Hi John,
On 27-Apr-05 John Whittington wrote:
> [...]
> As for the terminology, it's a gloriously confused situation.
> Give or take a detail of spelling, you got the word (primiparous)
> right. Traditionally, it's just straight Latin. 'Parity'
> ('parousness') refers to the number of times the cervix has
> been dilated by childbirth ('number oif labours')
> - hence nulliparous, primparous, multiparous. Gravidity
> ('heavy with baby') is the number of times a woman has been
> pregnant - hence primigravid etc. So, traditionally, gravidity=3
> and parity=2 would indicate that a woman had been pregnant three
> times, and been in labour twice, the other pregnancy presumably
> ending in miscarriage. But then the fun starts. There are a few
> pedantic people out they who, realising that birth by Caesarian
> Section doesn't involve 'dilating the cervix' (and doesn't
> necessarily involve ever going into labour) contend that parity
> should exclude Caesarian births!
On "gravida", I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong (and I shall
then update my database), but I thought that "gravid" simply meant
"pregnant", so that for instance a "primigravida" refers to a
woman who is pregnant for the first time. In her case, presumably
gravidity = 1 but parity = 0. Or, if a woman has already had
2 normal pregancies culminating in successful normal birth, and
is now pregnant for the third time, then (in my way of thinking)
she too would have gravidity = 3 and parity = 2 (as in your
example, but not meaning the same). Or does "gravidity" have
to refer to preganancies now over and done with?
In which case, what is the gravidity of a primigravida?
If not 1, then what is it which has value = 1 in her case?
"Parity", from Latin "parere" "to bring forth", does tend
to suggest, etymologically so to speak, that the cervix
was dilated and the baby came out through the usual channels.
And of course in those days that was pretty well the way it
had to be, if it was to be at all.
Except of course for the aboriginal Caesarean Section:
Did they Romans say "paruit" when that Julius came out?
[According to Pliny, so t'is said; except that we also
have "caedere" = "to cut", perf. part. = "caesus"]. Ah well.
(And it seems that the "section" was a legal requirement,
under Roman Law, if the mother died in choldbirth.)
Nowadays, birth without "bringing forth" is more routine
(as we have been discussing). So one would expect that
"parity" should refer to numbers of times a child comes
into the world, whatever the pathway of final emergence.
But, where John's pedants are concerned, what term do they
suggest for the number of such occasions where the birth
was not normal?
Sorry to appear to drift off topic, but it does refelect
an underlying concern that people should know what is
heing talked about, especially when statistical facts
and figures are being discussed.
Which reminds me of something I heard on this morning's
"Today": some Labour MP being interviewed. He was asked
somewhat sceptically about this Government's record on
unemployment. His reply was to the effect "When Labour
came to power there were over 3 million unemployed. Since
then we have created 2 million new jobs." He succeeded
in talking over the top of what may have been attempts
to ask him "So how many are unemployed now?"
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 27-Apr-05 Time: 17:33:57
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|