Elizabeth Garrett lived at a time of change, both in society and in medicine. Although she is usually said to be the only cause of the breakthrough, it is possible that other factors played a bigger role than her work. For instance, the enrolments at the London School of Medicine for Women showed a massive increase in the number of students between the years of 1875 and 1917, which, when cross referred with the population census of the time, shows that there was a decline in the number of doctors, both male and female. However, this may not have been down to the work of Elizabeth Garrett; the public may have been forced to accept that they had to change their views to allow women to become doctors. This is because the country may have been unable to afford to exclude women when the numbers declined, as the Crimean war would have taken its effect on society and government funding. For example, doctors would have been needed overseas to treat wounded soldiers. Despite the losses of those in this particular profession, expenses would need to be paid in order to fund hospitals and workforce in the war zone.
On the contrary, Elizabeth Garrett may have provided the government with the idea of utilising their female counterparts and allowing them to work as doctors, as they were facing the issues related with the war i.e. the aforementioned factors. However, may be it is too direct to deduce that “[she] is usually seen as the most important single influence enabling women to qualify as doctors,” as stated by Stephen Lee (“Medicine and Public Health” 2001). Though, it seems to suggest that perhaps this should not be considered to be gospel, just because it is a widespread belief. Also the use of the word “influence” suggests that she offered some contribution but her work did not fully constitute that which is regarded as a turning point in the history of medicine!
It may be believed by some that Sophia Jex-Blake played an additional and influential role that affected parliamentary ideas. However, as she appeared later along the timescale, her work is not always fully appreciated as being a major factor of the time. Of course Elizabeth Garrett was the first woman who actually achieved the completion of the qualification, but Sophia Jex-Blake, who was one of a group of six women, completed a medical course at Edinburgh University in 1874. This was a year before the Act, allowing all women to train to become doctors, was passed. As it is closer to the time it is possible that this may have been the “last push” in the government’s decision. They may have felt pressurised, as Arthur Roebuck’s (Liberal MP, 3rd March 1875) quote suggests: “…You cannot rub out the stain which will be on the name of the House of Commons if it refuses to do justice for women…” Although he seems to be in favour of the act, he also uses rather negative imagery in order to persuade the people at which this speech is directed. This may have embarrassed other MPs, as he is obviously convinced by the events and changing views and, as a male in the hierarchy of society, his word would probably have been held in some regard. Despite this, it may not have been the influence of the British women that persuaded such people; external pressures may also have caused attitudes to change. Elizabeth Blackwell was the first female to qualify as a doctor in the USA. However, she qualified in 1849, which was quite some time before Elizabeth Garrett achieved her goal! The USA might possibly have been who Arthur Roebuck was referring to as the accuser that would impose the “stain” on the House of Commons, though this could just have equally been in reference to the women of Britain.
Many other areas of society were being developed at the time of Elizabeth Garrett’s quest for success that perhaps the government felt it necessary to review and develop their attitudes and policies, as they were in, yet again, a male only profession. Therefore, Garrett Anderson’s work may not even have influenced governmental policies hugely, but may instead have acted as a catalyst towards the changing of views and eventually passing an Act, opening all medical qualifications to women. In addition to this, other women may have weakened the barrier for Garrett beforehand, though in different ways. For example, Florence Nightingale assumed a leadership role in medicine during the 1850s, as she established a hospital during the Crimean war, though she was not a doctor. Maybe it was her who sparked the beginning of change for women in medicine, as opposed to Elizabeth Garrett.
Another area that is perhaps necessary to explore is that of the universities and how responsible they were for stifling the progression of women in medicine, as this was the main part of the barrier that Elizabeth broke. Despite this, it is reasonable to claim that she should not be credited for this in full, as she required the help of her father in order to launch a lawsuit against the Society of Apothecaries. However, this might be considered as irrelevant because it was still her work and she required financial help. Nevertheless, the universities were taking heed to laws of the era, which were mainly due to pre-existing opinions and societal beliefs, which would have affected the way in which politicians ran the country, as it would also be in concurrence with the views of the public. The government, therefore, may have formed laws based upon biased views and upbringing. It is debatable as to whether the government were affected more by the public or whether the public were more influenced by the government. So it was these attitudes that Elizabeth Garrett had to tackle. She achieved her personal goal, which was perhaps a turning point in her life, especially because of the unlikelihood at the time but did this mean it was a turning point for the British public? Her perseverance aided her and the fact that she wanted to be on a level with men in society helped her. She was once asked why she wanted to become a doctor instead of a nurse, to which she replied, “Because I prefer to earn a thousand pounds a year rather than twenty”. This quote illustrates her attitude and determination to realize her objective, though it could be said that it was more beneficial to her than the population of women in Britain at the time.
Views and attitudes were progressing so it has been suggested that without her, the thoughts of society may have changed in due course anyway. In spite of this, she still left her mark in the form of influence. How strong this influence was is dependant on one’s viewpoint. The second requirement of a turning point is that it is a sudden change. Unfortunately her work did cause an immediate impact, as it took several years in order for her to be accepted into the university, only for the rules to be changed again. Also, although she lay the foundations for women to break down the barrier completely some attitudes still remained stagnant. The vote, for example, was not granted to women until 1914, which shows the reluctance of society to accept these changes in some cases, as it seems that men still wished to maintain their position as the dominant sex. Her determination and perseverance may have challenged the confidence of the opposing male students, who felt it was an insult to them to have a female attend the same classes as them. Their attitudes were displayed clearly at a protest held by the students in 1861 in an attempt to stop Elizabeth Garrett attending their classes. They said, “We consider that the mixture of sexes in the same class is likely to lead to results of an unpleasant character”. This view was shown across the board and still maintains the same stubbornness illustrated by Thomas Huxley and W.M. Thackeray.
Finally, in order to assess whether Garrett’s work may be considered to be a turning point it is necessary to explore as to whether it achieved a sustained change in the practise of medicine. This could be argued for in that the laws still apply today, so that females may be granted the same opportunities as males. Though, conversely some may say that, despite this, women are often discriminated against even today. Although this is less likely to happen, due to the development of society and governmental policies to enforce that this should not happen. Nevertheless, studies from 1992 showed that only 24% of the population in the UK were female doctors. From this strand of information it could be said that either it is not as popular for women to practise or old attitudes are still being adopted, even today. On the other hand however, this may be misleading, as other results from the same survey revealed that “45% of women were said to give up the job within 5 years, compared with only 10% of men”. Therefore, it seems that women are given the equality they deserve but are less likely to follow it through for more than five years, so perhaps Elizabeth Garrett did manage to accomplish a sustained achievement.
In conclusion, I feel that, although Elizabeth Garrett Anderson’s work is a sustained achievement that is still relevant to today, she was not responsible for the constitution of a turning point in the history of medicine. She helped to bring about the idea of the introduction of women in to a doctoral profession, though she was not solely responsible as there were many attributing factors that brought about this major change. Additionally, I feel that she achieved more for herself than society, not in that she was selfish but in that she acted on what she felt was right for her, though she was able to influence and spur on others to take action. However, I think it’s relevant to add that attitudes were adjusting and changing at this time so, without her, women would have been accepted as equals by society and these changes would have followed in due course.