In terms of gender, Sims was incredibly progressive for the time, choosing to specialize in medicine specifically for women and opening the first ever Woman’s Hospital in New York in the 1850s (Holland). However, he exploited young black women, putting them through tortuous surgeries and repeatedly risking their lives. While he presented the circumstances to frame himself as the kind doctor helping women in pain, the only permission he really needed was from the girls’ master, saying in his book, “I made this proposition to the owners of the negroes: If you will give me Anarcha and Betsey for experiment, I agree to perform no experiment or operation on either of them to endanger their lives, and will not charge a cent for keeping them, but you must pay their taxes and clothe them. I will keep them at my own expense” (Flynn). His defenders’ view is that he shouldn’t be judged by today’s standards, that he was a product of his environment and should still be celebrated for his medical achievements. His critics’ stance is that his contributions to the advancement of medicine for women should not be ignored, but that the focus should be on the women who were forced to be his guinea pigs
In terms of gender, Sims was incredibly progressive for the time, choosing to specialize in medicine specifically for women and opening the first ever Woman’s Hospital in New York in the 1850s (Holland). However, he exploited young black women, putting them through tortuous surgeries and repeatedly risking their lives. While he presented the circumstances to frame himself as the kind doctor helping women in pain, the only permission he really needed was from the girls’ master, saying in his book, “I made this proposition to the owners of the negroes: If you will give me Anarcha and Betsey for experiment, I agree to perform no experiment or operation on either of them to endanger their lives, and will not charge a cent for keeping them, but you must pay their taxes and clothe them. I will keep them at my own expense” (Flynn). His defenders’ view is that he shouldn’t be judged by today’s standards, that he was a product of his environment and should still be celebrated for his medical achievements. His critics’ stance is that his contributions to the advancement of medicine for women should not be ignored, but that the focus should be on the women who were forced to be his guinea pigs