EFFECTS OF OOPHORECTOMY 31 



Great care was always taken neither to expose the Author's 

 uterus, nor to handle it, and the operation was always 

 complete in a few minutes. 



There has been much discussion in connexion with 

 this question since oophorectomy was first performed 

 experimentally during pregnancy by Fraenkel 1 at the 

 suggestion of Born. Fraenkel claimed that the secretion 

 of the corpus luteum was necessary for the implantation 

 of the ovum. There are, however, still those who assert 

 that the necessary operative manipulations cause the 

 abortion which usually occurs. I am inclined to think Oophorec- 

 that it is not the operative manipulation in view of our n^^g^a-^ 1 

 control experiments. At the same time, I do not think ^ ion in 

 that a comparison can be made between rabbits and Woman. 

 the human subject in this respect, for there are authentic 

 cases on record in which the ovaries or corpora lutea 1 

 have been removed from women early in pregnancy in 

 one case, in the second week (Essen-Moller) 2 , and in 

 another of my own in the seventh week without the 

 interruption of gestation. There could be no doubt in 

 cases observed in women that the whole of both ovaries 

 had been removed if parturition were followed by the 

 artificial menopause. 



It would be accurate, therefore, to say that while, 

 on the one hand, the internal secretion of the corpus 

 luteum is favourable to the implantation of the ovum 

 and continuation of pregnancy, yet, on the other, this 

 secretion is not absolutely essential in that respect at 

 any rate, in the human subject. The work of Loeb 3 , 

 indeed, indicates that in the lower animals the secretion 

 of the corpus luteum is specifically concerned in 

 sensitizing the uterine mucosa in which by mechanical 

 stimulation a deciduoma resembling the decidua of 

 pregnancy can be produced. 



1 Fraenkel, L., Archiv. f. GynaL, 1902, vol. Ixviii, p. 438. 



2 Essen-Moller, E., CentrdLU. f. GynaL, 1904, vol. xxviii, p. 869. 



3 Loeb, L., Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc., 1908, vol. 1, p. 1897; Biol 

 Bull., 1914, voL xxvii, p. 30. 



