On the comparative size of the hand of the accoucheur and of the female pelvis / by George King.
- Date:
- 1851
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: On the comparative size of the hand of the accoucheur and of the female pelvis / by George King. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
6/16
![iil)])lication of it, nor have the obstetric professors thought it of sufficient importance to inform their pupils whether a large one or a small one would be the best for use; nor is there any notice of the enormous difference in the size of them. Dr. David Davis, in his valuable work ‘ On the Principles and Practice of Obstetric Medicine,’ says;—“It is well known that the hand, when properly adapted to its object, is a much safer obstetrical instrument than any instrument that can be made.” We all know that it is the indicator or eye of the practitioner in midwifery, and possesses a power far above all other instruments—that is, the property of touch; by this sensibility circumstances arc made known, and the situation of the parts we are in contact with is conveyed to our minds, and by this all our movements and opera- tions.'ire directed, andour medical treatment regulated. SirCharles Bell, in his ‘Bridgewater Treatise,’ gives the following description of the human hand;—“The human hand is so beautifully formed, it has so fine a sensibility, that sensibility governs its motions; so correctly every effort of the will is answered, so instantly, as if the hand itself were the seat of that will. Its actions are so powerful, so free, and yet so delicate, that it seems to possess a quality—in- stinct—in itself; and there is no thought of its complexity as an instrument, or of the relations which make it subservient to the mind.” This is a vivid and beautiful description of a perfect human hand, fully and properly adapted for all natural purposes as well as art. But all men’s hands are not alike; they arc not so beautiful, or so delicate, nor arc the}’ all so symmetrical as the one depicted by Sir Charles. They, therefore, are not all so well fitted for all the purposes for which they may be required to be used, and it is because I believe that an enormously large hand is. a highly improper instrument to lie used in many of the difficult and perplexing cases of midwifery, that I have been induced to make these remarks on the comparative size of the hand, wdth a view of drawing the attention of obstetric teachers and practi- tioners to it. In all surgical operations we have the most minute directions given us as to the instruments to be made use of, as to shape .•ind size, &c., and in all surgical works a description is given of them, and ample rules laid down for the selection of the most proper to be used, and their exact width, as well as length is par- ticularly mentioned, and we have also the exact dimensions of the pelvic aperture, and we have also ample directions as to wliat sized foetal head will be likely to pass through it without ;issistance; but the outlet of the pelvis may be considei'ably di- minished by distoi’tion, and the inlet contracted, nevertheless, regardless of the size or consequences, the hand must be got through in order to find out what is going on at the brim; and it](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21953521_0008.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
