Skip to main content
Log in

Self-induced abortion — the peril is still real

  • Published:
Advances in Contraception

Abstract

A new immigrant from Romania tried to induce abortion by intrauterine self-administration of hypertonic sucrose at 7 weeks' gestation. Complete abortion did not occur and bleeding, infection and pregnancy residua persisted for 13 weeks. Evacuation by uterine curettage had failed, but a second curettage under real-time sonographic guidance was successful. Self-induced chemical abortions are rarely encountered in modern medicine. However, elevation of the iron curtain and mass immigration may increase the frequency of self-induced abortions in Western countries. Since the management, course, and outcome of each type of self-induced abortion are somewhat different, the pertinent differentiation is between chemical and mechanical and between various agents used for chemical-induced abortions. Mechanical abortions are best treated 12 to 24 hours after antibiotic therapy, while in chemically-induced abortion early evacuation of the uterus is indicated.

Resumé

Une récente immigrante de Roumanie a essayé de provoquer un avortement à la septième semaine de gestation en s'administrant par voie intra-utérine du sucrose hypertonique. L'avortement n'a pas été total et les saignements, l'infection et les résidus de la grossesse ont persisté pendant 13 semaines. La première évacuation par curetage utérin a été un échec mais le second curetage, effectué sous guidage sonographique en temps réel, a réussi. Il est rare en médecine moderne de se trouver face à des avortements auto-provoqués à l'aide de produits chimiques. Du fait cependant de la disparition du rideau de fer et d'immigrations massives, la fréquence des avortements auto-provoqués risque d'augmenter dans les pays occidentaux. Le traitement, le déroulement et l'aboutissement des avortements auto-provoqués différent quelque peu selon le cas type particulier; la distinction à faire réside donc entre les moyens chimiques et mécaniques et entre les différents agents utilisés pour les avortements induits par des produits chimiques. Il est préférable, pour les avortements provoqués à l'aide de moyens mécaniques, de les traiter 12 à 24 heures après une thérapie aux antibiotiques, alors que pour ceux qui ont été déclenchés chimiquement, il est indiqué de procéder au plus tôt à l'évacuation de l'utérus.

Resumen

Una reciente inmigrante de Rumania intentó provocar un aborto a la séptima semana de gestación administrándose por vía intrauterina sucrosa hipertónica. El aborto no fue total y las pérdidas de sangre, la infección y los residuos persistieron durante 13 semanas. La primera evacuación por raspado uterino fracasó pero el segundo raspado, efectuado con guía sonográfica en tiempo real, tuvo éxito. En la medicina moderna es muy poco frecuente encontrarse con casos de aborto autoprovocado mediante sustancias químicas. Sin embargo, al desaparecer la Cortina de Hierro y surgir la inmigración masiva, puede aumentar en los países occidentales al frecuencia de los abortos autoprovocados. Dado que el tratamiento, desarrollo y resultado de los abortos autoprovocados son algo distintos, la distinciín pertinente ocurre entre los medios químicos y mecánicos y entre los diversos agentes utilizados para los abortos inducidos por sustancias químicas. En el caso de los abortos mecánicos, es preferible tratarlos de 12 a 24 horas después de una terapia con antibióticos y en el de los abortos químicamente inducidos, se recomienda proceder lo antes posible a la evacuación del útero.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. TietzeC. (1986).Induced Abortion, a World Review, 6th edn. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute

    Google Scholar 

  2. RyanM. (1987) Illegal abortions and the Soviet health service.Br. Med. J.,294, 425–6

    Google Scholar 

  3. VonHaselbergO. (1869). Death from periotonitis following intrauterine injection.Verhandle Gesselsch. Geburtshilfe,22, 48–50

    Google Scholar 

  4. SpathG. (1878). Peritonitis and death due to injection of lead acetate solution through the tubes into the peritoneal cavity.Zentralbl. Gynak. 2, 593–6

    Google Scholar 

  5. BlochG.C. (1927). Generalized periotonitis following chemical abortion.La Med. (Paris),8, 522–4

    Google Scholar 

  6. FoxL.P. (1967) Abortion deaths in California.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.,98, 645–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. QuanderM.F. and MoselyJ.E. (1964). Abortion, chemical peritonitis and pulmonary edema following intrauterine injection of turpentine.Obstet. Gynecol.,24, 572–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. MartiniA.P. (1957) Peritonitis following intrauterine injection of turpentine.Obstet. Gynecol.,9, 523–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. BinghamE.M. and CutlerD.I. (1936). Chemical peritonitis following intrauterine injection.California West Med.,44, 45–49

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bach-NielsenP., WilhjelmA. and WilhjelmB. (1958). Therepeutic abortion by sterilized cremor saponisUgesk Laeger,120, 1009–11

    Google Scholar 

  11. JanovskyN.A., WeinerL. and OberW.B. (1963). Soap intoxication following criminal abortion.N. York J. Med. 63, 1463–71

    Google Scholar 

  12. ScholzH. (1952). Clinical manifestation of soap abortion.Arzt. Wochenschr., 7, 109–12

    Google Scholar 

  13. SmithR., SmithL.F. and TenneyB. (1962). Soap induced abortion, report of 5 cases.Obstet. Gynecol.,20, 211–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Case record of the Massachusetts General Hospital (case 29, 1961).N. Engl. J. Med.,264, 876–80

    Google Scholar 

  15. DeepA.A. and JacobsonI. (1965). Soap induced abortion, report of 4 cases.Obstet. Gynecol.,25, 241–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. BukaN.J., WheltonJ.A. and TenneyB. (1965) Upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage after septic abortion.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.,91, 504–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. ElstubA. (1956) Utero-adnexal infarction in pregnancy — an unusual complication of soap induced abortion.J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Br. Emp.,63, 748–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. RingroseD. (1965). Chemical salpingitis and bowel obstruction following soap injection into the gravid uterus.Obstet. Gynecol.,26, 277–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. BernsteinG.S., FutoranR.J. and WallD.M. (1970). Foreign body in the urinary bladder from attempted abortion.Obstet. Gynecol.,36, 475–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. GoldenbergR.L., DavisR.O. and HillD. (1984). The use of real-time ultrasound as an aid during difficult therapeutic abortion procedures.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.,148, 827–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weissman, A., Elhalal, U., Blickstein, I. et al. Self-induced abortion — the peril is still real. Adv Contracept 8, 81–88 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01849353

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01849353

Keywords

Navigation