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.

    85/152 (page 71)
    Bare tho woman for tho operation before he prooeeded to operate. I think he showed a ireat want of skill in shaking the patient. The effect of that was to f-^f™ I'er to inton-upt the regular return of the pains, and to change a simple case of labour into a tedious one. That appeared to me to he tho natm-al result. Then there appeared to me to have been gi-eat want of skill in applying the forceps. I never heard of any one applying the forceps, and it slipping eic/ht times. I never heard of any one— and I certainly think it is ma?jorac«ice—persevormg in applying the forceps for iivo hours. I beg it to be distinctly imderstood, however, that m saymg that g I disapprove of instiniments being used for two hours, I mean the repeated intro- duction of the instruments and their slipping, and the introduction of them a^ain. I do not refer to the fact that the forceps may be introduced, and the accoucheur wait for a pain to come before he uses traction. If there is no other reason than merely to save time —if the woman is going on satisfactorily, if there is no fever, no floodmg, no excitement, no appearance of tho child suffering by the dm-ation of the labour, no harm might arise from the forceps being left q in the uterus for two hours, and traction being used on them from time to time when the pains came on; but that is a totally different thing from repeated application of the forceps. If, as has been represented, the forceps was weak, any man who had any regard for himself, or regard for his patient, would have applied another forceps. He would have seen at once if it was too weak by its yield- ing, and it is wrong to re-introduce a forceps when you find that it yields—unless, indeed, there was some necessity, which, however, does not appear from the evidence q given by Dr Sharp, for hurrying delivery. But oven in that case, if he had not another forceps with him or at home, he could have applied to some of his profes- sional brethren; and I have such perfect confldence in the generous feeling of medical men generally, that whatever were his feelings with regard to these men, or what- ever was the state of their friendship, I am sure that no ono would have refused to supply him with his own forceps. Therefore I consider there was undue haste on this occasion. In this case also he stated—and I think it was an en'or, and shows e that there was a ivant of skill—that it was a first position of the child, and that tho face of the child was in the hollow of the sacrum. In the fvrst position the head of the child is in the right sacro iUac synchondrosis, it is not in the hollow of the sacrum; and the great object of asceitaimng tho position of the child early, is that you may gently tm-n the head into the hollow of the sacrum, and thereby facilitate labour. But he treats a knowledge of the position as of no importance; and it appears to mo that he has an imperfect knowledge of the positions, otherwise he never would have p said that the head in the first position was in the hollow of the sacrum. When the face is in the hollow of the sacrum, it is nearly the last stage before the head is dehvered; and ho might just as well say that the face in the second position was in tho hollow of the sacrum. The second position makes a more difScult case. It adds very much to the duration of labour, and the difficulty of natural deliv6iy. But I merely refer to the second position now for the purpose ofpointing out this, that you tni-n the head from left to right in using the short forceps. Therefore it was q important to know what position it was in. I think there was a want ef skill in applying the instriunents in the lotig diameter of the child's head, and not in the transverse. By so doing, however powerful the instruments he had might have been, they would have slipped. Tho forceps cannot bo applied in that direction with suf- ficient security to enable you to withdraw the head, particularly with the short forceps. Tho long forceps is different, but the short forceps must always, if it is skilfully applied, bo applied in the short diameter of the head and over the ears. Had g he applied it over the ears, as seemed to have been the case in Dr Oarmichael's appli- cation of the forceps, you would have had no injury on the forehead, particularly not in tho inner angle of the right eye. I do not care a bit about the scar; it is of no importance. It would have been a fearful scar, indeed, if it were still perceptible after twenty-six years, or whatever the time may be. There may have been a deep cut, and still the scar may not be very perceptible now. Indeed, candidly, in look- ing at the woman's face, and feeUng her heacl, unless tho bono had been injured 0,3 j well as the skin, I do not think there would fjo any great trace of tjie injury now. ' But there was sufficient evidence to show that tho foroopa wag wrong applied.'