History of anesthesia: examining 19th century religious objections to obstetric anesthesia and James Young Simpson's rebuttal.

Q3 Medicine
Nathaniel B Hunter, Russell K McAllister
{"title":"History of anesthesia: examining 19th century religious objections to obstetric anesthesia and James Young Simpson's rebuttal.","authors":"Nathaniel B Hunter, Russell K McAllister","doi":"10.1080/08998280.2026.2747572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>James Young Simpson's 1847 introduction of chloroform to obstetric practice is popularly remembered as a battle between science and religion, with Simpson portrayed as valiantly confronting a hostile clergy over the \"curse of Eve.\" A closer examination of contemporaneous sources reveals limited clerical opposition, with the most explicit theological objections coming from physicians rather than the pulpit, and prominent religious leaders of the day either in agreement with Simpson or remaining silent on the matter. Not until nearly 50 years later, with Andrew Dickson White's popular polemic, did the science-versus-religion narrative become dominant. A closer reading of Simpson's own 1847 pamphlet, meanwhile, reveals the sophistication of his theological arguments, which draw on extensive biblical exegesis and Hebrew philology to demonstrate that obstetric anesthesia did not violate divine command. Recovering the true history of this episode restores Simpson's identity as a genuine polymath of his age and cautions against the temptation to let convenient myths stand in for the historical record.</p>","PeriodicalId":8828,"journal":{"name":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2026.2747572","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

James Young Simpson's 1847 introduction of chloroform to obstetric practice is popularly remembered as a battle between science and religion, with Simpson portrayed as valiantly confronting a hostile clergy over the "curse of Eve." A closer examination of contemporaneous sources reveals limited clerical opposition, with the most explicit theological objections coming from physicians rather than the pulpit, and prominent religious leaders of the day either in agreement with Simpson or remaining silent on the matter. Not until nearly 50 years later, with Andrew Dickson White's popular polemic, did the science-versus-religion narrative become dominant. A closer reading of Simpson's own 1847 pamphlet, meanwhile, reveals the sophistication of his theological arguments, which draw on extensive biblical exegesis and Hebrew philology to demonstrate that obstetric anesthesia did not violate divine command. Recovering the true history of this episode restores Simpson's identity as a genuine polymath of his age and cautions against the temptation to let convenient myths stand in for the historical record.

麻醉史:考察19世纪宗教对产科麻醉的反对和詹姆斯·杨·辛普森的反驳。
詹姆斯·杨·辛普森(James Young Simpson) 1847年将氯仿引入产科实践,人们普遍认为这是一场科学与宗教之间的斗争,辛普森被描绘成勇敢地对抗敌对的神职人员,反对“夏娃的诅咒”。对当时资料的仔细研究表明,神职人员的反对意见有限,最明确的神学反对意见来自医生而不是讲坛,当时杰出的宗教领袖要么同意辛普森的观点,要么对此事保持沉默。直到近50年后,随着安德鲁·迪克森·怀特(Andrew Dickson White)的流行论战,科学与宗教的叙事才占据主导地位。与此同时,仔细阅读辛普森自己1847年出版的小册子,就会发现他的神学论点是复杂的,他利用了大量的圣经注释和希伯来文献学来证明产科麻醉并没有违反神的命令。还原这一集的真实历史,恢复了辛普森作为他那个时代真正的博学者的身份,并提醒人们不要让方便的神话代替历史记录。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
245
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书