An attempt to prove, on rational principles, that the term of human pregnancy may be considerably extended beyond nine calendar months : comprising the substance of evidence given in the Gardner peerage cause, before the House of Lords, July 4, 1825 / by John Power, M.D.

  • Power, John
Date:
1825
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An attempt to prove, on rational principles, that the term of human pregnancy may be considerably extended beyond nine calendar months : comprising the substance of evidence given in the Gardner peerage cause, before the House of Lords, July 4, 1825 / by John Power, M.D. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    98/176 page 30
    vious to the period ; it may have taken place the first day after the cessation of the other ; or taking it as the most general ivay of calcu- lating these cases, even where forty weeks, is the period contended for, the middle period, fourteen or fifteen days after the last menstruation, we have had a case of 318 days*. That instance you have stated was of Mrs. Granville ? — It was. What date, beyond the ordinary time, do you say that extended to, in your judgment? — I have observed before, supposing- concep- tion to have taken place the day before the expected and missed pe- riod of menstruation, knowing- as I do, that the child was born on the 7th of February 1816, the period, to say the least, is 306 days. Have the goodness to state some other instance within your own knowledge, where the ordinary time has been exceeded ? — The in- stances are taken from those registers. I have known a case of 285 days from the latest period of supposed impregnation, taking as the point of departure the last day of the month previous to the missed period, that is to say, twenty-eight or thirty days after the last men- struation. I have known a case [cases] of 290 and 300, and 315 days. In the latter instance, of 315, there was a doubt in my mind respecting the report made by the woman. She stated that she had terminated her menstruation previous to falling with child on a par- ticular day; but on cross-questioning, she admitted that for five days afterwards she continued to have a discharge. I merely state, on comparison, the 315 days appear; but that, in my conception of the case, or admission of the case, / should say it was only a case of310. How long is it since that case occurred in your experience?—The case of 315? I believe it must have been in 1821 ; but as to dates, I really must speak merely from recollection, the liability to recol- lection failing. Have you any other instances, in your own private practice, of protracted gestation, besides the one you ^ave a little time since?— None, in my own private practice. You are understood to say, that the other instances you take from your practice at the hospital? — Yes ; and of course assuming the an- swers given by the ivomen to my questions to be correct. Is there any other way of deciding the question at all, but by rely- ing on the testimony of the women who consult you? —No other, except in some few cases, where there is a possibility of ascertaining the very day on which conception took place from any [some] particular circumstances, which I have no doubt have occurred to individuals ; and I am myself acquainted with facts, though not peculiar to myself, in my own practice. Are you to be understood, that the only ground on which the judg- ment of the medical man must of necessity be founded, is the account which is delivered to him by his patient }—-Chiefly. * The reader must carefully remark, that the calculation is made from the middle period between two menstruations, when Dr. Granville speaks of 318 days—and from the day before the next expected menstruation, when he alludes to 306 days.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3