DISCUSSION 65 



about the families of the women who were confined by the staff of 

 the hospital in 1909. Of 6,157 families, the hospital's report says that 

 the husband was unemployed in 1,781, or 29 per cent., when the child 

 came. In three families the husband was earning $2.00 a week; in 

 forty-one families, $3.00 a week; and in two hundred and ninety-two 

 families, $5.00 a week. Seventy-six per cent, of the entire number 

 of employed husbands were earning $10.00 or less, and only 5 per 

 cent, of the 6,157 fathers were bringing home as much as $15.00 a 

 week at the time the child was born! And an investigation showed 

 that among 2,664 families there were only 556, or about one-fifth, in 

 which a child had reached the legal working age of fourteen. 



These facts bring me to my question. I have frequently asked it 

 in private, and I am especially glad to ask it here openly, because I 

 see that Dr. Frankel is in the room. In his book on "Workingmen's 

 Insurance in Europe," recently published by the Sage Foundation, 

 Dr. Frankel devotes a brief, but interesting, chapter to Maternity 

 Insurance. Somewhere in the book (p. 409) he explains that the 

 scheme has worked so well that there is an active demand to ex- 

 tend the present insurance protection from the six weeks now pro- 

 vided to eight weeks so that the mother may be relieved of anxiety 

 and have proper care two weeks before the birth of her child as well 

 as six weeks thereafter. But at the end of his chapter on Maternity 

 Insurance, Dr. Frankel declares that in America there is no crying 

 reason for insurance of this type, because (I can only give his ap- 

 proximate language, but I am certain that I have the sense of it 

 right) "American husbands as a rule support their wives adequately." 

 In the light of the facts I have cited, I am curious to know the 

 ground of Dr. Frankel's statement. 



Dr. Lee K. Frankel, New York: Mr. Bruere has evidently read 

 my book more carefully than I have. I do not remember saying 

 ihose things. At all events, what I meant to say was that my objec- 

 tion to a system of maternity insurance is this: that I object to mar- 

 ried women working. I think the average woman who is a mother 

 is doing her full duty by the community when she takes care of her 

 child and when she brings it into the world. We must readjust 9ur 

 economic conditions so that the husband will have a wage earning 

 power to support the other members of the family. The system as 

 developed in Germany and as beginning to develop in Italy is a 

 very different problem. There they have to consider the problem of 

 the illegitimate child. An attempt has been made there to provide 

 a scheme by which the woman will be able to stop work during the 

 last few months of her pregnancy and not be compelled to go to 

 work immediately after the birth of her baby. That is what I meant 

 to say. 



Dr. Leonard D. Frescoln, Assistant Chief Resident Physician, 

 Philadelphia General Hospital: Inasmuch as my city has not been 

 mentioned in connection with this work, I thought it my duty and 

 also thought that it would be of interest to you to tell you that the 

 Department of Health and Charities, under the efficient head of Di- 

 rector Neff, is carrying out this work of interesting other societies, 

 this harmonious work of which Dr. Hart spoke. The Philadelphia 

 General Hospital is in direct communication with these societies and 

 through them we hear of the foundlings and information concern- 

 ing them that the various societies can get hold of, and we take up 

 the matter and see what we can do for them. We try to furnish wet 

 nurses. In this matter of furnishing wet nurses, it seems to be gen- 

 erally understood by the profession in Philadelphia that when such 



