New York removes statue of a surgeon who experimented on enslaved women

[SummerMadness]

New York removes statue of a surgeon who experimented on enslaved women

For decades, a statue of a doctor who performed painful surgeries on enslaved black women without anesthesia stood in Central Park, across from the New York Academy of Medicine.

On Tuesday, that statue came down, while onlookers stood by and cheered.

Sims conducted much of his research on slaves who were rarely given anesthesia. Three women, slaves named Lucy, Anarcha, and Betsey, are known subjects of Sims’s work; other women’s names have been lost to history. As debates about Confederate monuments raged last year, academics and activists intensified their calls for Sims’s legacy to be revisited, noting that his work raises serious ethical questions about experimenting on women who could never truly consent.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Too bad. People can't see past their racial animosity enough to look at things in historical context. "He rarely used anesthesia, what a monster!" Um, yeah, that was the MO for doctors back then. During the Civil War, in which hundreds of thousands of white Northerners -- some as young as twelve --died to free black people they would never know, a common form of anesthesia was a shot or two of brandy before the doctor used a hack saw to remove a leg mutilated by a cannonball. Without antibiotics, it was the standard way of preventing death by gangrene, where your own limbs rotted and fell off your body. By modern standards, most medicine from the era was crude, painful, and somewhat horrifying. That Sims' work was typical of the time and was a primitive form of the clinical trial does not matter. Nor does the countless lives saved and cures performed because of it. The only thing that matters is that the participants in what were, for the times, clinical trials, were members of modern progressive nobility -- a marginalized class. A white man caused physical pain for women of politically preferred pigmentation. That is the only thing that matters to the progressives and their ilk at Vox.

 

[durangodawood]

Too bad. People can't see past their racial animosity enough to look at things in historical context. "He rarely used anesthesia, what a monster!" Um, yeah, that was the MO for doctors back then. During the Civil War, in which hundreds of thousands of white Northerners -- some as young as twelve --died to free black people they would never know, a common form of anesthesia was a shot or two of brandy before the doctor used a hack saw to remove a leg mutilated by a cannonball. Without antibiotics, it was the standard way of preventing death by gangrene, where your own limbs rotted and fell off your body. By modern standards, most medicine from the era was crude, painful, and somewhat horrifying. That Sims' work was typical of the time and was a primitive form of the clinical trial does not matter. Nor does the countless lives saved and cures performed because of it. The only thing that matters is that the participants in what were, for the times, clinical trials, were members of modern progressive nobility -- a marginalized class. A white man caused physical pain for women of politically preferred pigmentation. That is the only thing that matters to the progressives and their ilk at Vox.

"experimented on enslaved women"

No biggie, right?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The anesthesia angle seems a bit weird. Apparently these operations took place from 1846-49, modern anesthesia was in an absolute infancy at this point. In fact from what I gather, the term "anesthesia" was only coined in 1846

Anesthesia - Wikipedia

 

[durangodawood]

The anesthesia angle seems a bit weird. Apparently these operations took place from 1846-49, modern anesthesia was in an absolute infancy at this point. In fact from what I gather, the term "anesthesia" was only coined in 1846

Anesthesia - Wikipedia

Well it makes the experimenting part even more consequential, assuming he didnt have consent.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Well it makes the experimenting part even more consequential, assuming he didnt have consent.

No idea about all of them, but those named in the article apparently did - from Summer's link

GAMBLE: It was very painful, and he talks about how Lucy, one of the three women, almost felt as if she were going to die, that she cried out in pain so much because of these surgeries. But at the same time, he writes that the women wanted the surgery because they did not want to have the condition anymore.

Ultimately we'll never know if all consented, and to what level that consent was. It also doesn't hurt to show some additional history regardless. I just found the play up on anesthesia strange. Perhaps some people don't realise just how "modern" modern medicine is.

 

[SummerMadness]

Ultimately we'll never know if all consented, and to what level that consent was. It also doesn't hurt to show some additional history regardless. I just found the play up on anesthesia strange. Perhaps some people don't realise just how "modern" modern medicine is.

They couldn't have consented because they were enslaved, but I agree, we should always know history and understand where things came from. However, I think some people ignorantly believe that a statue somehow erases history as if not glorifying someone with a monument means that we can't know history.

 

[MehGuy]

Wasn't there a crude form of anesthesia back then? Regardless, some people back then had the strange idea that black people were more pain tolerant than whites. Not sure if they just told themselves that to feel better about themselves regarding the physical abuse they put blacks through though. Regardless, having a statue for him, is not too far from having a statue honoring Joseph Mengele or something.. maybe not quite as a sadistic.. but probably not someone worth honoring nevertheless.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

New York removes statue of a surgeon who experimented on enslaved women

They couldn't have consented because they were enslaved, but I agree, we should always know history and understand where things came from. However, I think some people ignorantly believe that a statue somehow erases history as if not glorifying someone with a monument means that we can't know history.

I agree on the removal of the statue because I don't think a man like that should be remembered and commemorated with a statue in his honor. I think it was a wise decision to remove the statue.

 

[KarateCowboy]

No idea about all of them, but those named in the article apparently did - from Summer's link



Ultimately we'll never know if all consented, and to what level that consent was. It also doesn't hurt to show some additional history regardless. I just found the play up on anesthesia strange. Perhaps some people don't realise just how "modern" modern medicine is.

Yah that's the thing. While technically masters owned their slaves, human relationships are far more complex than that. Establishment of unwritten rules, or even setting personal boundaries explicitly and then honoring them, has occurred throughout history between master and slave. I tend to think that masters who did so to begin with held in their hearts the seeds which, fertilized by the mutual honoring and respect between master and slave, would eventually bloom into the spirit of abolition.

 

[SummerMadness]

Yah that's the thing. While technically masters owned their slaves, human relationships are far more complex than that. Establishment of unwritten rules, or even setting personal boundaries explicitly and then honoring them, has occurred throughout history between master and slave. I tend to think that masters who did so to begin with held in their hearts the seeds which, fertilized by the mutual honoring and respect between master and slave, would eventually bloom into the spirit of abolition.

Ah, the revisionist history of good natured chattel slavery. Solomon Northup certainly gave a better assessment of the times, being a "kind and benevolent" master was not going to cause the abolition of slavery.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wasn't there a crude form of anesthesia back then? Regardless, some people back then had the strange idea that black people were more pain tolerant than whites. Not sure if they just told themselves that to feel better about themselves regarding the physical abuse they put blacks through though. Regardless, having a statue for him, is not too far from having a statue honoring Joseph Mengele or something.. maybe not quite as a sadistic.. but probably not someone worth honoring nevertheless.

Is it? He's known as the father of modern gynecology. He wasn't experimenting on healthy women...he was treating women with severe and often life damaging conditions.

Yeah, they were slave women. Apparently, when modern medicine was in it's infancy, performing medical experiments and furthering research was very difficult due to taboos of the time. It wasn't uncommon for doctors to pay grave robbers for corpses. Many people wouldn't even see a dr...instead preferring con artists and swindlers for cheap "cures".

Much of modern medicine was built upon the shoulders of men like this. Mengele on the other hand...mostly tortured people under the guise of science.

 

[MehGuy]

Is it? He's known as the father of modern gynecology. He wasn't experimenting on healthy women...he was treating women with severe and often life damaging conditions.

Yeah, they were slave women. Apparently, when modern medicine was in it's infancy, performing medical experiments and furthering research was very difficult due to taboos of the time. It wasn't uncommon for doctors to pay grave robbers for corpses. Many people wouldn't even see a dr...instead preferring con artists and swindlers for cheap "cures".

Much of modern medicine was built upon the shoulders of men like this. Mengele on the other hand...mostly tortured people under the guise of science.

Yeah, maybe it's a little extreme to compare him to Mengele lol. Still, the idea of someone performing medical experiments of people who can't say no doesn't sit well with me, and wouldn't be very happy seeing a statue celebrating such a man.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, maybe it's a little extreme to compare him to Mengele lol. Still, the idea of someone performing medical experiments of people who can't say no doesn't sit well with me, and wouldn't be very happy seeing a statue celebrating such a man.

Even if he's doing those experiments to fix a condition they have and improve their quality of life?

Lets think about this logically....

If it's always wrong to perform surgical procedures on a slave...how does a slave get surgical help?

 

[MehGuy]

Even if he's doing those experiments to fix a condition they have and improve their quality of life?

Lets think about this logically....

If it's always wrong to perform surgical procedures on a slave...how does a slave get surgical help?

I don't think it's always wrong. Although the question of if the slaves willingly wanted the surgery is always going to be very questionable. Given if the slaves were even told the surgery was experimental , I don't see too many of them being very trusting of having such a procedure being done to them by a white man. A race that's already ill treated them. That's why regardless if the guy had good intentions or not, I don't think it's appropriate to have a statue honoring him. He's dead, his ego boost doesn't matter. What matters is how living people will view such a legacy. I don't know too many black people (or many of any race) that would feel comfortable seeing a statue honoring him in public.

There's just too much heat on the guy.

 

[Nithavela]

Eh.. It's an iffy subject. I think he should be remembered and honored, but in a more nuanced form than what statues allow.

If every statue was taken down and in its place a monolith was erected, inscribed with a neutral account of that persons life, both good and bad.. but it wouldn't catch, people would have to read and think.

 

[durangodawood]

Yah that's the thing. While technically masters owned their slaves, human relationships are far more complex than that. Establishment of unwritten rules, or even setting personal boundaries explicitly and then honoring them, has occurred throughout history between master and slave. I tend to think that masters who did so to begin with held in their hearts the seeds which, fertilized by the mutual honoring and respect between master and slave, would eventually bloom into the spirit of abolition.

I'm sure there were instances of this from time to time. But by and large it obviously didnt happen, as slavery persisted in the colonies/USA for hundreds of years

 

[KarateCowboy]

Ah, the revisionist history of good natured chattel slavery. Solomon Northup certainly gave a better assessment of the times, being a "kind and benevolent" master was not going to cause the abolition of slavery.

It's just like:

Is it? He's known as the father of modern gynecology. He wasn't experimenting on healthy women...he was treating women with severe and often life damaging conditions.

Yeah, they were slave women. Apparently, when modern medicine was in it's infancy, performing medical experiments and furthering research was very difficult due to taboos of the time. It wasn't uncommon for doctors to pay grave robbers for corpses. Many people wouldn't even see a dr...instead preferring con artists and swindlers for cheap "cures".

Much of modern medicine was built upon the shoulders of men like this. Mengele on the other hand...mostly tortured people under the guise of science.

This is all true and matters. Don't expect it to carry much weight with dyed-in-the-wool SJWs or BLM people

 

[SummerMadness]

I don't think it's always wrong. Although the question of if the slaves willingly wanted the surgery is always going to be very questionable. Given if the slaves were even told the surgery was experimental , I don't see too many of them being very trusting of having such a procedure being done to them by a white man. A race that's already ill treated them. That's why regardless if the guy had good intentions or not, I don't think it's appropriate to have a statue honoring him. He's dead, his ego boost doesn't matter. What matters is how living people will view such a legacy. I don't know too many black people (or many of any race) that would feel comfortable seeing a statue honoring him in public.

There's just too much heat on the guy.

That's just ethics 101. Good intentions do not mean that ethical lapses should be overlooked. One of important things that scientists must revisit is ethics in research because it is very easy to believe one's work is important or groundbreaking, thus justifying experimenting on people or falsifying data. "It's only a little fib or transgression that will pay out in big dividends." The reality is you don't know whether your work will be groundbreaking at the time you're doing the work. For instance, let's say there was another doctor doing similar to work as Sims at the time, but his work was without experimenting on enslaved people. Or let's say, this doctor's work caused a groundbreaking shift? Then all talk of good intentions or the greater good is out the door because your work did not innovate or create a new field.

I know you're not saying this, but when erecting statues to honor people, I believe it is one thing to honor something for something they've done despite other transgressions or unethical behavior. It's another thing to honor someone because of that behavior. Sims is important, but yeah, a statue need to be erected to understand the importance of his work.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think it's always wrong. Although the question of if the slaves willingly wanted the surgery is always going to be very questionable. Given if the slaves were even told the surgery was experimental , I don't see too many of them being very trusting of having such a procedure being done to them by a white man.

He's the only guy who can help them. It's him or live with feces coming out their vaginas.

race that's already ill treated them. That's why regardless if the guy had good intentions or not, I don't think it's appropriate to have a statue honoring him. He's dead, his ego boost doesn't matter. What matters is how living people will view such a legacy. I don't know too many black people (or many of any race) that would feel comfortable seeing a statue honoring him in public.

There's just too much heat on the guy.

Is their? He seems to be a surgeon who was willing to help women in a time when looking at their women parts was taboo. He's not quite a saint...but a really good person at least.