Thanks for the information. I know zip about eclampsia, let alone how to spell it - well enough to have looked it up.
Lord Grantham and Doctor Arrogant certainly act like jerks, but honestly, it looked to me (and again, I have no medical training) like Sybil might have died no matter what they did.
Not sure I agree...
Everyone's bodies respond differently. And Dr. Clarksville states that while there is no guarantee she'll live if they went to the hospital - there is a "greater" chance of survival. If they do nothing and let her stay here - she will die. Add to this the fact that as Cora and others point out - Dr. Clarksville knew Sybil's medical history, he knew the family's, he wasn't an outsider. Knowledge of someone's medical history can make a difference.
So, if Sybil has pre-eclampsia (which she clearly did - certainly had all the symptoms), the only way she could survive it was via a c-section. Now, while there is a 60% chance that she could develop complications or other life-threatening conditions, she has a 40% or even possibly a 20% chance of surviving. BUT, if she does not get the c-section - 99-100% chance death.
Clarksville argued that. Cora argued it. Earl Gratham and Doctor Phil shot them down. The fact Clarksville had extensive experience with the family and their medical history and with this specific condition - plus Cora's own experience with child-birth - - and both argued for the hospital, underlines that this would have been the best course of action. Earl Grantham and Doctor Phil's argument doesn't quite hold water. It's irrelevant whether or not she "might have" died anyhow. The fact of the matter is that she definitely died and would definitely die if they did not do the c-section. By not taking the other course of action, they killed her as opposed to doing everything medically possible at the time to save her life.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-02-03 08:03 pm (UTC)Lord Grantham and Doctor Arrogant certainly act like jerks, but honestly, it looked to me (and again, I have no medical training) like Sybil might have died no matter what they did.
Not sure I agree...
Everyone's bodies respond differently. And Dr. Clarksville states that while there is no guarantee she'll live if they went to the hospital - there is a "greater" chance of survival. If they do nothing and let her stay here - she will die. Add to this the fact that as Cora and others point out - Dr. Clarksville knew Sybil's medical history, he knew the family's, he wasn't an outsider. Knowledge of someone's medical history can make a difference.
So, if Sybil has pre-eclampsia (which she clearly did - certainly had all the symptoms), the only way she could survive it was via a c-section. Now, while there is a 60% chance that she could develop complications or other life-threatening conditions, she has a 40% or even possibly a 20% chance of surviving. BUT, if she does not get the c-section - 99-100% chance death.
Clarksville argued that. Cora argued it. Earl Gratham and Doctor Phil shot them down. The fact Clarksville had extensive experience with the family and their medical history and with this specific condition - plus Cora's own experience with child-birth - - and both argued for the hospital, underlines that this would have been the best course of action. Earl Grantham and Doctor Phil's argument doesn't quite hold water. It's irrelevant whether or not she "might have" died anyhow. The fact of the matter is that she definitely died and would definitely die if they did not do the c-section. By not taking the other course of action, they killed her as opposed to doing everything medically possible at the time to save her life.