Ancestor who died of cancer in 1902?

[benny1982]

Hi

My great, great grandmother Thirza Edgington died on the 28th February 1902 at the Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford. The death cert said that she died of a "Carcinoma of the uterus and Exhaustion". The death was registered by her husband on the 1st March 1902. I think X Rays were invented in 1895 so she would no doubt have been X rayed.

I am curious though as the death cert just said "carcinoma of the uterus", (Exhaustion being a side effect of the cancer), but I would have thought that by the time she had finally died, the cancer would have spread to other parts of her body. I think cancer has to spread for it to be life threatening or can it be fatal from just affecting the uterus?

Ben

[ET in the USA]

I have a 19 Dec 1900 death cert issued in Evesham District, Worcestershire.

Cause of death: Carcinoma of Uterus Certified by L. F. Leslie M.R.C.S.

No mention of a length of time or secondary condition, so I guess that is the way they did it then. [I have seen death certs. with conditions numbered 1, 2, 3, etc.]

On my Mother's death certificate from 1986 issued in California USA it states, printed on the form "Conditions, if any, which gave rise to the immediate cause. Stating the underlying cause last.

The Dr. has written:
(a) Azotemia [below the line is pre-printed] "Due to, or as a consequence of"
(b) Bilateral Ureteral obstruction [same thing printed below the line as above]

(c) Carcinoma of the colon.

The modern version sounds like what you were expecting from 1902, but it seems they don't/didn't do that in the UK or at least not back then.

Elaine

[ET in the USA]

I forgot to mention that the person was aged 44 at the time of her death.
ET

[Pam101]

My mother died of ovarian cancer and the cause of death was stated as metastatic carcinoma i.e. cancer that had spread, with no indication of the primary cause, which must make the gathering of accurate statistics extremely difficult - maybe deliberately, to meet targets?

I would imagine that uterine cancer would have a similar effect to ovarian in that it would spread to other adjoining organs, particularly the bowel, liver or pancreas, which then causes death. I think that people generally die when cancer spreads to vital organs, if it hasn't started in a vital organ, and as far as I'm aware there's a pattern of spread depending on where it starts. But at least your gg grandmother's certificate gave the primary site, Ben, and IMHO that's essential for good statistical data. It would be interesting to know if primary cancer is generally not being identified on death certificates in recent years.

[benny1982]

Hi ET and Pam

Yes, she must have been in a lot of pain when she died.

So that "Carcinoma of the uterus" could have been the primary site that was listed on the death cert then, and that it probably had already spread to other organs by the time she died?

Ben

[Pam101]

Hi Benny. Reading the summary of this thread made me finally get my brain into gear |banghead| Doctors can only report what they actually know on a death certificate. In my mother's case, she had an exploratory operation to see what was going on, so it was seen that the cancer had metastasised and that was what killed her - although I still think the primary site should be reported, and in my mother's case it was known because they did blood tests, which they said were to identify the primary site so appropriate chemotherapy could be given. In your gg grandmother's case, if there was no operation or post mortem, they could only report on what they could identify by xray, or by symptoms and the feel of the abdominal area. She would probably have pain, but she'd probably also receive substantial doses of opiates to control it, and I don't think they were as worried about people becoming addicted in those days, so she might well have fared better than people do today in terms of pain control.

[benny1982]

Hi Benny. Reading the summary of this thread made me finally get my brain into gear |banghead| Doctors can only report what they actually know on a death certificate. In my mother's case, she had an exploratory operation to see what was going on, so it was seen that the cancer had metastasised and that was what killed her - although I still think the primary site should be reported, and in my mother's case it was known because they did blood tests, which they said were to identify the primary site so appropriate chemotherapy could be given. In your gg grandmother's case, if there was no operation or post mortem, they could only report on what they could identify by xray, or by symptoms and the feel of the abdominal area. She would probably have pain, but she'd probably also receive substantial doses of opiates to control it, and I don't think they were as worried about people becoming addicted in those days, so she might well have fared better than people do today in terms of pain control.

Hi Pam

That is interesting about the opiates. As it was in 1902 the cancer was too far advanced for them to operate. I emails the Oxford Medical Archives site a few days ago as they say they have admission registers for patients for the Radcliffe Infirmary. I want to find out how long she was in there before she died. If she died at the end of February 1902, then I assume that she was diagnosed in about November or December 1901, and started feeling ill a few months before that but then I am only surmising. The admission registers will give a clearer picture.

Ben