Truth : a libel by law : the evidence of Sir J.Y. Simpson, bart., M.D., and others, in the case of Sharp versus Wilson, with diagrams and correspondence / by James Wilson.

  • Wilson, James, L.F.P.S.
Date:
1869
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Truth : a libel by law : the evidence of Sir J.Y. Simpson, bart., M.D., and others, in the case of Sharp versus Wilson, with diagrams and correspondence / by James Wilson. 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.

    63/152 (page 49)
    case, with the pursuer, upwards of twenty years ago. I suppose I was hetwecn A twelve and twenty hours in attendance on her before the pursuer came. I can some- times teU, and sometimes not, if the child be Uving before the birth. From tho position the children were in I did not think them ahve. Their not being in a proper postm-e, I thought both children were dead. I never saw a child born ahve ichere an arm was presented. There may be cases, but I do not know of them. There are cases where children are bom alive with a foot presentation. My reason for thinkinc that in this case the presentation was the foot of one child and the hand B of the other^ was that the foot of the one child and the hand of the other were blue after the children were dehvered. Mrs 0. was able to go between the bed and the fireside after the delivery, but I do not think she went beyond that. She never recovered right owing to lier weak state and previous state of health. I cannot say if her deUvery was, or was not, connected with the cause of her death. She was net put under chloroform. I attended JIi-s W. M.'s case about seventeen years ago. I had been in attendance iipon her between eight and ten hom-s before the pursuer came. C The presentation was natural. The only pecuharity about the case was that the labom- was slow. The forceps luei-e introduced during a labour pain. He used the forceps within an hour or two after he came, and the child was bom within half-an- hour or twenty minutes thereafter. I attended Mrs M.'s first case about seven or eight years ago. She had given birth to several living children before that, but I attended her on none of these occasions. The first one I attended her for was a very natural and easy dehvery. There was no peculiarity about it save the after-flooding. 1) It was not in consequence of any difficulty in the case that the pvu'suer was there. On the second occasion I doMvered her with perfect ease. I attended Mrs M.'s case, with the pm'suer, about fifteen or sixteen years ago. It was a natm-al presentation. I suppose the slowness was the only peculiarity about the case. That was her first child. She has never had another. I never heard that Mrs M.'s perineum was ruptured upon that occasion. The first of Mrs T.'s confinements I attended was fifteen or sixteen years ago. It was her first child. I was a few hours in attendance before the pm-suer E came. Everything was natural about the case. The labour was slow. The pursuer introduced the forceps during a labour pain. 1 think Mrs T. was under the influence of chlorofoi-m when she was delivered. She was delivered in about twenty minutes or half an hour after the forceps were introduced. Mrs T.'s second case was about six years ago. It was a natm-al case, only the labom- was very slow. She was in labom-, I think, six or eight hom-s before the forceps were introduced. It was durini; a labour pain they were introduced, and while Mrs T. was under the influence of chloroform. P She was dehvered a few minutes after the pm-suer used the forceps. Mrs T. was a healthy person then, and stiU is, and she was strong at the time. She had no con- vulsions or flooding. In introducing the forceps, Mi-s T.'s person was not exposed. I do not recoUect of any of the persons I attended with the pui-suer being exposed. I think the pursuer delivered Mrs D. W. on the first occasion deponed to where I and the pursuer attended her. Dr Milne was there at the time of delivery, and I am not sm-e which of them dehvered Mrs W. I suppose she had been twenty-four Q hours in labour before Dr Milne came. She was delivered about four or six hom-s after Dr Milne came. I was present at the time of deUvery. I did not hear Mrs Henderson, the minister's wife, suggest that Dr Milne should be sent for, and I cannot say who proposed that he should be sent for. It was a natm-al presentation, and I suppose the slowness of the labom- was the only peculiarity about it. In Mrs W.'s other confinements they were all natural. I attended the case of Mrs G. F., Seatown of Cullen, about eighteen months ago. There was no difBculty in giving 11 birth to the twin of which I dehvered her. The presentation of the other chOd was a natural presentation. The pursuer was sent for two or three hours after the birth of the first child, because the labom- pains had ceased. She was a yomi? woman, but weakly. She had a flooding, but no convulsions. The flooding was a httlo after °^ second child. There was no flooding after the birth of the first child. Mrs F. was very much the same after the child was tm-ned as she was before. Ihere was no peculiariti/ about the case, except that the labour ivas slow. There I was nothing alarming before the child icas turned. That, and the case of Mrs R wore the only oases where I ea-iv the child turned by any one. The pursuer used no D