Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would I intentionally misrepresent their ages?

I said that I thought you were well intentionally getting it wrong. Meaning that you were saying what you thought was true (good intentions), but likely to be wrong. My doubt is because the odds are so astronomically against it. It's certainly possible, but for a woman to have two seperate pregnancies in the 1990's that were both 22 weeks and both survived, but the odds of two surviving 22 weekers is low now, and was lower 20 years ago, and your first post said you had two cousins...I read into that two kids from the same mother. Your second post said it wasn't two cousins, but an aunt and a cousin who gave birth...both perfectly charting...both with longer than usual lmp, both with 22 weekers. It's coincidental, but I'll admit that coincidences sometimes happen. I apologize.

I come from an extremely large family, so the chances aren't so astronomical that such extraordinary babies would survive within the same family. But I see where the misunderstanding arose, and I apologize for the confusion. What is my relationship to a cousin's child? Second cousin? So the premature babies were my second cousin and my cousin--my cousin's daughter and my aunt's son, my mother's sister's granddaughter and my dad's sister's son (so no blood relation between the babies). I just called them both my cousins.

In addition to not hearing about the bad cases (which are often the majority, especially with super premies), people aren't always aware of certain difficulties, even when the see children socially. My DS was a premie and has mild special needs. Relatives constantly praise how well he's doing ("he has no problems after all those difficulties when he was born!", etc.) He particpates in sports and is in a good school. However, he has struggled and received years of physical, speech and occupational therapies. Even close relatives/friends might post on here and say, "Oh, my [niece/friend/cousin] had a premie and he's handsome, smart, popular and doing great." While I love my son and I think he is doing great, he's had many challenges likely directly related to being a premie that have cost us and our insurance a fortune and required a lot of extra hard work on his part. Not necessarily a "normal" life.

Anonymous wrote:Why would I intentionally misrepresent their ages?

I said that I thought you were well intentionally getting it wrong. Meaning that you were saying what you thought was true (good intentions), but likely to be wrong. My doubt is because the odds are so astronomically against it. It's certainly possible, but for a woman to have two seperate pregnancies in the 1990's that were both 22 weeks and both survived, but the odds of two surviving 22 weekers is low now, and was lower 20 years ago, and your first post said you had two cousins...I read into that two kids from the same mother. Your second post said it wasn't two cousins, but an aunt and a cousin who gave birth...both perfectly charting...both with longer than usual lmp, both with 22 weekers. It's coincidental, but I'll admit that coincidences sometimes happen. I apologize.

I have a wild story from a DC hospital.

My cousin conceived a honeymoon baby. When she started having contractions at 28 weeks, she thought she was sick. Her OB on call told her she didn't know what a contraction was like, and when she had a real one, she'd know. The next day, she was in complete agony, and called again, and was blown off again. She had her husband bring her to the nearest ER, and she was fully dilated. Her son was born a few minutes later. He was just under 5 pounds.

The staff did not believe her EDD. They were really rude and said she must have conceived before she was married. She swore she was a virgin until her wedding night, and they crudely said that wasn't possible. Her baby never spent any time in the NICU, and they SENT HER HOME 48 hours after the birth.

She called me in tears asking for breast feeding advice, because she couldn't get him to latch on well. She ended up bringing him back to a different hospital because he was lethargic and not nursing and jaundiced.

Turns out the first hospital missed a brain tumor, the probable cause of his early delivery. It was so huge, it accounted for a good percentage of his birth weight. He spent the next two years in the hospital, almost died several times, but eventually the cancer went into remission, and he is a healthy, strong, smart, rambunctious homeschooled middle schooler now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely, they can live normal, healthy lives.

I have two cousins who were born extremely prematurely, both before many doctors even want to try to save them: one at 22 weeks, one just before 23 weeks, both just about 1 pound. I have pictures of my aunt's wedding ring placed over my cousin's arm, like an armband, and she is petite, 90 pounds soaking wet.

And this was many years ago, because one cousin is a sophomore at Notre Dame, the other in high school. Both brilliant, strong and healthy, with big dreams. Technology is even better now.

Life is precious. Maybe someday, we will develop artificial wombs for babies in between embryos and 20-22 weeks. For now, we should do our best.

WOW. I honestly did not know that was possible.

I suspect the pp is well intentionally getting the gestational age wrong of their cousins. The earliest a baby has ever been born and survived was 21 weeks 6 days for a baby born in 2007 in Florida, so it is technically possible. Several babies have survived that were born at 22 weeks, but to have two in the same family two different pregnancies, back long enough ago that the kids are in college is surprising if not very very unlikely. They don't even calculate the survival rate of babies born at 22 weeks, but babies born at 23 weeks have an 17% chance of survival.

Why would I intentionally misrepresent their ages?

One was my cousin on on my mother's side, the other my aunt on my father's side. In both cases, the mother charted, so she knew her exact gestational age, but because they were breast feeding when they conceived, their cycles were longer than usual, so by LMP, they were farther along than they actually were. Which was good, because there would have been no interventions if the doctors had known the babies had not crossed 24 weeks yet. But my cousin and my aunt knew the conception dates, so they were quite positive. The baby who is now in college had the luck of being born in a special NICU in New York City that had the best technology at the time. Even so, they told my aunt and uncle there was no chance, and they had to scream and fight to get the doctors to even try. It's quite a story of luck and willpower. My cousin wrote about it for his college essay.

My cousin was about to leave for a hike across Europe when she went into labor, and my aunt was dancing at a family party. Neither even really looked pregnant yet.

The babies fought for their lives. Some babies have that spirit. There have been other preemies between 22-23 weeks who survived. It's preemies before 22 weeks who are the true miracles.

So why the doubt?

My best friend delivered twins at 25 weeks. One died after a few minutes, the other was just 1.7 lbs but hung on. She spent the next 3.5 months in the hospital. She is 11 years old now. Beautiful, smart, popular. She was sicker then most as a child but then so were my own kids that were born at 40 weeks, luck of the draw sometimes there.

Anonymous wrote:11:30, your friend's great-aunt sounds like a lovely person but the story about her being born at 23 weeks in 1929 is highly unlikely. First of all, in 1929 there was no way to date a pregnancy with that degree of accuracy. Most premature babies are physically not developed enough to directly breastfeed after birth, and certainly not at 23 weeks. Not to mention that her lungs would not have been developed to breath on her own that early, and there were no NICUs in 1929. I am sure she was premature, but not as premature as she believes.

I totally agree with this. While the great-aunt might be a total miracle, that's unlikely and not representative in any case. Even if she knew her LMP, she didn't know exactly when she ovulated and conception could be off by a few weeks. Also, many women spot during pregnancy and think it's a period, so she could have been a month more along or more, too. That stuff is very common. Sounds like she was born very early but a 23 weeker surviving in 1929 without lung surfectant treatment, etc.?

My mother was born at 29 or 30 weeks, back in the early 1950s. The doctors sent her home with her parents to die. They didn't do anything at all in the hospital, just said it would be nice to bury her under a tree in the yard when she inevitably died in the next few days. My grandparents put her in a shoebox on a heating pad and fed her homemade formula. (Milk powder, corn syrup, etc-- the old recipe.)

My mother was a sickly kid, always had a cold, and had GI issues through her childhood and young adulthood. Those cleared up by the time she was 30, but she still catches every single respiratory bug that comes her way. She's much smaller and less fit/ active/ athletic than all her siblings. She probably also has ADD, but has never been formally diagnosed. That said, she finished college, married, had a couple of kids, and leads a perfectly ordinary life. I expect her parents think she turned out very well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:30, your friend's great-aunt sounds like a lovely person but the story about her being born at 23 weeks in 1929 is highly unlikely. First of all, in 1929 there was no way to date a pregnancy with that degree of accuracy. Most premature babies are physically not developed enough to directly breastfeed after birth, and certainly not at 23 weeks. Not to mention that her lungs would not have been developed to breath on her own that early, and there were no NICUs in 1929. I am sure she was premature, but not as premature as she believes.

in 1929 women still knew when their LMP was and they knew how to count so it's not impossible to date a pregnancy.

the 23 weeks is an estimate and even if it's 26, 25, 28 it's still very early. she fitted in a shoe box, is it small enough for you?

i said breastfeeding because she sucked, so the sucking reflex was there but i bet her mom barely had any colostrum until a few hours after delivery. they used to feed her with a nasal spoon any milk her mom hand expressed. she still has it in her special treasure box.

let me know if you want any more details.

I'm on FB chat with my friend... sorry I've made a mistake. She did skin to skin contact at birth but the baby DID NOT SUCK, that's why they did the spoon feeding thing. She learned to suck later on with the mom dipping her finger in expressed milk and sticking it in her mouth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear about doctors trying at all costs to save even the earliest-term premies and that this is a huge burden for the health care industry. I only know one personally. He is 4 now and suffers constantly from respiratory and GI issues and often requires hospitalization. I feel so badly for this family and when i am with them, I withhold the joy I experience with my typically developing child. I am wondering: Is there hope? Do these children ever get stronger and live normal healthy lives? Does anyone have experience with older children who were born extremely premature? Thank you sincerely - I would love to know.

I want to say somethng about your terrible smug attitude. Frankly, I am too appalled to put the words together.

I'm also a little taken aback by this. Why would you feel that they don't experience joy in their child? I have a special needs child. I have two other so-called normal children. They all provide me with "equal" amounts of joy.

Why would you pretend to be something you're not when you are around your 'friend.' Do you feel this is doing them a favor? It's NOT.

Anonymous wrote:I hear about doctors trying at all costs to save even the earliest-term premies and that this is a huge burden for the health care industry. I only know one personally. He is 4 now and suffers constantly from respiratory and GI issues and often requires hospitalization. I feel so badly for this family and when i am with them, I withhold the joy I experience with my typically developing child. I am wondering: Is there hope? Do these children ever get stronger and live normal healthy lives? Does anyone have experience with older children who were born extremely premature? Thank you sincerely - I would love to know.

I want to say somethng about your terrible smug attitude. Frankly, I am too appalled to put the words together.

Anonymous wrote:11:30, your friend's great-aunt sounds like a lovely person but the story about her being born at 23 weeks in 1929 is highly unlikely. First of all, in 1929 there was no way to date a pregnancy with that degree of accuracy. Most premature babies are physically not developed enough to directly breastfeed after birth, and certainly not at 23 weeks. Not to mention that her lungs would not have been developed to breath on her own that early, and there were no NICUs in 1929. I am sure she was premature, but not as premature as she believes.

in 1929 women still knew when their LMP was and they knew how to count so it's not impossible to date a pregnancy.

the 23 weeks is an estimate and even if it's 26, 25, 28 it's still very early. she fitted in a shoe box, is it small enough for you?

i said breastfeeding because she sucked, so the sucking reflex was there but i bet her mom barely had any colostrum until a few hours after delivery. they used to feed her with a nasal spoon any milk her mom hand expressed. she still has it in her special treasure box.

let me know if you want any more details.

I was a preemie, born at 26 weeks. This was in 1978. I've been told that 90 percent of preemies born at 26 weeks in 1978 did not survive. I'd say I have a normal life. I have a family of my own now, a nice husband and a wonderful daughter. I have good friends who love me and who I love. I was given too much oxygen in (a term that is a misnomor) as a baby. I am totally blind as a result. My brain works just fine though, if you believe that an engineer has a normally functioning brain. OP, I wonder why you ask this question and tie it to preemies? Your question could just easily apply to a child with cancer.

"this is a huge burden for the health care industry"

Probably not more so than people who overeat to obesity or people who smoke. I am the mom of a preemie and I always chafe a little when I hear people talk about the burden or cost of saving a micropreemie's life. If anybody "deserves" a chance, "deserves" the cost, it's these innocent creatures. I hate using the word "deserves," though, because I think everybody deserves the best health treatment possible, regardless of life choice--but I don't know how else to put it. Most people wouldn't bat an eyelash at lifesaving treatment being offered to someone whose lifestyle choices cause them to be in ill health but people can get prickly when you talk about saving a micropreemie's life. Why?

My DD was born at 29 weeks. She weighed 3 lbs. She is a typically developing 15 month old who walked and talked early. While she was at the NICU, we made friends with the parent of a baby born at 23w5d. He weighed 1 lb 2 oz and that was considered "big." We have kept up with them and see them often, and their son is now 17 months and doing fine. He wears glasses because he had retinopathy of prematurity. No suspicion of CP. Happy, healthy, lucky, awesome kid.

FWIW, my grandfather was described as a "six months child" when she was born in 1919. The doctor kept meticulous notes because nobody expected him to live. His twin died at birth and he spent the first weeks of his life in a box on the back of the woodstove to keep him warm. He grew up to be a WWII vet and died at age 90.

11:30, your friend's great-aunt sounds like a lovely person but the story about her being born at 23 weeks in 1929 is highly unlikely. First of all, in 1929 there was no way to date a pregnancy with that degree of accuracy. Most premature babies are physically not developed enough to directly breastfeed after birth, and certainly not at 23 weeks. Not to mention that her lungs would not have been developed to breath on her own that early, and there were no NICUs in 1929. I am sure she was premature, but not as premature as she believes.