Osteopathic Principles: Understanding & Advocating
Female Colleagues
By: Miral Vaghasia - UNTHSC/TCOM
Dr. Still was an innovator. He challenged societal norms to establish a new branch of medicine. He also paved way for women to enter the medical field. Merriam-Webster defines feminism as “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”. Dr. Still reflected this fundamental belief by welcoming women to study side by side with men in the inaugural class at the American School of Osteopathy back in 1892. Dr. Still once commented, "I opened wide the doors of my first school for ladies…Why not elevate our sisters’ mentality, qualify her to fill all places of trust and honor, place her hand and head with the skilled arts?" This was a time where if a woman wanted to become a physician, her options were extremely limited. Only a few schools, such as Women's Medical College of Pennsylvania, accepted female students.
Dr. Still’s acceptance of women into the medical field was one of numerous reasons why osteopathic medicine faced so much opposition. And yet this acceptance set a precedence that would foster the success of women in medicine. Examples of this include Dr. Jeanette Bolles, the first woman to receive the D.O. degree and Barbra Ross-Lee, the first African American woman to be appointed dean of a U.S. medical school at the Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine. A visionary in medicine, Dr. Still is by definition a feminist. He had the insight and foresight to know that women were just as capable of practicing medicine and perhaps more open to a new approach. Dr. Still demonstrated great confidence that women who chose medicine were fully aware and capable of navigating the unique challenges of this career path.
It wouldn’t be until 1972 and 1975 when two legislative acts, Title IX of the Higher Education Act Amendments and the Public Health Service Act, respectively, would finally legally ban gender discrimination for women in medicine. Though our society has come a long way since 1892, and even from 1975, my experience has taught me that a residual social inequality between women and men in the medical field endures to this day. This has been most exemplified by questions of whether I have considered how I would manage marriage, children, family life, while maintaining my career. Those who ask this question do not doubt my capabilities or intelligence or those of my female colleagues. However, should it not be obvious that when we researched the requirements and demands before choosing a career in medicine that we also researched and communicated concerns of balancing various roles in life required of female physicians? Perhaps it is not so obvious since many of our male counterparts have no need to consider those unique challenges and demands when choosing this career. Though I am certain these questions come from good intentions and simple curiosity, it does have certain contradictory implications. It implies a female medical student is as intelligent as a male student, she is not intelligent enough to consider how to balance being a physician with other life roles.
The fact that questions like these are asked at all suggests that despite the progress made in gender equality, subtle social inequality between women and men in medicine still endure. My purpose in writing this is simply to help others become aware of the subconscious societal influence on women in medicine and to encourage the osteopathic profession to not only carry on but to expand Dr. Still’s vision of equality. At its core, the osteopathic philosophy is one of acceptance without judgment. It is one of the many reasons why I love osteopathic medicine. Our philosophy helps us accept patients as they are and guides our treatment. Thus, we should let it guide the growth of our profession and us as professionals. Just as Dr. Still rejected restrictive societal norms and prejudices, we must continue to reject undercurrents of inequality that persist in our society.