|
Post by karenk on Feb 21, 2013 11:08:31 GMT -5
What kind of "procedure" could Mary possibly have had in 1921 that would improve her fertility? They didn't have laproscopic equipment yet, so no cleaning out of endometriosis. What procedure could that doctor possibly have performed, especially one that required her not to have sex? I can't solve this mystery. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by formerlurkerlibby on Feb 21, 2013 23:30:08 GMT -5
Did they do D&C in the 20's? I was wondering about that too.
|
|
|
Post by karenk on Feb 22, 2013 9:49:40 GMT -5
I thought of a d&c as well. I guess that would clean out any endometriosis in the uterus but wouldn't do anything for her Fallopian tubes, correct?
|
|
|
Post by formerlurkerlibby on Feb 23, 2013 11:29:38 GMT -5
Yes, a d&C just "scrapes out" the uterus and doesn't do anything with the fallopian tubes. In the 20s a D&C would have been a major operation. My mom had a D&C in the 60s and was admitted to the hospital for a few days. Even 40 years later it was still a serious procedure.
Mary (as far as we know) had sex that one time with the Turkish guy. If she conceived and had a miscarriage but didn't know it, she may have had some tissue left behind that could prevent her from conceiving again. That's a lot of "if's" and "maybe's". And again, a D&C was a major operation, not an out patient procedure. I don't know of an outpatient procedure that would have been done in the 20s that would "restore fertility".
|
|
|
Post by karenk on Feb 23, 2013 16:14:28 GMT -5
I am a huge fan of the show but this seems sloppy on the writers part. What plot device did that fulfill?
|
|
|
Post by formerlurkerlibby on Feb 23, 2013 20:14:58 GMT -5
Good point, why? How did her inability to conceive move the story along? Other than the angst around Sybil being pregnant and Mary not getting pregnant. And Matthew's angst about his injury, and maybe it was him that was infertile. However, why bother when you are going to move the story ahead an entire year for the next program?
|
|
|
Post by ruffles on Feb 24, 2013 1:57:23 GMT -5
This whole story centers around Downton Abbey and its survival. There must be an heir who will look after, care and provide for it. If Mary and Matthew didn't produce a child, then what? ............... Yes. In a production of this quality, the writers need to provide substantially credible arguments to support the story.
|
|
|
Post by formerlurkerlibby on Feb 24, 2013 14:30:18 GMT -5
You are right Ruf, but wasn't Mary's baby a girl?
|
|
|
Post by karenk on Feb 24, 2013 17:16:10 GMT -5
No, I'm pretty sure it was a boy because when Matthew died I remember thinking at least there's an heir and Mary's got him!
|
|
|
Post by formerlurkerlibby on Feb 24, 2013 19:55:12 GMT -5
You all inspired me to go back and re-watch the shows on HULU. Today I watched the "Mr. Padmook" episode (#3). When he crawled on top of her he told her "You will still be a virgin for your husband." She said "Will it hurt? Is it safe?" So... I am wondering many things.
|
|
|
Post by formerlurkerlibby on Feb 24, 2013 21:35:14 GMT -5
Season 3 final episode is on "encore" performance tonight. I'll watch it again (SUCH a sacrifice) and see...
|
|
|
Post by Amanda on Feb 25, 2013 12:37:30 GMT -5
I am happy to say that all of this went well over my head, though, 1920s medicine aside, I didn't see the point of any of it. And yes, Mary and Matthew's baby is a boy.
|
|
|
Post by ruffles on Feb 25, 2013 14:19:53 GMT -5
It could have simply been a little aside story plot but for those of us who knew Matthew would be leaving us, the prospect of not having an heir became a concern. The knowledge of Mary's pregnancy brought a big "Whew!"
|
|
|
Post by ruffles on Feb 27, 2013 8:35:13 GMT -5
At chorus rehearsal, I asked a pc who also is a Downton fan if she knew what the procedure might be. She had no idea what-so-ever.
|
|