Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Henry VIII Choice of names for

At 04:52 PM 1/14/04 -0000, aelyon2001 wrote:
>
>If I remember correctly, Jane Seymour died 12 days after Edward's
>birth, which is completely inconsistent with a caesarean of the
>medieval kind.

That's a bit of an understatement, since caesarean of the medieval time was
normally only performed if the mother had died, in hopes that the operation
might still save the child.

>I can't remember where I read it (possibly in
>connection with Kaiser Wilhelm II, who would have been spared a
>withered arm if it had been possible to carry out a caesarean at the
>time of his birth (1859) without killing the mother), but the first
>caesarean where the mother survived only took place in the 1880s. No
>doubt someone will put me right if I'm mistaken, but my understanding
>is that the big problem was blood loss, which would, of course, kill
>in minutes or hours rather than days.
>
>Ann

Actually, the first caesarean where the mother survived took place in 1500.

http://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/manitoba_womens_health/hist1b.htm

It was still an incredibly risky operation until the adoption of antiseptic
procedures in the late 1800's.

--- In , Ed Simons
<easimons@c...> wrote:
> At 04:52 PM 1/14/04 -0000, aelyon2001 wrote:
> >
> >If I remember correctly, Jane Seymour died 12 days after Edward's
> >birth, which is completely inconsistent with a caesarean of the
> >medieval kind.
>
> That's a bit of an understatement, since caesarean of the medieval
time was
> normally only performed if the mother had died, in hopes that the
operation
> might still save the child.

I have an idea, but will put it no more strongly than that, that it
was occasionally done when the mother was clearly about to die.
> > >
> Actually, the first caesarean where the mother survived took place
in 1500.
>
> http://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/manitoba_womens_health/hist1b.htm
>
I didn't know this, but given the figures quoted there, the basic
position isn't altered.

Ann

--- In , Ed Simons
<easimons@c...> wrote:

>
> Actually, the first caesarean where the mother survived took place
in 1500.
>
> http://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/manitoba_womens_health/hist1b.htm
>
> It was still an incredibly risky operation until the adoption of
antiseptic
> procedures in the late 1800's.

Yes...it's also in "Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine". It was
performed by a professional hog-gelder on his own wife. She and the
baby both survived and she even had a subsequent child. The only
previous examples of a woman surviving such a delivery were the
result of accidents, and there are a surprising number of examples
(like a half dozen, but that's a surprising number under the
circumstances) mostly involving a woman at the end of pregnancy
having her belly gored open, plus one who was run over by a cart.
Supposedly there used to be a saying in the medical profession that a
cesarean is only successful if it is performd by a cow.

Katy

--- In , Ed Simons
<easimons@c...> wrote:
> At 04:52 PM 1/14/04 -0000, aelyon2001 wrote:
> >
> >If I remember correctly, Jane Seymour died 12 days after Edward's
> >birth, which is completely inconsistent with a caesarean of the
> >medieval kind.
>
> That's a bit of an understatement, since caesarean of the medieval
time was
> normally only performed if the mother had died, in hopes that the
operation
> might still save the child.
>
> >I can't remember where I read it (possibly in
> >connection with Kaiser Wilhelm II, who would have been spared a
> >withered arm if it had been possible to carry out a caesarean at
the
> >time of his birth (1859) without killing the mother), but the
first
> >caesarean where the mother survived only took place in the 1880s.
No
> >doubt someone will put me right if I'm mistaken, but my
understanding
> >is that the big problem was blood loss, which would, of course,
kill
> >in minutes or hours rather than days.
> >
> >Ann
>
> Actually, the first caesarean where the mother survived took place
in 1500.
>
> http://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/manitoba_womens_health/hist1b.htm
>
> It was still an incredibly risky operation until the adoption of
antiseptic
> procedures in the late 1800's.

Well, where the mother was dead or very nearly dead and definitely
about to go that way. The papal record definitely indicated a belief
that a choice was made and the caesarian carried out whilst Jane was
alive. Whilst this is incorrect since no caesarian took place, the
fact that they believed she was alive and one did indicates that
they regarded it as an available option at that time.
Brunhild