What are Christian arguments against the use of anesthesia? I understand that the practice of using chloroform as an anesthesia was forbidden by Protestant Christians early in the history of its discovery. That is until Queen Victoria used chloroform during the delivery of her son.

What were the early arguments against the use anesthesia, what biblical references were used?
There was no 'forbidding' from any official Protestant denominations. What opposition there was, centred on its use in Obstetrics and came primarily from within the medical community.  According to the abstract of the article Early Opposition to Obstetric Anaesthesia1:


  Some of the arguments used to oppose the introduction of inhalation anaesthesia - especially in obstetrics - are considered. These arguments were mainly based upon a desire to retain the sensation of pain, either as a factor necessary for survival or as a diagnostic aid: moral arguments were also adduced but religious opposition is no more than a myth of historiography. The opposition to anaesthesia lasted for less than 15 years and is seen as essentially a reflection of contemporary views on the role of pain. [emphasis added]


This assertion is justified within the article itself as follows:


  Religious objections
  
  In 
  addition 
  to 
  medical 
  and 
  moral  arguments 
  it 
  has  often 
  been  alleged 
  that 
  opposition 
  to 
  anaesthesia 
  was 
  raised 
  upon 
  religious 
  grounds. 
  However, despite widespread references 
  by 
  20th 
  century 
  commentators 
  to 
  religious 
  attacks 
  upon 
  anaesthesia, 
  especially 
  in 
  obstetrics, 
  evidence 
  of 
  any  such 
  attack 
  in 
  contemporary 
  writings 
  is 
  singularly sparse.
  
  In  December 
  1847 
  Professor 
  James  Young 
  Simpson published 
  a 
  pamphlet entitled 
  Answer 
  to 
  the 
  Religious 
  Objections 
  Advanced 
  Against   the 
  Employment   of  Anaesthetic 
  Agents 
  in 
  Midwifery 
  and 
  Surgery33 
  and 
  it 
  is 
  this 
  which 
  appears 
  to 
  have 
  caught 
  the 
  attention - and 
  imagination - of 
  subsequent 
  commentators. 
  In 
  this 
  pamphlet Simpson 
  considered 
  the 
  assertion 
  that  the 
  use 
  of 
  obstetric 
  anaesthesia 
  was 
  a 
  breach 
  of 
  the 
  ‘primeval curse’ 
  enunciated  in  Genesis 
  3, 
  vl6 - "in 
  sorrow 
  thou 
  shalt bring 
  forth 
  children" - and 
  with 
  a 
  clever 
  use 
  of 
  logic 
  and 
  philosophy  sought 
  to 
  establish 
  that 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  anaesthesia 
  during 
  childbirth  did 
  not 
  actually breach Holy writ. 
  
  In 
  fact, 
  as  a 
  recent  exhaustive  study 
  of 
  the 
  contemporary 
  medical, theological 
  and 
  lay 
  literature  has 
  revealed, 
  up 
  until 
  that  date 
  no  such 
  assertions  had 
  been 
  publicly 
  made, 
  nor  is  there 
  any 
  evidence of 
  such 
  views 
  being 
  held 
  privately 
  by 
  any 
  more than a 
  small 
  handful 
  of 
   individuals.34
  It 
  has 
  also 
  become 
  clear 
  that 
  all  subsequent  comments 
  about 
  the  religious propriety  of 
  obstetric 
  anaesthesia arose 
  as 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  the publication 
  of 
  Simpson’s 
  pamphlet, 
  and 
  generally   referred 
  directly 
  to 
  it. 
  Indeed, Simpson 
  himself 
  wrote only 
  7 months later 
  that 
  "Here, 
  in 
  Edinburgh, 
  I 
  never 
  now 
  meet 
  with any objections 
  on 
  this 
  point,  for 
  the 
  religious, 
  like 
  the other forms 
  of opposition to 
  chloroform, 
  have 
  ceased 
  among 
  us".35 
  
  It 
  may also 
  be 
  noted 
  that 
  the 
  only two contemporary theologians 
  of 
  note 
  who 
  were 
  consulted 
  on 
  the 
  issue 
  did  not  consider 
  there 
  was 
  any 
  ground  for 
  religious  objections 
  to 
  anaesthesia. 
  Thomas 
  Chalmers 
  (1780-1847), 
  possibly 
  the 
  greatest 
  of 
  19th  century   Scottish  churchmen, 
  regarded 
  the 
  issue 
  as 
  one 
  for 
  "small 
  theologians" 
  who, 
  if 
  they entertained  such  objections,  would 
  thus 
  be 
  taking 
  "an 
  improper 
  view 
  of 
  the 
  subject".33
  George 
  Rapall  Noyes 
  (1798-1868), 
  Professor 
  of 
  Hebrew 
  and 
  Oriental 
  languages 
  and 
  Lecturer 
  in 
  Bibilical 
  literature   and 
  theology 
  at 
  Harvard 
  Divinity  School, 
  has 
  been  described 
  in 
  the 
  Dictionary 
  of 
  American  Biography 
  as 
  "one  of 
  the 
  ablest 
  Biblical 
  scholars 
  of 
  his 
  day". 
  His 
  view, 
  expressed in 
  1848, 
  was 
  that 
  "God 
  could 
  not 
  have 
  intended, 
  by 
  any  thing   in 
  the 
  Scriptures, 
  to 
  oppose 
  the 
  development 
  of 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  laws  of 
  nature; 
  which 
  are 
  his 
  own  laws. 
  The 
  application 
  of 
  the 
  agents 
  of 
  nature, 
  by 
  human 
  ingenuity, 
  to 
  the 
  relief 
  of 
  pain, 
  is 
  also 
  the 
  use 
  of 
  God-given 
  means 
  by 
  God-given powers. 
  How, 
  then, can 
  such 
  a 
  course 
  be 
  irreconcilable with any 
  intimations 
  of 
  the 
  divine 
  will 
  whatever?".36
  
  It 
  is 
  almost  certain 
  that 
  Simpson’s pamphlet 
  Answer 
  to 
  the Religious Objections. 
  . 
  . 
  was 
  written 
  to 
  forestall objections which, in 
  the 
  event, did 
  not 
  arise, 
  and that 
  its 
  publication 
  has 
  subsequently 
  been 
  mis-interpreted 
  by 
  other 
  commentators  as 
  evidence 
  for a 
  non-existent 
  opposition. Personal 
  reservations 
  about 
  anaesthesia 
  upon 
  religious 
  grounds 
  were 
  certainly  felt,  but  the 
  lack 
  of 
  evidence - either 
  for  theological  opposition 
  to 
  anaesthesia  from 
  the 
  institutional 
  churches 
  or 
  of 
  any 
  widely 
  held 
  (or expressed) 
  opposition 
  on 
  the 
  part 
  of 
  individuals - is 
  too 
  significant 
  to 
  be 
  discounted.  It 
  must 
  be 
  concluded 
  that 
  there 
  never 
  was 
  any 
  formal 
  ‘conflict’ between 
  religion 
  and 
  science 
  at 
  this 
  point, 
  and that 
  the 
  whole 
  episode 
  is 
  no 
  more 
  than an 
  artifact 
  of 
  historiography34.
  
  ...
  
  33. 
  SIMPSON 
  JY. 
  Answer  to 
  the 
  Religious  Objections 
  Advanced  Against 
  the 
  Employment  of 
  Anaesthetic 
  Agents 
  in 
  Midwifery 
  and 
  Surgery. 
  Edinburgh: 
  Sutherland 
  &amp; 
  Knox, 
  1847. 
  
  34. 
  FARR 
  AD. 
  Medical  Developments 
  and 
  Religious 
  Beliefs. with Special Reference 
  to 
  Europe 
  in 
  the 18th 
  and 
  19th 
  Centuries. 
  Open  University,  Ph.D.thesis, 
  1977. 
  
  35. 
  SIMPSON 
  JY. 
  (Letter 
  to 
  Dr 
  Protheroe  Smith 
  of 
  London, dated 8th July 
  1848.)In: 
  SmithP. 
  Scriptural 
  Authority 
  for 
  the 
  Mitigation 
  of  the Pains 
  of 
  Labour 
  by 
  Chloroform 
  and 
  Other   Anaesthetic 
  Agents. 
  London: 
  S. 
  Highley, 
  1848: 43-52. 
  
  36. 
  NOYES 
  GR. 
  Letter to Prof. 
  W. 
  Channing, dated 3rd 
  February 
  1848. 
  In: 
  Channing 
  W. 
  A 
  Treatise 
  in 
  Etherization 
  in 
  Childbirth. 
  Boston: 
  Ticknor, 
  1848: 
  145. 
  


1. A.D. Farr, Early Opposition to Obstetric Anaesthesia [in Anaesthesia, the Journal of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 35, Issue 9, pages 896–907, September 1980]