So Anesthesia Was For Adam, But Was It For Eve?

John Snow type Chloroform Inhaler, designed 1858.  (Image: geeknews.net).

Today in class we discussed the objections during the 19th century to the use of anesthesia during childbirth for women.  As stated in Genesis 3: 16:  “in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children…”  As far as my knowledge goes, it has always been an issue whether or not a woman should feel pain during childbirth, especially because labor pain has been interpreted time and time again as a punishment for Eve’s transgression in Eden.  Of course, my initial, visceral reaction to this statement has always been one of anger and resentment.  But my view cannot be applied to the Victorian Era, especially because my modern-day reaction is definitely not indicative of how people felt in the past… in the days before anesthesia.

Hundreds of years ago, before anesthesia, people had to find a way to accept and rationalize pain as acceptable for everyday life.  It was seen as a burden that must be borne, or the righteous punishment for all human sin.  As an example, a good Christian death involved being totally alert and able to communicate with God, and childbirth was seen in a similar way: as an experience where the woman should be alert and able to receive and call upon God for help.  Because of these beliefs, many objected to new Victorian pain relievers such as chloroform because the drug sent the user into a stupor – a state certainly not conducive to communication with God.

 Chloroform (Image: web).

Proponents of anesthesia during the Victorian Era often quoted another bible verse in their favor:  “So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh” (Genesis 2:21).  The deep sleep could be represented by chloroform, and God would thereby become the first anesthesiologist.  But – did remembering that God used a form of anesthesia on Adam really solve the problem?  The bible verse still seems gendered, and I’m sure many still interpreted that way.  The bible verses are not mutually exclusive either.  It could have been perfectly acceptable for someone to say that God found anesthesia acceptable for Adam and not so for Eve.  Did this actually happen?  I’m not sure. 

 Expulsion from Eden, Masaccio, 1425. (Image, http://paradoxplace.com)

        I think the painting above might sum up the Victorian inequalities quite nicely, even though it is a Renaissance fresco.  The painting depicts Adam and Eve being expulsed from Eden.  Adam shamefully hides his emotions but is not required to cover his body.  Eve, on the other hand writhes and cries in pain, hiding her genitals from view.  In a way, this begins to parallel the situation with anesthesia.  Adam (men) would be allowed to hide his emotions and pain under the cloak of stupor, while Eve (women) must still repent for her sin in the Garden of Eden, her face twisted with pain. 

        Was this inequality the truth, or did people think that the Genesis verse about Adam applied to Eve too?  It would certainly be fun to find out.