The medical evidence relative to the duration of human pregnancy, given in the Gardner peerage cause, before the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords in 1825-6 : with introductory remarks and notes / by Robert Lyall.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Committee for Privileges
Date:
1826
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The medical evidence relative to the duration of human pregnancy, given in the Gardner peerage cause, before the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords in 1825-6 : with introductory remarks and notes / by Robert Lyall. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    92/136 (page 60)
    day ])receding- the next menstruation, or the next period of men- struatlon, the child would have been born in due time ?—Certainly* * * §^ That observation applies to all the three cases ?— Unquestionably. Cross-examined by Mr. Adam. The only reason you had to think that conception did not take place the day before the expected menstruation was the statement by the lady, that she imagined she had conceived on the 8th ?—Not only on that, because I conceive that impregnation is by no means so common the day before the expected term (f menstruation as it is the day after the menstruation has ceased. One day before the menstruation is not so likely as a longer period?—Certainly not. But the lady did not state to you the grounds on which she formed the supposition of her having conceived on the 8th of March ?—No, lie-examined by Mr. Tindal. Although it was so long after as October, did she at once fix upon the date you have stated to the House?—Certainly. Are there any other circumstances besides that arising from men- struation, from which a medical man can form an opinion, as to the time of conception, adverting particularly to the quickening of the child?—There are other symptoms by which he might be led to infer the impregnation; but all of those, I conceive, are secondary to the grand symptom of the cessation of the menstrual period\. Is there any other ground on which judgment can be formed as to the time at which impregnation takes place, that is, whether it is shortly after the preceding menstruation, or shortly previously to the expected subsequent one?—I a7it generally in the habit of calcu- lating from the time at which menstruation ceased; I reckon 280 days, from the time of the cessation of the monthly period; and reckoning 280 days, I find that I am generally correct in the calculation of the period at which the lady is to be delivered Is there any general opinion to which belief is given amongst practitioners, as to the time at which impregnation takes place?— The general belief, I fancy, is, that it takes place soon after the menstrual period §. {Mr. Attorney General.) Does the child continue to grow in * AVhy were such cases—cases which prove nothing to the point—at all mentioned ? t This deserves to be contrasted with Dr. Conquest’s idea, p. 50.^ X Tlie reader is requested to contrast this paragraph with the evidence of almost aU the other medical witnesses. AVere we to deduct any number of the twenty-eight days between two menstrual periods fi-om 280 days, we should have a rauge from 2.12 to 280 days as the term of human pregnancy. § It is more probable that conception takes place a short time pre\aou8 to the next expected menstruation; an opinion which we know many physio- logists entertain.