Medical Women: Two Essays

In Short

Sophia Jex-Blake’s Medical Women: Two Essays collects two pivotal papers from 1872 detailing the battle to open the medical profession to women in Great Britain. The first essay builds a historical and logical foundation for female practitioners, while the second chronicles the turbulent attempt by female students to obtain medical degrees at the University of Edinburgh. Interweaving legal arguments, historical precedents, and primary documents, the volume captures a watershed moment in women's higher education. It endures as a primary testament to institutional prejudice and the courageous struggle for equality in medical instruction.

The Story

The argument unfolds across two distinct yet connected essays. In "Medicine as a Profession for Women," the text traces the historical role of women in healing, noting that midwives once held honored positions in royal courts and foreign societies before being displaced by male practitioners who monopolized university learning. It asserts that the suitability of women for medical practice cannot be settled by arbitrary exclusion; it must be tested by open competition and examinations. The work dismantles common objections, addressing claims about women's physical capacity, social delicacy, and a lack of public demand. It demonstrates that many female patients endure preventable suffering because they shrink from male examination, establishing a clear need for qualified female doctors. The argument highlights that while foreign universities in France and Switzerland admit women, the British Medical Act of 1858 effectively bars them by requiring registration tied strictly to British degrees, which domestic institutions refuse to grant.

The second essay, "Medical Education of Women," shifts from broad principles to a detailed account of the campaign at the University of Edinburgh. It documents how female students initially secured matriculation in 1869 under explicit regulations allowing them to attend separate classes. However, as the women advanced toward their degrees, institutional opposition intensified. Medical professors refused to teach the required courses or allow alternative arrangements. The narrative exposes administrative bad faith, detailing how academic honors were withheld—such as the denial of the Hope Scholarship to Edith Pechey despite her top examination marks—and how anti-inclusion managers were voted onto the Infirmary board to block hospital training.

The resistance culminated in public hostility, including the infamous riot where hundreds of male students physically obstructed female candidates from entering the Infirmary examination hall. Despite receiving support from fair-minded male peers, the Lord Provost, and favorable legal opinions confirming their statutory rights, the women faced persistent delaying tactics from the Senatus Academicus and University Court. The volume ends amid ongoing legal struggle, with the University offering mere "Certificates of Proficiency" rather than recognized medical degrees. The text remains an unyielding assertion of the legal and moral right of women to full professional qualification.

How It Unfolds

The historical precedent Women historically managed childbirth and healthcare with distinction across royal courts and continental Europe, proving that their current exclusion from medical practice stems from modern institutional monopolies rather than natural incapacity.

The legal barrier The Medical Act of 1858 restricts legal practice to registered holders of British degrees, effectively trapping women in an artificial blockade when British universities systematically deny them entry and examination.

The Edinburgh compromise The University Court formally resolves in 1869 to admit women to medical study through separate classes, leading five women to matriculate, pass preliminary exams, and pay academic fees as registered students.

The academic betrayal When Edith Pechey achieves the top score among first-year chemistry students, the professor denies her the earned Hope Scholarship on the technicality that separate classes place women outside the official university competition.

The street blockade Hostile faculty members incite male students to riot at the Surgeons' Hall, physically barring the seven female candidates from entering their examination, while supportive classmates form a guard of honour to shield them.

The administrative dead-lock The University Court reneges on its implied commitment to allow graduation, offering useless certificates instead of degrees and forcing the women to pursue legal action against recalcitrant professors.

The People

• Sophia Jex-Blake: The dedicated author and lead student campaigner who organizes the matriculating women, petitions university authorities, handles legal correspondence, and refuses to settle for non-qualifying certificates of proficiency.
• Dr. Lucy Sewall: A respected physician in Boston under whom Jex-Blake studied, serving as living proof that rigorous scientific training can coexist with personal refinement and high medical skill.
• Edith Pechey: A brilliant medical student who earns top marks in chemistry but is denied the prestigious Hope Scholarship by university authorities simply because of her sex.
• Dr. Robert Christison: A prominent medical professor and leading opponent of female students at Edinburgh, who uses his personal influence to block required classes while publicly offering hollow expressions of sympathy.
• Mrs. Nichol: An esteemed Edinburgh elder who steps forward at a public meeting of Infirmary contributors to challenge the moral and scientific fitness of male students who oppose female colleagues.

In Its Own Voice

"The proper sphere for all human beings is the largest and highest which they are able to attain to."

This quote from Mrs. J. S. Mill frames the opening essay's insistence that individual capacity must be tested by free choice rather than limited by arbitrary rules.

"To make women attend a separate class, for which they have to pay, we believe, much higher fees than usual, and then argue that they are out of the pale of competition because they do so, is, indeed, too like the captious schoolmaster who first sent a boy into the corner and then whipped him for not being in his seat."

A contemporary newspaper commentary highlights the glaring unfairness of withholding academic scholarships from female students who excel in separate courses.

"If the students studying at present in the Infirmary cannot contemplate with equanimity the presence of ladies as fellow-students, how is it possible that they can possess either the scientific spirit or the personal purity of mind which alone would justify their presence in the female wards...?"

An elder citizen challenges the public at a meeting of Infirmary contributors, questioning the character of male students who violently protest female colleagues.

What It's Really About

The text examines how institutional power and economic protectionism hide behind arguments about propriety and natural spheres. It argues that true science is inherently pure and impersonal, making claims of modesty invalid when used to deny women medical education. The narrative highlights the contradiction of a legal system that requires registration for medical practice while allowing universities to deny women the degrees needed to register. Beyond access to education, the work defends a woman's right to choose the sex of her physician, presenting female medical training as a vital necessity for public health and personal dignity.

Why Read It Today

This collection provides a vivid, firsthand look at the institutional barriers faced by nineteenth-century reformers. Readers interested in social history, civil rights, and legal strategy will appreciate the text's sharp prose, documented evidence, and clear arguments.

The writing is direct and accessible, though readers must navigate period formatting, including extensive legal queries, administrative resolutions, and reprinted news items. The volume relies on real documentation—such as court rulings, university minutes, and newspaper excerpts—to show the stark contrast between official rhetoric and everyday discrimination. It captures both the indignity of the Surgeons' Hall riot and the steady resolve of the women who refused to back down. The book stands as an inspiring record of perseverance, detailing the initial steps toward open access in higher education.