The medical evidence relative to the duration of human pregnancy, as given in the Gardner peerage cause, before the Committee for Privileges of the House of lords in 1825-26 / With introductory remarks and notes by Robert Lyall.

  • Robert Lyall
Date:
1826
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The medical evidence relative to the duration of human pregnancy, as given in the Gardner peerage cause, before the Committee for Privileges of the House of lords in 1825-26 / With introductory remarks and notes by Robert Lyall. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    57/140 page 23
    By some mechanical obstruction, if it may be so expressed? — Yes. Cross-examined by Mr. Tindal. Was the person whom you mentioned in that particular instance, the poor woman, a married woman ? — She was. Though in this particular case she foretold the time of her delivery so accurately, is it not the case that in by far the greater number of instances married women are deceived as to the time?—/ do not recollect a single instance where that mistake has taken place, when I had reason to believe that the party had reckoned from any particular intercourse. That is, if the party had reckoned rightly, there was then no mistake ?— When 1 have believed that she was reckoning from that principle, then there was no mistake. Then the answer goes no further than this, that when you found by the event she was right, she was right in her reckoning ? — My answer goes further ; that when she was reckoning from a particular principle, that is, the recalleclion of the coitus, and having noted that fact in her recollection, she was right as to the time ; but when she Avas reckoning on general principles, as they are from menstru- ations, which is the general principle,, it sometimes happens that they are wrong. Does it not frequently happen, from whatever mode they reckon, that they are wrong in their calculations.?— Yes, now and then; not very frequently. Is it not a thing quite common, that the doctor has been sent for long before he was wanted? — Yes, because it frequently happens that women are attacked by v/hat are called false pains ; those pains not constituting the pains of true labour. When the doctor arrives, and finds those pains on, does not the female herself state that she expects to be delivered?—They do sometimes expect before; but that proves nothing. The female expects from the pain she is in at that moment, from the pain she is suffering ; that pain greatly sirailating the pains of real labour ; but the practifioner, having the o])portunity of ascertaining the fact for himself, can instantly say whether she is in labour or not, and thus, from the premises, conclude that she is not in labour. The doctor thinks one thing and she thinks another? — Yes. The doctor knows when he has an opportunity of instituting an examination, that she is mistaken, because he finds that the uterus, the lower part of the womb, has not developed ; that the business of gestation is not concluded*. Does this amount to any thing more than that the lady expecting a particular time has been disappointed in her own calculation? — * A friend, a practitioner and lecturer of some eminence, is positive that he has known repeated instances of spurious pain, in which the cervix uteri has not only been entirely obliterated, but the orifice sufficiently open to admit a couple of fingers, and yet labour has been deferred for nearly a month afterwards. Professor Hamilton used to mention cases in which ' though the cervix uteri was obliterated, yet real labour had not commenced.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3