The Caesarean section. / by Edward William Murphy.

  • Murphy, Edward William.
Date:
1859
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The Caesarean section. / by Edward William Murphy. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    27/32 page 27
    tion was performed by Mr. Poland, in consequence of the pel- vic cavity having been completely filled by a scirrhous mass. The child was saved, and the mother recovered perfectly from the operation, but, as might be expected, died some time after- wards of the original disease^. An impartial examination of these facts leads us obviously to the conclusion, that when the pelvic cavity is occupied by a diseased mass, and will scarcely admit a space more than two inches for the removal of the child, the risk to the mother is the same, whichever operation be performed. It is, therefore, the duty of the practitioner to select that which will give him a reasonable chance of saving the child. The propriety or impropriety of the Cassarean section is a question of that importance that I have been induced to bring it again before the profession; the more because it seems to me that too little weight is attached in this country to the life of the infant. Dr. Meigs expresses in forcible language the doc- trine commonly maintained, and “ protests against the Cassa- rean section being performed with any other views than those relative to the preservation of the mother, saving, always, that to preserve the child is a gieat additional good fortune”*^. Against such a doctrine as this I must equally enter my pro- test; and hold it to be the duty, both morally and profes- sionally, of the practitioner, to make an effort to save the in- fant’s life in cases where its sacrifice gives no certainty that the life of the mother may be preserved. The preservation of its life must not be viewed as an accidental piece of good fortune, but as a solemn duty, when the risk to the mother of craniotomy equals, or nearly equals, the Ctesarean section. No conscientious practitioner would for one moment hold the ba- lance equally between the mother’s and the child’s life. He would not hesitate to sacrifice the infant, if it were the means of preserving her. But in cases where there is no certainty whatever that such will be the case, where, on the contrary, the recovery of the woman after the frightful operation of tearing the infant piecemeal through the passages is looked upon as a remarkable event, a wonderful recovery, I repeat, that the practitioner is deeply responsible who will sacrifice human life for such a doubtful result. Having no faith whatever in conclusions derived from sta- tistics in reference to this question,! have endeavoured rather * Lancet, vol. ii. p. 22G. 1851. ^ Science and Art of Obstetrics, by Meigs, p. 510.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3