Medicine B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is it called a Caesarean "section"? I'm not asking about the word Caesarean. I want to know why it's a "section". The Etymology section should explain this. I'd edit it, if I knew the answer. Neutron Jack (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/cesarean/part1.html :

Until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the procedure was known as cesarean operation. This began to change following the publication in 1598 of Jacques Guillimeau's book on midwifery in which he introduced the term "section." Increasingly thereafter "section" replaced "operation."

Ciotog (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see a date on the statistics here.

Is there any data on why Caesar doesn't become Cesar, yet Caesarian becomes Cesarian? Grassynoel (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion about the possibility that "Caesarean section" could be derived from the name Caesar. If Caesarean section is indeed derived from Caesar, that doesn't have to mean that Caesar was born via Caesarean section - it could have been a mistake (people might have simply rumoured that he was born this way), or it could be that a policy regarding the procedure was implemented during Caesar's rule, so it became known as Caesarean. At any rate anyone who says that Caesarean cannot have been derived from the name Caesar is applying original research.Ciotog (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources that might be used:

http://stason.org/TULARC/languages/english-usage/83-Caesarean-section-Word-origins-alt-usage-english.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A974333

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmedsamp?book=Medical&va=Caesar

Ciotog (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is not made that the name does not derive from Caesar. The claim is made that the name does not derive from Caesar's birth - which even your own source says was not caesarian because in ancient times that was only done to dead or dying mothers. Nor is the lex caesarea attributed to Julius Caesar. Here is a definitive description:

"Lex Caesarea (caedere = to cut), promulgated in 715 BC, declared that in the event of maternal death during pregnancy, the unborn child should be removed through an abdominal incision in the hope that it might be viable. That is how cesarean section got its name."

μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reputable sources I've come across are careful to say that it's "unlikely" Julius Caesar was born via Caesarean - not impossible.

Could you provide the source for the definitive description? Unless they have a time machine, I really don't think any source can be described as definitive. At any rate this is alluded to in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the etimology section - it could certainly have been worded better. Ciotog (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology section is looking somewhat better, although maybe the wording is a little muddled. I still find it hard to accept the phrase "they invariably resulted in the mother's death", since I haven't found a single source that said the rate was known to be 100% - in fact most of the sources referenced in this section seem to go out of their way to say it was highly improbable. To pick a single source that might suggest it was absolutely 100% is putting undue weight on that source.

Since many highly credible sources provide a number of possible etymological origins for the term, then it is this encyclopedia's duty to provide all these possibilities as they're mentioned and without bias. You yourself may be completely certain about one or another of the theories, but that isn't how encyclopedias work. Ciotog (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no classical record of a woman surviving a Caesarean. The Oxford Classical Dictionary says "could not survive the trauma" (see the footnote in the article) and the NIH source says there is no report of a woman surviving a c section before 1500. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That there is no classical record doesn't mean it didn't happen - only that it wasn't known that it happened. That's why credible sources don't say things in absolute terms. Ciotog (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sources. Oxford says could not survive.

The unreferenced NIH brochure is not a definitive source of what is not known. If you want to say "according to an NIH brochure" the truth is not known, that is fine. I am reverting to remove the unprovable "no one knows" claim as weasel worded and as a very stron POV in itself, not in opposition to listing the other theories, since they have been held. There is no problem saying that there are certain theories and providing them. Just try listing them without the editorializing. To say that no one knows is to chose skepticism as the default POV. Simply listing the alternatives does not have that same fault.μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my last edit? I removed the word invariably to which you objected.μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see that edit. At any rate, I'm not objecting to the idea that no mother ever survived a c-section prior to 1500 or so, which is likely true, just to the idea that it's a proven fact - which it can't possibly be. Quoting one source that says that says "definitely could not survive" but ignoring all those that say "most likely could not survive" is choosing a particular POV over the others. It's not weasly to say "no-one really knows for sure" when that's the case, even when one person claims to know. If anything you could say "the Oxford dictionary claims..." but that's about it. Ciotog (talk)