The pathology of intra-uterine death.

  • Priestley, W. O. (William Overend), 1831-1900.
Date:
1887
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The pathology of intra-uterine death. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University Libraries/Information Services, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library at Columbia University and Columbia University.

    16/232 (page 8)
    themselves as Laving had many or several abortions, and some had persuaded themseves that miscarriage had occurred when there was no satis- factory evidence that pregnancy had occurred at all. I took, therefore, the figures representing 400 jDatients, in -whom the evidence was distinct and unequivocal. All the women had reached at least then- 40th year, and hence the history included for most of them the whole of the child-bearmg period of life. The results were as follows : 400 women had been pregnant 2325 times. Of these, pregnancy had resulted in living children 1783 times, and there had been 542 abortions. The proportion of abortions to children was, therefore, 30.40 per cent, or about I in 3, Avhile the proportion of abortions to preg- nancies was 23,32, or about i in 4. The number of women who had borne children but had never suffered abortion was 152 in the 400, or 3S per cent., while the number of Avomen who had borne no living child and only had abortions was 27, or 6.75 per cent. The sum of the pregnancies in 400 women being, therefore, 2325, or 5.81 for each, and the sum of the abortions being 524, it was 1.35 for each. It will be seen that the proportion of abortions to full-time pregnancies is considerably higher than Hegar's computation. The proportion approximates more closely to Dr. Whitehead's figures; but there is a larger average of abortions, as the calcula- tion embraces a longer portion of the reproductive period; and there is another notable difierence, which may perhaps be put down to easier circum- stances and exemption from bodily toil—namely,