Opening Speech at the 50th Anniversary Congress of the Scandinavian Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Stockholm, January 28‐29, 1983

U. Borell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/00016348409162136

1984-01-01

Abstract:The Scandinavian Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has decided to celebrate its 50-years of existence by a specially arranged congress in Stockholm. The Association is greatly honoured by the presence of your Majesty for the opening ceremonies and the morning lectures. For me it is also an honour and a pleasure to welcome here the members of the Association from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as well as our other guests. On the 29th of June 1933, some fifty gynecologists from the Scandinavian countries were gathered to a statutory meeting and decided by popular accord to form a federation for the gynecologists of the Scandinavian countries. Before this there had been joint congresses with the surgeons, which was only natural as obstetrics and gynecology were part of the many branches of surgery as were for example ophtalmology, and the ear, nose and throat specialty. At that time there were few independent women’s clinics. Hospital surgeons were responsible for gynecological cases and the majority of the deliveries, at least those which did not take place in the homes under the supervision of a district midwife, a common practice in those days. The general surgeon of that time had many varying tasks and engaged in extensive allround surgical activity. Consequently he seldom had time or possibility, or maybe even interest, in developing and perfecting the technically exacting, often difficult, gynecological operations. This was particularly true of the surgical treatment of cancer. Obstetrics, of course, was even removed from this main field of activity. By the 193Os, however, obstetrics and gynecology had started to take their place as an independent speciality. The discovery of the essential importance of hormones for the reproductive organs opened up an important and entirely new field for the gynecologists of that time. The role of the endocrine glands in the normal functioning and in diseases of the genital organs began to be more fully understood. Thus, the speciality’s sphere of activity was extended into areas which had traditionally been considered a part of internal medicine. Historically it is therefore important to recognise this separation of gynecology from surgery and to stress its independence. We must be very grateful to the Scandinavian gynecologists of that time for their far-sightedness in setting up a specifically Scandinavian Association for our speciality. The last 50 years have quite clearly shown how right were their intentions and lines of thought. As regards research, training and public health and sick care, gynecology and obstetrics have established their claim to clearly defined field of work. This anniversary seems a suitable occasion on which to compare the public health and sick care of 50 years ago with that of today. My many years of work within our speciality makes it possible for me to make such a comparison based on personal experiences. I entered the field as early as spring 1941, when I attended a course in obstetrics and gynecology. The difference is perhaps most significant in obstetrics. In those days it was not unusual for women to be in labor for two up to four days. The obstetricians of that period were almost exclusively very conservative, and the rule was to expect and allow the delivery to pursue its normal course. Caesarean sections were risky operations at a time when antibiotics were not available and anesthesia did not exist as a separate speciality. As a rule, anesthetics were administered by a theatre nurse who almost totally lacked training in anesthesia. Severe bleeding and shock conditions were deleterious owing to an incomplete knowledge of for instance liquid substitution. At that time, for example, we did not know anything about the blood Rh factor, it was a completely unknown notion. There was no proper functioning blood-donor organisation. The following. perhaps somewhat dramatic case description, may illustrate the problems and risks at that