252 OF LABOR. 



by the feet or the body delivered before the head." Smellie's divi- 

 sion, taught at the same time by Astruc, adopted by Solayres, and 

 propagated by Baudelocque, is still followed by a majority of French 

 accoucheurs. 



643. There are few authors, however, who have not attempted to 

 show its incorrectness, and readily succeeded in doing so; but as 

 those which have been proposed as substitutes are not less incon- 

 venient, it has preserved at least the advantage of being more gene- 

 rally known than any other. 



It would be quite as well to follow it, for example, as with Millot, 

 to admit of a division into natural labors, properly so called (the 

 child presenting the head); irregular natural labors (the child coming 

 breech foremost); artificial labors (those which require the em- 

 ployment of the hand, either alone, or armed with some instrument, 

 but without any necessity for dividing the mother's parts); pre- 

 ternatural labors (where it is necessary to make an artificial passage 

 for the child); or, with M. Gardien, to admit of mixed labors 

 (where the position of the foetus only requires to be changed); or 

 with MM. Maygrier and Gardien, and Madame Boivin, to make 

 a division of artificial labors (preternatural and laborious labors); 

 with M. Capuron, mechanical labors (where recourse is had to 

 instruments); or manual labors (the preternatural of Baudelocque); 

 or to make along with Denman a fourth class, under the title of 

 anomalous labors; or with Burns, to establish seven classes to con- 

 fuse every thing: 1. Natural labor; 2, Premature labor; 3. Pre- 

 ternatural labor; 4. Tedious labor; 5. Instrumental labor; 6. Im- 

 practicable labor; 7. Complicated labor. In fact these accoucheurs 

 have only changed the acceptation of the terms they employ, or 

 the new ones they propose are still more faulty than the old ones, 

 and I cannot perceive that the modifications adopted by MM. Her- 

 man of Berne, and Dewees of Philadelphia, obviate this inconve- 

 nience. Besides, there is no such thing as a labor purely artificial, 

 and the student cannot at a first glance understand the difference 

 between a manual and a mechanical labor, any better than that be- 

 tween preternatural and laborious labors. 



The division that I prefer approaches very nearly to the one in- 

 dicated by Mauriceau. All labors that terminate under the sole 

 influence of the powers of the organism, after the manner of M. 

 Lebreton, I call spontaneous, fortunate or simple; those, on the con- 

 trary, that present difliculties of what nature soever, and which in 

 any way endanger the life or the health of the mother or of the child, 

 I call difficult, troublesome or complicated; and each of these great 

 classes may in turn be divided into orders, genera, species and varie- 

 ties, if the wants of the science call for it. 



