interesting article

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2006/...263120531.html

rather controversial, doctor wants to get rid of midwives!

I stumbled across it because I found one reference to Queen Victoria having
delivered her last 2 children by c-section, but I can find no evidence to
back it up, it would be surprising as the dates are 1853 and 1857, well
before uterine suturing was invented.

Anne

Anne Rogers wrote:
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2006/...263120531.html

rather controversial, doctor wants to get rid of midwives!

I stumbled across it because I found one reference to Queen Victoria having
delivered her last 2 children by c-section, but I can find no evidence to
back it up, it would be surprising as the dates are 1853 and 1857, well
before uterine suturing was invented.

I think Queen Victoria had her last two with the aid of anaesthesia
rather than c-section. She chose to have a doctor aiding her births
rather than midwives and when the doctor told her there was a chance of
having her births without having to feel the pain she went for it, one
of the first people to do so as far as I remember. It was something
along the lines of chloroform so she was completely out of it as
opposed to gas and air.

Cheryl

wrote:
Anne Rogers wrote:
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2006/...263120531.html

rather controversial, doctor wants to get rid of midwives!

I stumbled across it because I found one reference to Queen Victoria having
delivered her last 2 children by c-section, but I can find no evidence to
back it up, it would be surprising as the dates are 1853 and 1857, well
before uterine suturing was invented.

I think Queen Victoria had her last two with the aid of anaesthesia
rather than c-section. She chose to have a doctor aiding her births
rather than midwives and when the doctor told her there was a chance of
having her births without having to feel the pain she went for it, one
of the first people to do so as far as I remember. It was something
along the lines of chloroform so she was completely out of it as
opposed to gas and air.

This is correct. She had chloroform (though not enough to knock her out
completely). Chloroform had been in use for a few years already, though
wasn't very popular. Once Vic had it for her 8th labor, it became more
acceptable, and quite fashionable in England. (Though less so
elsewhere. When, a few years later, her eldest daughter had a
complicated labor over in Prussia (breech presentation), the doctors
there were very unwilling to use chloroform, which would have allowed
them to turn the baby. Which probably ended up changing history ....

Naomi

Cheryl

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Anne Rogers wrote:
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2006/...263120531.html

rather controversial, doctor wants to get rid of midwives!

I stumbled across it because I found one reference to Queen Victoria
having
delivered her last 2 children by c-section, but I can find no evidence
to
back it up, it would be surprising as the dates are 1853 and 1857, well
before uterine suturing was invented.

I think Queen Victoria had her last two with the aid of anaesthesia
rather than c-section. She chose to have a doctor aiding her births
rather than midwives and when the doctor told her there was a chance of
having her births without having to feel the pain she went for it, one
of the first people to do so as far as I remember. It was something
along the lines of chloroform so she was completely out of it as
opposed to gas and air.

This is correct. She had chloroform (though not enough to knock her out
completely). Chloroform had been in use for a few years already, though
wasn't very popular. Once Vic had it for her 8th labor, it became more
acceptable, and quite fashionable in England. (Though less so
elsewhere. When, a few years later, her eldest daughter had a
complicated labor over in Prussia (breech presentation), the doctors
there were very unwilling to use chloroform, which would have allowed
them to turn the baby. Which probably ended up changing history ....

that was certainly the impression I got, everywhere but this one article,
the odd thing was the one article that said she had was the one that should
have been the most correct as it was a medical history, rather than general
biography. I can't for the life of me refind the article today, despite
looking through my history. aha, found it
http://www.emedicine.com/med/byname/...n-delivery.htm under history of
the procedure, probably should email them to get their facts straight!

I looked at info on Victoria's oldest daughter, also Victoria, but no sign
of any complicated deliveries, 8 live births, shortest survival was 2 years,
though they were all born in Prussia, so whilst it might have happened, I'm
not sure what you mean by it changed history as it doesn't appear than
anyone died.

In my random searchings I discovered some cool stuff about different ways of
accessing the uterus for a c-section, I'd thought things were fairly much
horizontal or vertical incision, but how wrong I was!

Anne

Anne Rogers wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

This is correct. She had chloroform (though not enough to knock her out
completely). Chloroform had been in use for a few years already, though
wasn't very popular. Once Vic had it for her 8th labor, it became more
acceptable, and quite fashionable in England. (Though less so
elsewhere. When, a few years later, her eldest daughter had a
complicated labor over in Prussia (breech presentation), the doctors
there were very unwilling to use chloroform, which would have allowed
them to turn the baby. Which probably ended up changing history ....

that was certainly the impression I got, everywhere but this one article,
the odd thing was the one article that said she had was the one that should
have been the most correct as it was a medical history, rather than general
biography. I can't for the life of me refind the article today, despite
looking through my history. aha, found it
http://www.emedicine.com/med/byname/...n-delivery.htm under history of
the procedure, probably should email them to get their facts straight!

Definitely.

I looked at info on Victoria's oldest daughter, also Victoria, but no sign
of any complicated deliveries, 8 live births, shortest survival was 2 years,
though they were all born in Prussia, so whilst it might have happened, I'm
not sure what you mean by it changed history as it doesn't appear than
anyone died.

Right. Nobody died. But Vicky's eldest son, Wilhelm, was born after a
very complicated labor. (The books also invaiably describe it as
'long', but it seems to have only been about 16 hours, which isn't
especially long by most standards.) He wasn't breathing at birth and it
took several minutes for the midwives and attendents to get him
breathing. While there is no proof, of course, the speculation is that
the long period of apnea (and there may have been, as well, further
oxygen deprivation if his position in the uterus/birth canal compressed
the cord) led to brain damage. He certainly grew up to be a very odd
and unstable man who also, unfortunately, happened to be the Kaiser of
Germany for 30 years. Would WWI have happened if the Kaiser hadn't
been that way? Or if Wilhelm had died at birth and his younger brother
had had the throne? Who can say ...

Naomi

In my random searchings I discovered some cool stuff about different ways of
accessing the uterus for a c-section, I'd thought things were fairly much
horizontal or vertical incision, but how wrong I was!

Anne

Naomi wrote:
Right. Nobody died. But Vicky's eldest son, Wilhelm, was born after a
very complicated labor. (The books also invaiably describe it as
'long', but it seems to have only been about 16 hours, which isn't
especially long by most standards.) He wasn't breathing at birth and it
took several minutes for the midwives and attendents to get him
breathing. While there is no proof, of course, the speculation is that
the long period of apnea (and there may have been, as well, further
oxygen deprivation if his position in the uterus/birth canal compressed
the cord) led to brain damage. He certainly grew up to be a very odd
and unstable man who also, unfortunately, happened to be the Kaiser of
Germany for 30 years. Would WWI have happened if the Kaiser hadn't
been that way? Or if Wilhelm had died at birth and his younger brother
had had the throne? Who can say ...

OIC, would you believe that for a Brit I haven't even studied british
history beyond 1603 (death of Elizabeth I then James VI of Scotland becoming
James I of England). The style of history we were taught was much more
indepth, using source material, that kind of thing, all good skills, but
leaves on without an overview of anything that happened other than he
precise time period covered! Then due to the narrowing of curriculem we
mostly go through in the UK I ditched history at 14 in favour of design, but
it was well down on the list of what to do if I couldn't do design. I've
read a fair few books, but I've not covered everything! I decided to study a
course this year on ancient history which I found facinating, so it would be
great to do more.

Anne