Schlumbohm Jürgen
Bull Hist Med. 2013 Spring;87(1):1-31. doi: 10.1353/bhm.2013.0013.
Medical men, turning to midwifery in the eighteenth century, claimed that they were able to save the lives of mothers and children, jeopardized by "ignorant" midwives. Consequentially, modern scholars have tried to assess the progress of obstetrics and the merits of lying-in hospitals on the basis of maternal and, more rarely, perinatal mortality rates. The data and methodological problems involved, however, have been largely ignored. Here they are discussed in the light of a micro-study based on detailed archival evidence from Göttingen University's lying-in hospital, founded in 1751. Its mortality data are analyzed in comparison to those from other German and some foreign maternity hospitals. In a further step, perinatal and maternal mortality in hospitals is compared to that in normal home deliveries, attended by female midwives. By linking the findings to the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century debates about the pros and cons of lying-in hospitals, further questions are raised.
18世纪,医学界人士涉足助产领域,宣称他们能够挽救那些因“无知”助产士而生命垂危的母婴。相应地,现代学者试图根据孕产妇死亡率,以及更罕见的围产期死亡率,来评估产科的发展和产科医院的优点。然而,其中涉及的数据和方法问题在很大程度上被忽视了。在此,我们将根据一项微观研究来进行讨论,该研究基于1751年成立的哥廷根大学产科医院的详细档案证据。将其死亡率数据与其他德国产科医院以及一些外国产科医院的数据进行对比分析。进一步地,将医院中的围产期和孕产妇死亡率与由女性助产士接生的正常家庭分娩的死亡率进行比较。通过将这些研究结果与18世纪和19世纪关于产科医院利弊的争论联系起来,又引发了更多问题。