226 



is perhaps too early in the history of the remedy, to theorize satis- 

 factorily or explain clearly the mode, in which all its peculiar effects 

 are induced : nor is this knowledge at all important in deciding the 

 practical questions, to which our attention will be confined in this 

 report. 



In discussing the propriety of the administration of angesthetic 

 agents in the practice of midwifery, we are met at the very thresh- 

 old, by the objection that labour is a physiological, a natural pro- 

 cess — that it is a law of nature, a part of the primeval curse, that 

 pain should be endured in completing this process, and that, there- 

 fore, we are precluded from interfering in ordinary cases by any 

 attempts to alleviate the sufferings of parturition. Your committee 

 attach so little importance to this objection — they think it is founded 

 on so narrow a view of the duties of our profession, that they 

 should have passed it by as not meriting consideration or reply if it 

 had not been seriously urged, as they understand by physicians in 

 this country, whose opinions they are bound to respect. But it 

 seems to us that a moment's consideration is sufficient to demon- 

 strate its utter absurdity and futility : for the same line of argu- 

 ment, if carried out to its legitimate results, would preclude the use 

 of any artificial assistance whatever, in cases of natural labour. 

 We could not bleed a patient, or give a grain of tartar emetic, or 

 use the extract of belladonna, to promote relaxation. We could 

 not, upon this principle, even prescribe a dose of ergot or of borax, 

 to increase the expulsive power of the uterus. No ! our duties, in 

 affording relief to the sufferings and trials of humanity, are not to 

 be bounded by such contracted and unfounded notions as these. 

 Wherever there is pain to be endured or distress to be encountered, 

 there should we be to administer the remedy, if it can be found, and 

 can be administered safely. 



We hold it, therefore, to be too plain for argument, that the only 

 questions to be asked are these. 1st. Is etherization efficient in re- 

 lieving the pains of child-birth? and 2d. Is it safe? These being 

 answered in the affirmative, if they can be, it follows as a matter of 

 course, that there can be no doubt as to the propriety and duty of 

 resorting to its employment. 



As to the first question, the efficiency of ether or chloroform in 

 relieving partially or wholly the pains of parturition, there is, we 

 presume, but one opinion, and it therefore need not detain us. The 

 question of the safety of so potent an article, is one of much greater 

 difficulty of solution, and being still involved in great uncertainty, 

 in the opinion at least of many honoured members of the profession, 

 your committee approach its discussion with unfeigned diffidence. 



