Hypatia - Again

[timoneill]

It seems my post on the myth of Hypatia and the movie Agora will never die. We now have a fanatic who seems determined to proclaim her as a a martyr for ... something or other ... simply by posting about ten comments a day.

[krkey1]

Listen. Hypatia was hot, smart and a Pagan. She was killed by Christians. Therefore she is a martyr. Did I mention she was hot?

[acornuser]

Oh dear. That must be pretty time consuming. However, the assertion your guest makes that there are "no historical inaccuracies in the film" should be sufficient to discredit them. Where do you want to start?

(looking forward to your post of the Francis/Carrier thing too)

[wraggy]

Mr. O'Neill, have you ever considered a Ph.D?

Or are you too busy with your profession to consider that?

[humphreyclarke]

This comments thread is the best thing I have ever read. Seriously though, I think the only thing you can do with these people is insult them until they bugger off. They just won't listen to rational argument.

[perplexedseeker]

Speaking of Andrew Dickinson White, the anaesthesia myth lives again!

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8480641.stm

In the context of bizarre arguments about whether or not women should be allowed to concieve children using artificial insemination at any age, regardless of their health. Apparently, opposition to this will one day be considered just as irrational as the fictional opposition to chloroform.

[humphreyclarke]

Oh jeeze:

"In the 1840s, the use of anaesthesia in childbirth was strongly opposed by clergy in the Church of England Even some clinicians believed it was going against God's will that women should "in sorrow, bring forth children" as punishment for Eve's sin And some thought it caused women to become sexually aroused during labour"

I'm going to complain and see what response I get.

Ok, I wrote:

Dear Sir or Madam

This article by Daniel Sokol contains the phrase:

'In the 1840s, the use of anaesthesia in childbirth was strongly opposed by clergy in the Church of England'

This is a myth with no basis in fact which nonetheless frequently appears in medical textbooks.

In 1846 James Simpson, a Scottish physician promoted the use of chloroform to relieve pain during childbirth. Straight after his famous experiment was performed at his house in the old town of Edinburgh, Simpson did indeed prepare a theological defense entitled ‘In Answer to the Religious Arguments advanced Against the Employment of Anaesthetic Agents in Midwifery and Surgery (1847). But the attack never materialized; not even the slightest hint of opposition occurred. In the pamphlet he mentions that the leading obstetrician in Dublin had publicly denounced his work for religious reasons. Having read this, the man involved, Dr. Montgomery, in a letter of 27th December 1848 to Simpson, expressed his “astonishment” that Simpson had accepted “hearsay” and had, “taken the trouble of writing a formal reply to arguments which never were made use of by me. I never advocated or locum tenanced either in public or in private the so called ‘religious objection’ to anaesthesia in labour, ...” .In a later article he wrote, “I attach no value to what are called the ‘religious objections’ to the use of this remedy” In a letter to Dr. Protheroe Smith, Simpson reported that following the publication of his pamphlet, he had received communications from some of the best theologians ‘...of all churches, ... Presbyterian, Independent, Episcopalian, and Protheroe’s own Anglican Church, approving of the view I had taken’.

A. D. Farr, a medical historian has methodically searched through a vast body of literature from the 1840s and 1850s, where modern anesthesia during childbirth was first introduced, and found that the idea there was religious opposition to the introduction of childbirth anesthesia was a figment of later propaganda. As A.D Farr’s analysis has shown, prominent leaders from across the established religious spectrum – including Rev. Thomas Chalmers (Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland),and Rabbi Abraham De Sola (Canada's first Rabbi) - were in written agreement with anesthesia. Most clergy, theologians, and religious physicians approved the whiff of painkiller. A few clergy feared that Satan was behind pain relief, but Chalmers described these dissenters as ‘small theologians’ and advised that they should be ignored. Why did Simpson take it upon himself to write the tract in the first place?. The reason was probably that he was deeply religious and, acting on hearsay, decided to ally the fears of his peers.

In a letter to a colleague in 1848, only a year after his theological defence was written, Simpson commented:

‘all religious opposition to chloroform has entirely ceased among us, if we except an occasional remark on the point from some caustic old maid whose prospects of using chloroform are for ever passed, or a sneer from some antiquated lady who grieves and grudges that her daughters should not suffer as their mother was obliged to suffer before them.’

The story that Simpson's the use of anaesthesia in childbirth was strongly opposed by the clergy originates from the now infamous Andrew Dickson White, a nineteenth century figure now something of a running joke among historians of science.

I would be grateful if you could bring this to Mr Sokol's attention

Kind regards

Humphrey Clarke

[perplexedseeker]

Just thinking, you really should include some references in that email showing where you got this from.

[humphreyclarke]

Ah well, too late. It's all in A.D Farr's 'Religious opposition to obstetric anaesthesia: A Myth?' which is available for free online. Should have put the link in.

[timoneill]

Jan 26, 2010 7:32:26 GMT humphreyclarke said:

This comments thread is the best thing I have ever read. Seriously though, I think the only thing you can do with these people is insult them until they bugger off. They just won't listen to rational argument.

Fool that I am, I think I'll at least try to continue with logical argument. Except "Caturo" just responded with a barrage of comments and I'm far too tired from a long hard day to even begin to tackle them.

Anyone else can wade in as they see fit.

[humphreyclarke]

Oh jeeze this argument is STILL going. This person is nuts.

[wraggy]

Anyone who has seen the movie "Fatal Attraction" will know that it is now time for Tim to lock up his pets.

If you need a reminder.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZmbXN_pcjI

[wraggy]

On the Subject of Hypatia. Is Maria Dzielska the starting point for any serious reading on this topic?

[humphreyclarke]

Still going

armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html?showComment=1266610772926#comment-c3447871961389903775

Luckily Tim's blog has got a 'recent comments' section now so I can keep track of these arguments.

Any chance we can get one on Quodlibeta ? I keep coming across abuse/constructive comments I have missed.