|
|
True Stories Breaching the bastions. Susannah O'Reilly -- pioneer Australian female doctor An honours graduate in medicine from the University of Sydney in 1905, Susie O'Reilly was rejected by Sydney Hospital's male-dominated medical establishment, amid much controversy in the local press. She went on to become a popular family doctor and obstetrician, and was one of the founders of the Rachel Forster Hospital for Women.
MJA 1998; 169: 648-650 |
|
Ever-cheerful, with
a limerick for every situation and occasion,
Susie O'Reilly was a popular family doctor and obstetrician
on Sydney's North Shore for much of the first half of this century.
Caring little for conventional fashions, Susie made her many calls
wearing, in addition to her usual broad smile, a hygienically
laundered voluminous white dress or uniform (shapeless and
waistless) with a black hat perched on top of her frizzy hair. But, in
addition to her sparkling personality1 and appearance, Dr Susannah
Hennessy O'Reilly (1881-1960) was also remarkable historically, as
one of the pioneer women in medicine in Australia. In common with many
true pioneers, Susie experienced at least one major set-back in her
career. She was refused a residency at Sydney Hospital in 1905,
despite much in her favour -- excellent academic standing,
impressive family connections, and an earlier claim made by the then
Board of Directors that "there is nothing in the rules and regulations
to prevent women doctors from being appointed".2
Susannah O'Reilly was born on 25 January 1881 in Liverpool Street, Sydney, the eldest daughter of Dr Walter William Joseph O'Reilly. Her father, born in New York and educated at Sydney's Newington College, had obtained his medical degree at Queen's University, Belfast. His father, Walter Le Croix O'Reilly, and his grandfather Bernard O'Reilly, were also medical men, both graduates of Trinity College, Dublin.
Susie was admitted to Methodist Ladies' College (then known as Burwood Ladies' College) on 18 July 1894, as a weekly boarder. A remark in the Admissions Book -- "studiously inclined" -- aptly sums up one aspect of her nature. As for another, it is reported that one night after "lights out" she was caught swinging from the bracket of one of the gas lamps in the dormitory.3 She was Dux of the School in 1897 and passed the Senior in 1898, matriculating with first class honours in French. Proceeding to Sydney University, Susie passed first year medicine in 1899 and, majoring in biology, also gained a BSc (with her medical subjects counting towards it), conferred in 1903. She was one of the top four students for each of the last three years of her medical studies, graduating MB early in January 1905 with second-class honours. The newly graduated Dr O'Reilly applied for the position of Resident Medical Officer at Sydney Hospital in 1905. She learnt of her unsuccessful application when she received a letter from the Registrar of the University of Sydney stating that at a joint meeting of the representatives of Sydney Hospital and the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, held on 3 January 1905, five gentlemen -- F G W Simpson, J W Power, S Kay, E A R Bligh and A Verge -- had been selected as Resident Medical Officers for Sydney Hospital for that year. Simpson and Power had come first and second, respectively, in their graduating years' order-of-merit list; the latter three had received passes in the examination results.4 The Registrar had then asked the Board to choose between A E Finckh and Susie O'Reilly for the sixth place. Finckh obtained eight votes to Susie's seven. Of the five doctors on the Board, two voted for Finckh, two for Susie, and the fifth, the Board President (Sir Arthur Renwick), abstained.5 The Board's decision to choose Finckh over Susie was remarkable for many reasons, not the least being Susie's superior academic record. The Board had previously informed Annie Golding, President of the Women's Progressive Association of New South Wales, on 21 July 1903,2 that "when it is necessary to make appointments to the medical staff, applications are invited through the press, with no restrictions as to sex". Further, one of the Board members who voted against Susie's appointment, Dr Joseph Foreman, Honorary Gynaecologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and Lecturer in the Diseases of Women in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, gave her an excellent reference, written on 20 January 1905, less than three weeks after the ignominious Board vote (Mike O'Reilly, biographer, Sydney, personal communication). To quote: "I have much pleasure in stating that Miss O'Reilly was one of my clerks for three months. She was very keen in acquiring knowledge, and also successful as appears in her position in the pass list. I have a very high opinion of her ability and can recommend her in every way." Moreover, and perhaps most surprisingly of all in its apparent lack of influence, was the fact that Susie's father, Walter, was a member of the consulting staff at Sydney Hospital from 1888, and had previously been an honorary physician there. So, why was a man with a pass degree chosen ahead of a woman who came fourth in her year, and who possessed an honours degree? Turning to the press of the day, we are left with the strong impression that there was little more to it than gender bias, evident in Sydney more so than elsewhere in Australia at the time, with Susie and her sorority perceived as trying to prise their way into a heavily fortified male-dominated preserve. The Establishment newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, promptly and simply reported the Board meeting on 4 January 1905, but the Daily Telegraph lent Susie's plight editorial support the following day: "In the view of the directors her sex was a fatal disqualification. They [the directors] did not hesitate to put the matter plainly on that ground, and lay down the principle that no female shall hold the position of resident doctor at the Sydney Hospital", and concluded "The girl who braves the vulgar prejudice which seeks to prevent women from entering a profession where humanity calls so loudly for their presence deserves the support and encouragement of all enlightened people. Yet Sydney has the distinction of having men in highly responsible positions who, on principle, feel it is their duty to increase the difficulties against which the female student of medicine has to contend."6 Letters to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph followed swiftly. Dr Mary Booth wrote that the question of hospital appointments had been a bitter one among women in Sydney for many years: they had been obliged to go to Adelaide and Brisbane for experience.7 A letter from "Patient" opined that this was as it should be.8 The writer endorsed Dr Booth's opinion that there was room for both men and women doctors, "but without injury to the efficient working of the hospitals, and therefore to the patients, there is no room for women on the resident medical staffs of the Sydney and Prince Alfred Hospitals. It is unquestionably right and proper that women should have opportunities for gaining practical experience, but surely the Children's Hospital, and the four or five women's hospitals of Sydney should be amply sufficient for this purpose. Why should they wish to acquire a knowledge of men's diseases, which they will never be called upon to treat in private practice, is incomprehensible to the ordinary mind . . . I suggest, in all sincerity, that steps be taken by these dissatisfied ladies, to establish a hospital for women, managed, officered, and run entirely by women".8 A short time later, in March 1905, a three-part series on the general subject of "Sydney's Medical Women", by "AHK", ran in the Evening News, reporting further views on the matter. AHK quoted a woman doctor who did not deny that women had equality in their training at Sydney University, but that this stopped as soon as they graduated and began competing with men in the market-place for jobs and training.9 She compared Sydney very unfavourably with London. AHK also quoted a male doctor, who advanced economic reasons for the prejudice in Sydney against women in medicine: the women had come into the field at a bad time, he claimed; 1903 was the year of the financial crashes and when the land-boom had burst. Since then, things had been "horribly bad", and "the faculty" were perhaps the greatest sufferers in times of financial hardship. It had been no academic protest against women's invasion of man's sphere, but "a veritable war to the knife . . . the outcome of the bitter struggles for existence of the last twelve years". Hostilities had been more or less veiled of late, but nothing like a truce would be called until economic prospects improved. There was little likelihood of doing so at present. While many in the profession had to live chiefly by "anaesthetic fees", one could scarcely expect them to look upon the encroaching sex with equanimity. AHK went on to say that this doctor's gloomy summary was borne out by the number of houses lately vacated by professional men. In the last week there were six empty "doctor's houses" in Hyde Park, a thing unprecedented in his informant's memory. ("Starved out," he commented.) When men were fighting for bare life themselves, added the doctor, they did not feel disposed to help any poachers on their domain.10 Many years later, in the Sydney Morning Herald's obituary for Susie, Sir Herbert Schlink eloquently understated the problem: "The men doctors did not take too kindly to women in medicine at first."11 In fact, in 1906, women began to make their way in the hospitals of Sydney, claimed at the time to be the the most conservative of Australian cities.8 While women were not appointed to Sydney Hospital until 1910, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital was "breached" in 1906 with the appointment of Dr Jessie Aspinall. Luckily for Susie, female doctors were not excluded from public hospital appointments in all Australian cities, and she undertook her internship at Royal Adelaide Hospital in 1906-1907, returning to Sydney in 1908 and eventually becoming one of the foundation members of the Rachel Forster Hospital for Women in 1922. Three of Susie's family also graduated in Medicine from Sydney University: a brother, Linnell (1879-1948), appointed to Sydney Hospital in 1906, a year after Susie's rejection; another brother, Merrick (1892-1957), appointed to Perth General Hospital in 1914; and a sister, Olive (1892-1976), to Brisbane General Hospital in 1916. Today, nearly a century later, women in professions continue to come up against similar bastions of authority and power -- in the Church and the Navy, for example. Nor is the opposition confined only to men.
Kelvin Grose, BA (Hons), PhD
©MJA 1998 |
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | My account | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |
|
Readers may print a single copy for personal use. No further reproduction or distribution of the articles should proceed without the permission of the publisher. For permission, contact the Australasian Medical Publishing Company. Journalists are welcome to write news stories based on what they read here, but should acknowledge their source as "an article published on the Internet by The Medical Journal of Australia <http://www.mja.com.au>". <URL: http://www.mja.com.au/> © 1998 Medical Journal of Australia. We appreciate your comments. |
