need rights and education when we have such great benefactors!

"One of Sims's strongest defenders these days would have to be Dr. L. Lewis Wall . . . He"

What a shock, one of his strongest defenders is a man. Could not have seen that one coming!
This page was loaded May 25th 2013, 11:51 am GMT.