{"id":1793,"date":"2020-04-28T16:00:13","date_gmt":"2020-04-28T16:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/?p=1793"},"modified":"2021-07-08T12:14:40","modified_gmt":"2021-07-08T11:14:40","slug":"the-morality-of-state-intervention-in-sexually-transmitted-disease","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/?p=1793","title":{"rendered":"The morality of state intervention in sexually-transmitted disease"},"content":{"rendered":"

Is it appropriate for governments to restrict personal liberty in an effort to control disease? This issue has come very much to the fore in the wake of the current worldwide Coronavirus epidemic.\u00a0 In this post, Darcy Mckinlay, a second year history student, writes about nineteenth-century arguments against forcible methods of controlling venereal diseases.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Punch Cartoon, 1857<\/p><\/div>\n

During the nineteenth century there was an increase in state intervention, marking a transformation from a previous \u2018non-interference\u2019 government approach.<\/span>[1]<\/a>\u00a0 In 1864, the first of three Contagious Diseases Acts was passed, permitting the compulsory medical inspection and detention of prostitutes with venereal diseases.<\/span>[2]<\/a> \u00a0This law was specifically aimed at working-women in military-based towns because the government feared that the spread of sexually transmitted diseases was weakening the armed forces.<\/span>[3]<\/a> But the Contagious Diseases Acts were controversial, forming part of a wider debate surrounding <\/span>state intervention.\u00a0 Historians Jim Jose and Kcasey McLoughlin argue that contemporaries opposed the Acts because they violated freedom.<\/span>[4]<\/a>\u00a0 <\/span>Lisa Shapiro<\/span><\/p>\n

Saunders, on the other hand, suggests that there was support for the extension, regarding increasing public safety.<\/span>[5]<\/a> This piece considers the 1870 report self-published by John Simon, the first Medical Officer of Health for London, arguing against the extension of the Contagious Diseases Act to the general public.\u00a0 Simon\u2019s duty in public health did not alter his view that compulsory sexual examinations were immoral.<\/span>[6]<\/a>\u00a0 Ultimately, the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts in 1886 showed that this forcible method was unsuccessful.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>

A German prostitute, 1880.<\/p><\/div>\n

\"Sir<\/a>

Sir John Simon, 1881, Wellcome Library V0027166<\/p><\/div>\n

Simon introduces the aim of the report, writing that it intends to determine \u201cwhether it is expedient to have \u2026 a systematic sanitary superintendence of prostitutes\u201d in Britain.<\/span>[7]<\/a> \u00a0The word \u201csuperintendence\u201d is significant, suggesting that prostitutes will have no agency under state management. The Contagious Diseases Acts allowed police officers to bring prostitutes before a magistrate who could order a medical examination.<\/span>[8]<\/a> \u00a0If the woman was found to be carrying a venereal disease, she was detained in hospital until clear and if she refused, the Acts permitted her imprisonment.<\/span>[9]<\/a> \u00a0Maria Luddy states that the Contagious Diseases Acts introduced a wider debate surrounding the role of the state in attempting to \u201ccontrol the behaviour and morality\u201d of society.<\/span>[10]<\/a> \u00a0Jose and McLoughlin agree that this intervention was controversial among contemporaries.\u00a0 The philosopher John Stuart Mill, for example, publicly opposed the Acts, arguing that they took away \u201cthe security of personal liberty\u201d.<\/span>[11]<\/a> \u00a0In his report Simon acknowledges that this surveillance system was originally put in place to protect the army and navy. \u00a0Judith Walkowitz argues that the initial support for the Acts was based on their status as \u201cnational defence legislation\u201d.<\/span>[12]<\/a> \u00a0However, regarding the proposal for \u201cthe extension \u2026 to the civil population\u201d, Simon questions whether the state\u2019s previous laissez-faire approach should be \u201cabandoned\u201d.<\/span>[13]<\/a> \u00a0As Saunders highlights, some contemporaries supported this public extension; for example, Dr Elizabeth Garrett Anderson believed that further state intrusion would protect family members of those infected with venereal diseases.<\/span>[14]<\/a> \u00a0This suggests that contemporaries approved of state intervention as a new and growing concept. \u00a0However, Margaret Hamilton argues that there was sufficient opposition to this, for example, Josephine Butler believed that the Acts were \u201cunconstitutional because they violated the basic liberties of English women\u201d.<\/span>[15]<\/a> \u00a0This highlights that a complex debate surrounding public health state intervention existed in the latter half of the nineteenth century.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

The pioneering female doctor Elizabeth Garrett Anderson contributed to the debate over state intervention in sexually-transmitted disease. Wellcome Library 12778i,<\/p><\/div>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Simon explains that the state referred to prostitutes as \u201cdangerous members of society\u201d, who should be \u201cprevented from communicating [disease] to others\u201d.[16]<\/a> \u00a0Luddy argues that this perspective helped to facilitate a \u201cdouble standard of sexual morality\u201d.[17]<\/a> \u00a0Pamela Cox agrees that class and gender impacted the treatment of venereal diseases, as women were subject to more coercive sexual governance than men.[18]<\/a> Fundamentally, the report explains that the extension of the Contagious Diseases Act to the general population would result in common prostitutes across Britain being subject \u201cto a compulsory medical examination, and to compulsory detention\u201d.[19]<\/a> \u00a0The repetition of \u201ccompulsory\u201d again emphasises the lack of freedom prostitutes had under this forcible legislation. \u00a0Simon argues that the network of examination and treatment is \u201cnot likely to be met by voluntary contributions\u201d.[20]<\/a> \u00a0However Catherine Lee provides evidence from Kent to demonstrate that compliance to the Contagious Diseases Acts was in fact high, for example, in Canterbury in 1871, only two prostitutes were prosecuted for non-compliance.[21]<\/a>\u00a0 Lee suggests that poor women complied with the Contagious Diseases Acts to access free medical care.[22]<\/a>\u00a0 Some prostitutes used medical inspections to capitalise profit, through advertising \u201cdisease-free status\u201d.[23]<\/a>\u00a0 However, Simon argued that tax payers would find it \u201cimmoral\u201d to pay for the medical expenses of a prostitute so that she is \u201cclean for hire\u201d.[24]<\/a> \u00a0This demonstrates a wider debate about the funding of state intervention. \u00a0Overall, the debate surrounding the extension of the Acts was based on both moral and economic factors.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Social reformer Josephine Butler also took part in the debate.<\/p><\/div>\n

Simon held the view that \u201cvenereal diseases are \u2026 infections which a man contracts at his own option\u201d.[25]<\/a>\u00a0 It was not the responsibility of the state to intervene and treat them, \u201cthe true policy of government is to regard the prevention of venereal disease as a matter of exclusively private concern\u201d.[26]<\/a>\u00a0 Walkowitz argues that despite the Acts, \u201cmany officials continued to believe that sexual promiscuity among civilians rightly constituted a private medical risk for the parties concerned\u201d.[27]<\/a>\u00a0 Additionally, the phrase caveat emptor <\/em>[let the buyer beware], used by Simon in his report, suggests that customers of a prostitute should check the quality of \u2018goods\u2019 before purchase.[28]<\/a> \u00a0Saunders highlights the economic difference between men and women, as buyers and sellers in this sexual exchange.[29]<\/a> \u00a0Simon acknowledges that innocent wives can be infected with venereal diseases which cheating \u201chusbands \u2026 have earned\u201d, but remains clear on his view that the state should not intervene to protect dependents.[30]<\/a> \u00a0Saunders highlights how Dr Garrett Anderson disagreed, instead promoting the compulsory treatment of prostitutes to \u201cend the suffering of innocents\u201d.[31]<\/a> \u00a0However, this report was published in 1870, before the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts in 1886, and it does not explain the exact reasons for the repeal or whether compulsory state intervention had worked. \u00a0Nonetheless, Walkowitz states that Simon\u2019s report \u201cended any immediate prospects for the extension of the Acts to civilian areas in Britain\u201d.[32]<\/a> \u00a0Simon\u2019s respectability as a health officer contributed to the argument opposing the extension of the Contagious Diseases Acts.<\/p>\n

\"Group<\/a>

Medical staff at St Thomas’s hospital, London, with Sir John Simon on the left, Wellcome Library no. 569770i<\/p><\/div>\n

In conclusion, Simon argued against the extension of the 1866 Contagious Diseases Act to the general population.\u00a0 Government intervention reflected a sexual double standard, with women being subject to immoral control.[33]<\/a> \u00a0Yet there was support for the extension from contemporaries who wanted further protection from venereal diseases.[34]<\/a> These arguments formed as part of a wider, more complex debate on state intervention.\u00a0 Overall, the delay of this extension and the repeal of the Acts shows that forced sexual governance in Britain during the nineteenth century was unsuccessful.<\/p>\n

References:<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Peter W. Bartrip, \u201cState Intervention in Mid-Nineteenth Century Britain: Fact or Fiction?\u201d, Journal of British Studies <\/em>Vol 23, No. 1 (1983): 63.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Maria Luddy, \u201cWomen and the Contagious Diseases Acts 1864-1886\u201d, History Ireland <\/em>Vol. 1, No. 1 (1993): 32.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Jim Jose and Kcasey McLoughlin, \u201cJohn Stuart Mill and the Contagious Diseases Acts: Whose Law? Whose Liberty? Whose Greater Good?\u201d, Law and History Review <\/em>Vol. 34, No. 2 (2016): 250-251.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Lisa Shapiro Saunders, \u201c\u2018Equal Laws Based upon an Equal Standard\u2019: the Garrett Sisters, the Contagious Diseases Acts and the Sexual Politics of Victorian and Edwardian Feminism Revisited\u201d, Women\u2019s History Review <\/em>Vol. 24, Issue. 3 (2015): 397.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> A. N, \u201cThe Life Work of Sir John Simon\u201d, The Journal of Hygiene <\/em>Vol. 5, No. 1 (1905): 1-6.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> John Simon, \u2018Report on the Contagious Diseases Act (showing the expense, impolicy and general inutility of its proposed extension) to the civil population\u2019 (1870).<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Margaret Hamilton, \u201cOpposition to the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1864-1886\u201d, Albion <\/em>Vol. 10, No. 1 (1978): 14.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Luddy, \u201cWomen and the Contagious Diseases Acts 1864-1886\u201d: 34.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Jose and McLoughlin, \u201cJohn Stuart Mill and the Contagious Diseases Acts: Whose Law? Whose Liberty? Whose Greater Good?\u201d: 250-251.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Judith Walkowitz, Prostitution and Victorian Society: Women, Class and the State <\/em>(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 73.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Simon, \u2018Report\u2019<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Saunders, \u201c\u2018Equal Laws\u201d: 396.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Hamilton, \u201cOpposition to the Contagious Diseases Acts\u201d: 16.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Simon, \u2018Report\u2019.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Luddy, \u201cWomen and the Contagious Diseases Acts 1864-1886\u201d: 32.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Pamela Cox, \u201cCompulsion, Voluntarism and Venereal Disease: Governing Sexual Health in England after the Contagious Diseases Acts\u201d, Journal of British Studies <\/em>Vol. 46, Issue 1 (2007): 111-113.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Simon, \u2018Report\u2019.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Catherine Lee, \u201cProstitution and Victorian Society Revisited: the Contagious Diseases Acts in Kent\u201d, Women\u2019s History Review <\/em>Vol. 21, Issue. 2 (2012): 301-309.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Ibid: 312.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Lee, \u201cProstitution\u201d: 312.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Simon, \u2018Report\u2019.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Simon, \u2018Report\u2019.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Walkowitz, Prostitution<\/em>, 72.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Simon, \u2018Report\u2019.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Saunders, \u201c\u2018Equal Laws\u201d: 398.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Simon, \u2018Report\u2019.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> Saunders, \u201c\u2018Equal Laws\u201d: 396.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Walkowitz, Prostitution<\/em>, 86.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Luddy, \u201cWomen and the Contagious Diseases Acts 1864-1886\u201d: 32.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Saunders, \u201c\u2018Equal Laws\u201d: 397.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Is it appropriate for governments to restrict personal liberty in an effort to control disease? This issue has come very much to the fore in the wake of the current worldwide Coronavirus epidemic.\u00a0 In this post, Darcy Mckinlay, a second year history student, writes about nineteenth-century arguments against forcible methods of controlling venereal diseases. During the nineteenth century there was an increase in state intervention, marking a transformation from a previous \u2018non-interference\u2019 government approach.[1]\u00a0 In 1864, the first of three Contagious Diseases Acts was passed, permitting the compulsory medical inspection and detention of prostitutes with venereal diseases.[2] \u00a0This law was specifically aimed at working-women in military-based towns because the government […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":1804,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5],"tags":[527,17,15,528,529,11,530,257],"class_list":["post-1793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-learning_in_focus","tag-history-of-medicine","tag-nineteenth-century","tag-primary-sources","tag-prostitution","tag-sexually-transmitted-disease","tag-slider","tag-state-intervention","tag-women"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/history.port.ac.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/Margaret_Bernardine_Hall_-_Fantine-cropped.jpg?fit=620%2C304&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p91PlX-sV","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1793","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1793"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1793\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1813,"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1793\/revisions\/1813"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1804"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/history.port.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}