| My water broke at 38+1 and I delivered the next day. Baby was small (just under 6 lbs) but no problems at all -- he stayed in the room with me at the hospital, went home with me, and breastfed from the beginning without any issues. |
|
There is a lot of debate about what should be considered "term". A lot of research is now showing that babies born between 37 and 39 weeks have a lot more respiratory and developmental issues than babies born at 39 weeks plus. There is discussion about changing the definition of "term" to 39 weeks. A lot of these designations are arbitrary and we have just accepted them, but are now learning that 37 weeks isn't always really "term" for all babies. See article below.
http://centerforhealthreporting.org/blog/rethinking-definition-term-pregnancy778 Obstetricians hear it from their pregnant patients all the time: My back hurts. I’m swollen. I’m exhausted. Get this baby out of me! “Why do I have to wait for 39 weeks if 37 is good enough?” some have asked Elliott Main, chairman of the ob-gyn department at San Francisco’s California Pacific Medical Center. “Women think it’s fine to deliver at 37 weeks,” he said. Who can blame them? Technically, a “term pregnancy” is one between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation. But recent data show that not all of those weeks are equal when it comes to potential complications to the mother and child. Now some doctors and advocacy groups believe the definition is outdated and should change. As I reported last week, more hospitals are cracking down on elective deliveries – whether by scheduled cesarean sections or labor inductions – between weeks 37 and 39 of pregnancy unless there’s a medical reason. That’s because babies and moms are at greater risk of complications from elective deliveries during those weeks, ranging from breathing problems to sepsis. One thing that makes it difficult for hospitals to implement these crackdowns is the definition of “term pregnancy.” Some doctors say they have a hard time selling the concept of patience to their patients, who have gotten used to the notion that giving birth during weeks 37 and 38 is safe. A survey in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology shows just how confused women are. Out of 650 women who recently gave birth, 24 percent believed a baby at 34-36 weeks was full term. Nearly 51 percent put full term at 37-38 weeks. One-quarter chose weeks 39 and 40, which are considered optimal weeks to give birth. John Wachtel, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University Medical School, is among those pushing for a change in the definition. “Term pregnancy” was defined somewhat arbitrarily, he said, “at a time before ultrasound was available and before we were accurately able to date the pregnancies.” He pointed to another article, also in Obstetrics & Gynecology, whose authors suggest keeping weeks 37 to 42 labeled as term, but to create subgroups within that category. Weeks 37 and 38 would be called “early term” and weeks 39, 40 and 41 would be “full term.” Wachtel said that’s a good starting point, but eventually, the goal should be to call only pregnancies during weeks 39, 40 and 41 term, he said. “If term pregnancy was defined as after 39 weeks, it would really help in trying to change the culture,” he said. |
| OB's like to induce at 40 weeks because the risk of stillbirth rises after that esp if the dating is off (ie 40 weeks is really 41 or 42 weeks). |
Not all OBs "like to induce at 40 weeks". Mine recommends induction at 42 weeks. If you are going to claim that the risk of stillbirth rises after that, please cite research. I don't think that's universally accepted as true. Also, while it's true that due dates can be off, that's another reason not to induce at 40 weeks -- what if a mom is only 38 or 39 weeks and not actually 40? then you are setting your baby up for possible unnecessary respiratory problems by forcing him or her out too early.
|
| Almost all of my babies were born precisely at 38 weeks, naturally, all perfectly healthy and big and strong, the last two at home. I am anticipating the next one will also come at 38 weeks, at home, and I'm looking forward to it! |
| My OB told me she considers 38-42 weeks term. I delivered both my kids at 38 wks 1 day (not twins). they were both well over 6 lbs and did just fine. |
| My water broke at 38 weeks and a day, I delivered my son that afternoon without complications (natural birth at VHC). He's in the 95th percentile now, healthy, happy and getting a pretty bad 2-year-old attitude.... |
Where in the world did this information come from? |
| I've had 2 babies at 38 wks 2 days and 38 wks 3 days. I know my dates were right. Both of them had serious trouble breastfeeding because they were very very sleepy for several weeks. I'm talking sleeping 23 hours a day. That sounds great to moms who have babies that cry all night, but trust me, when you're trying to feed your baby, it's awful. That said, aside from some jaundice with DD#1, they were completely healthy. And we did eventually figure BFing out. |
Yes, we had the same problems with sleepiness and breastfeeding (and jaundice). Other than that, no issues. For medical reasons, I was induced at 37 weeks, 6 days. |
| My son was breech and I was scheduled to have a c section at 39 weeks. My water broke at 38 weeks and 1 day so I had th c section then. He was healthy and was over 7 pounds. I was very worried that he was early, but the worry wasn't necessary. Everything was great! |
|
35 weeks and 5 days. Water broke, nothing we could do. And she was 7 lbs and lustily healthy from the start. At that late stage, I think its just a total crapshoot.
|
| Jaundice, which is pretty common for earlier born babies. No other problems. Jaundice is upsetting at the time but treated it has no long term consequence. |
| 36w4d. Just a little jaundice (didn't need lights, just monitored). Spontaneous vaginal delivery. |