BEING OUT IN THE RECKONING.

426. A lady, sometimes, by becoming pregnant while she is suckling, is put out of her reckoning; not being unwell at such time, she consequently does not know how to “count.” She ought, in a case of this kind, to reckon from the time that she quickens—that is to say, she must then consider herself nearly half-gone in her pregnancy, and to be within a fortnight of half her time; or, to speak more accurately, as soon as she has quickened, we have reason to believe that she has gone about one hundred and twenty-four days: she has therefore about one hundred and fifty-six more days to complete the period of her pregnancy. Suppose, for instance, that she first quickened on May the 17th, she may expect to be confined somewhere near October the 23d. She must bear in mind, however, that she can never make so correct a “count” from quickening (quickening takes place at such various periods) as from the last day of her being “unwell.”

427. A lady is occasionally thrown out of her reckoning by the appearance, the first month after she is enceinte, of a little “show.” This discharge does not come from the womb, as that organ is hermetically sealed; but from the upper part of the vagina, the passage to the womb, and from the mouth of the womb, and may be known from the regular menstrual fluid by its being much smaller in quantity, by its clotting, and by its lasting generally but a few hours. This discharge, therefore, ought not to be reckoned in the “count,” but the one before must be the guide, and the plan should be adopted as recommended in page [186], paragraph 423.

“IS IT A BOY OR A GIRL?”

428. It has frequently been asked, “Can a medical man tell, before the child is born, whether it will be a boy or girl?” Dr. F. J. W. Packman, of Wimborne, answers in the affirmative. “Queen bees lay female eggs first, and male eggs afterward. In the human female, conception in the first half of the time between menstrual periods produces female offspring, and male in the latter. When a female has gone beyond the time she calculated upon, it will generally turn out to be a boy.”[[79]] It is well to say generally, as the foregoing remarks are not invariably to be depended upon, as I have had cases to prove. Notwithstanding, I believe that there is a good deal of truth in Mr. Packman’s statement.

MONTHLY NURSE.

429. It is an important, a most important, consideration to choose a nurse rightly and well.

430. A monthly nurse ought to be middle-aged. If she be young, she is apt to be thoughtless and giggling; if she be old, she may be deaf and stupid, and may think too much of her trouble. She should have calmness and self-possession. She must be gentle, kind, good-tempered, and obliging, but firm withal, and she should have a cheerful countenance. “Some seem by nature to have a vocation for nursing; others not. Again, nursing has its separate branches; some have the light step, the pleasant voice, the cheering smile, the dextrous hand, the gentle touch; others are gifted in cookery for the sick.”[[80]] The former good qualities are essential to a monthly nurse, and if she can combine the latter—that is to say, “if she is gifted in cookery for the sick”—she will, as a monthly nurse, be invaluable. Unless a woman have the gift of nursing, she will never make a nurse. “Dr. Thynne held that sick-nurses, like poets, were born, not made.”[[81]]

431. She ought neither to be a tattler, nor a tale-bearer, nor a “croaker,” nor a “potterer.” A tattler is an abomination; a clacking tongue is most wearisome and injurious to the patient. A tale-bearer is to be especially avoided; if she tell tales of her former ladies, my fair reader may depend upon it that her turn will come.[[82]] But of all nurses to be shunned as the plague is the “croaker,” one that discourses of the dismal and of the dreadful cases that have occurred in her experience, many of which, in all probability, she herself was the cause of. She is a very upas-tree in a house. A “potterer” should be banished from the lying-in room; she is a perpetual worry—a perpetual blister! She is a nurse without method, without system, and without smartness. She potters at this and potters at that, and worries the patient beyond measure. She dreams, and drawls, and “potters.” It is better to have a brusque and noisy nurse than a pottering one—the latter individual is far more irritating to the patient’s nerves, and is aggravating beyond endurance. “There is one kind of nurse that is not uncommon in hospitals [and in lying-in rooms], and that gives more trouble and worry than all the others together, viz., the ‘pottering’ nurse. Of all nuisances, defend us from a potterer.... The woman always has the very best intentions in the world, but is totally devoid of method and smartness. You never know when she has begun anything, and you certainly will never know when she has finished it. She never does finish it, but she sometimes leaves off.... She seems incapable of taking in a complete and accurate idea of anything, and even while you are speaking to her it is easy to see that her attention cannot be concentrated, and that her mind is flying about among half a dozen subjects. If she is in the least hurried, she loses what little intellect she ordinarily possesses, moans feebly in a sotto voce monotone, fetches the wrong articles, does the wrong thing at the wrong time, and is always in the way.”[[83]]

432. Some monthly nurses have a knack of setting the servants at loggerheads, and of poisoning the minds of their mistresses toward them. They are regular mischief-makers, and frequently cause old and faithful domestics to leave their situations. It will be seen, therefore, that it is a momentous undertaking to choose a monthly nurse rightly and well.