In retrospect, physicians responded to the use of twilight sleep in a
predictable and appropriate way. Clinical experience and theory led th
em to expect deleterious effects on labor and the neonate. Moreover, t
hey could see readily that opioids could not provide patients the anal
gesia that they had come to expect from ether of chloroform. In the co
ntext, it seems predictable that physicians would reject the method. I
t is more intriguing to ask why, even as physicians continued to rejec
t the use of opioids, they persisted in using inhalation anesthesia. T
he two most favored inhalation agents, ether and chloroform, caused th
e problems that physicians feared from opioids. Was it inexperience, n
aivete, or the novelty of having inhalation anesthesia? Regardless, it
is quite clear that, in 1847, as in 1910, patients eventually forced
physicians to adopt each new method into practice. Herein may lie an i
mportant lesson. Throughout the las half of the 19th century, women sa
id they did not want to experience pain associated with labor. Certain
ly this reflects a general attitude toward pain and suffering prevalen
t throughout Western Europe and the United States during this time. Ph
ysicians knew that they could abolish the pain but said this involved
medical risks, which they did not feel were warranted. The based this
opinion both on theory and experience. In effect, the issue became a c
onfrontation between patients' expectations of physicians and the phys
icians' attempt to adhere to principles of clinical science. The confr
ontation occurred as physicians struggled to establish a scientific ba
sis for their practice. Patients prevailed, and physicians found ways
to accommodate them. The compromise, however, had long-reaching effect
s. Physicians modified the conservative limits on opioid medication fo
r laboring women. More than a generation passed before patients an phy
sicians recognized this change and the problems that it caused.