[Private charity - public health service. Comparison between British and German birthing centers of the 18th century].

Abstract

In the eighteenth century, lying-in hospitals were founded in many European towns and cities. The way in which these institutions were financed differed greatly across Europe. In the UK, most of them were "charities" and relied on donations from wealthy benefactors, whereas on the continent they were usually funded by "public" money, be it from the state or local communities. The paper focuses on British charities and German hospitals, and explores the corollaries of the mode of financing. In the eighteenth century, a market emerged in Britain where numerous charities with different aims competed for donations from the well-to-do. For attracting benefactors, a charity had to convince potential donors that its clientele and purpose were particularly deserving, and that it used the money donated in a cost-efficient way. In Germany, it was mainly bureaucrats and governments who had to be persuaded, but public opinion did matter as well. In British lying-in charities, the main donors acted as governors, and benefactors could recommend persons for being admitted. In publicly funded German hospitals, the medical directors had much more power. In the competitive market, in which British charities acted, out-patient dispensaries (policlinics) became increasingly important, since they could argue that they were more cost-efficient and had lower mortality. In Germany, however, hospitals remained the dominant type of assistance in this field, in spite of the criticism they received. The different sources of finance appear to have been one of the reasons for this divergence. Teaching was the main purpose of most German lying-in hospitals. They either trained medical students or midwife apprentices or both. Since the patients served as teaching objects, all women were welcomed, and in fact most patients were single mothers. By contrast, most of the British institutions admitted only married women, because donors did not wish to encourage immorality. The charities staged the relation between donors and patients as a personal patron-client bond.