In 1892, Dr. Mary Dixon-Jones, a successful woman surgeon who ran her own hospital in Brooklyn, became embroiled with the Brooklyn Eagle in a libel trial which the New York Times called """"""""by far the most important ever tried in this city."""""""" A legal spectacle of major proportions, the trial lasted over two months. Jars full of specimens and surgical mannequins became common sights in the courtroom, while medical experts argued the details of each surgery performed by Jones, and nurses, hospital officers and neighbors assessed her character from the witness stand. The Eagle had accused Jones of being an ambitious and self-promoting social climber, a knife-happy and irresponsible gynecological surgeon, who forced unnecessary operations on innocent and unsuspecting women and used the specimens gleaned to advance her reputation in diagnosis and pathology. Before the trial ended, most of the prestigious physicians in New York and Brooklyn would testify for or against Jones. Though the Times expected her to win nominal damages on several counts, the jury stunned the public when it found the newspaper innocent. When the affair came to a close, Jones's Brooklyn practice lay in ruins and she would be forced to flee to New York City to continue her medical work. I plan to write a book which pieces together this fascinating story. The task encompasses research on Jones's life, social position, career and publications. I hope to uncover the complex relationships among Brooklyn's medical community, and assess the significance of what seems to have been a New York City-Brooklyn professional rivalry. The evolution of surgical gynecology, including the true motives of physicians who performed it, the efficacy of techniques, its reflection of gender and class roles, its relationship to power struggles within the profession, and its link to the problem of medical malpractice will be an important subtheme. Equally germane is the historical development of the concept of informed consent and the emergence of the modern hospital. Finally, there is the ever-present theme of gender, and how Jones's being a woman doctor colored her fate. While I believe the story to be a compelling narrative, it also affords a perfect opportunity to explore in great detail the variegated social context which gave rise to what was clearly for a time, at least, an important public event. If I am successful, the book should be social history at its best.
