Have you ever heard this, re: early births?

sadiwest · February 2010

I was speaking with coworkers about giving birth early. I mentioned that someone on the board (don't remember who) had their LO at around 27 weeks or so (couldn't remember details) but that I heard 37 weeks is 'full term.

Both of them said they've heard that having a baby...let's say at 28 weeks...is 'better' for the baby than...let's say 33 weeks. Translated another way, they said that there's a one month or so time frame where it's 'less ok' for LO to be born, but either way before or way after is most likely going to mean a healthy baby in the long run.

I am SURE I got that partially wrong, because they weren't 100% about when the one month time frame was. Has anyone ever heard that? I wonder why that'd be the case....

mystqjaq · February 2010

I've never heard of that. I'd be interested to hear what the reasoning or source for that is, because doctors have been telling me all along that it's best if the baby stays in as long as possible, and I can't imagine they would create such a big liability for themselves if that's not always true.

The only exceptions to the "the longer the better" rule I've heard is that with preeclampsia, they want to induce me at 37-38 weeks as opposed to later because the placenta could calcify, and of course, it's best if baby is born by 42 weeks period.

Aliliv · February 2010

Nope, never heard it. I can't really fathom how that could possibly be feasible.

RunningMom · February 2010

There's milestones you want to make. ?28w, 30w, 34w. ?Everyday is something and you want to keep them in as long as you can. ?Never is say 28w better than 33w.

?

34 weeks is the magic number that their long term health is the same likely hood of a full term child.

AmyLovesEddie14 · February 2010

I've heard this before, too, but I don't know how true it is or why it is.

NFL_Wife · February 2010

Aliliv:
Nope, never heard it. I can't really fathom how that could possibly be feasible.

This. It's not like there is a magic window when baby is a little more developed around 28 weeks... the longer the better (to 42ish week) right?

sadiwest · February 2010

Let me rephrase that...

I don't think they meant that is "OK" to have a baby that early....

I think they said they heard that there's a one month window where it's LEAST OK....where the risks are highest. If a baby's born on either side of that window (once the pregnancy is far along enough), there's a good chance LO would be OK.

I never heard it before they said it. Their kids are 14 at the youngest, so I'm not sure how recent this info is, either.

RunningMom · February 2010

Ok I'm trying to think of an example where what you stated could be true.

My water breaks at 25 weeks. ?Doctors have to decide how long the pregnancy will remain and the goal is set for 34 weeks. ?At 31 weeks, conditions show baby needs to come out. ?This was her optimal time and she would have died had we waited till 34 weeks. ?So 31 was better than 34? ?And she's just confused?

ali_bl-nov05 · February 2010

Never heard such thing. Except rare csaes, the longer the better (though, making it to 42 weeks is not desirable neither on my doc's opinion)

grapeape73 · February 2010

I was faced with the possibility of having a super early baby with DD1. I had pretty sudden ondset pre-e, and they were set to deliver me.

But I do remember the NICU and perinatologist telling me that every day she could stay in my uterus was like 3 days in the NICU. No matter how great science is, there really isn't anything comperable to the actul womb.

Maybe I'm not understanding the question though.

Marc's Mrs. · February 2010

My doc told me that 32 wks was a HUGE milestone week. He told me that if I had to deliver from 32 wks on, LO wouldn't come home w/ me but there wouldn't be any lasting effects from an early birth. I have friends that delivered at 32 weeks and their DD is now 6 with absolutely no ill effects.

sadiwest · February 2010

grapeape73:

I was faced with the possibility of having a super early baby with DD1. I had pretty sudden ondset pre-e, and they were set to deliver me.

But I do remember the NICU and perinatologist telling me that every day she could stay in my uterus was like 3 days in the NICU. No matter how great science is, there really isn't anything comperable to the actul womb.

Maybe I'm not understanding the question though.

I'm sure it doesn't help that I was getting this "info" third-hand at best. I never heard it myself, as I always assumed what everyone else said: Longer inside the womb is better. They didn't say that a LO coming early is good, they just said that they heard that if a baby "has" to come early, there's a one month window (I think they heard it was early to mid 30-40 weeks range, like 31-35 weeks for example) where the risks are higher than either right before or right after that.

Again, not saying I heard it or even that I believe it...just looking to see if anyone else heard it so I can undestand WHY it might be said by anyone.

StrawberryAlarmClock · February 2010

I'm really not sure how that makes sense unless their development goes into retrograde for a month?!?!

ToledoDeux · February 2010

That's ridiculous.

BostonLove11 · February 2010

I think I know what you are talking about. Last week at my childbirth class, the teacher told us about, what she called, the "whimpy white male" rule. She then stated...white males tend to do better (less deaths) when delivered around 27-29 weeks then 30-33 weeks. She did not go into into anymore detail and I just looked at my husband with a puzzled face because I couldn't figure out why this was!! Anyone have any thoughts????

sadiwest · February 2010

BostonLove11:

I think I know what you are talking about. Last week at my childbirth class, the teacher told us about, what she called, the "whimpy white male" rule. She then stated...white males tend to do better (less deaths) when delivered around 27-29 weeks then 30-33 weeks. She did not go into into anymore detail and I just looked at my husband with a puzzled face because I couldn't figure out why this was!! Anyone have any thoughts????

OOO we have the same due date. Big Smile

That sounds more like what they were talking about. I don't know why your instructor would say that but not elaborate. THIS is why I'm asking...I'm curious, too, as to why that would be. Seems there are people on here who think this is my theory, so I'm glad you've kind of heard of it. Sad

David'sgirl · February 2010

BostonLove11:
I think I know what you are talking about. Last week at my childbirth class, the teacher told us about, what she called, the "whimpy white male" rule. She then stated...white males tend to do better (less deaths) when delivered around 27-29 weeks then 30-33 weeks. She did not go into into anymore detail and I just looked at my husband with a puzzled face because I couldn't figure out why this was!! Anyone have any thoughts????

My son is currently in the Special Care Baby Unit after being born at 32 weeks. Day before yesterday I overheard one of the nurses say a similar thing. Basically that babies specifically boys tend to do better 32-33 weeks than 35 weeks. There are many theories...I didn't hear the whole conversation but plan on looking for more information.

Vera81 · February 2010

I also have heard if this but don't know details or why. Would like to know more if anyone finds out!!

ScissorTailedFlycatcher · February 2010

While fighting delivery between 29 weeks and 35 weeks, there was NO MENTION of "Oh, it would have been better if your LO came last week" or something like that. The PP who said a day in the womb = 3 days in the NICU is correct.?

The PP who thinks that a 32 weeker would be able to go home when the mother is discharged is clearly naive on preemies.?

shortstuff15 · February 2010

sadiwest:
BostonLove11:

I think I know what you are talking about. Last week at my childbirth class, the teacher told us about, what she called, the "whimpy white male" rule. She then stated...white males tend to do better (less deaths) when delivered around 27-29 weeks then 30-33 weeks. She did not go into into anymore detail and I just looked at my husband with a puzzled face because I couldn't figure out why this was!! Anyone have any thoughts????

OOO we have the same due date.

That sounds more like what they were talking about. I don't know why your instructor would say that but not elaborate. THIS is why I'm asking...I'm curious, too, as to why that would be. Seems there are people on here who think this is my theory, so I'm glad you've kind of heard of it.

I've heard that it's "better" (but not really) because the lungs do a LOT of developing during whatever weeks those are (I don't know exactly what weeks those are either), and it's almost harder for the baby to be born during the high lung development weeks as opposed to before. That said, it's always better for baby to stay in longer, it just might pose less lung issues maybe if baby is born before or after the huge lung development rather than during? I don't really know, I just know that I heard this from a medical professional who happens to be a close friend of mine and I can't remember exactly what she said. As I said though, and she says too, it's always better for baby to stay in longer, regardless of what week it is....

Want a personalized experience?

Have you ever heard this, re: early births?

Re: Have you ever heard this, re: early births?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards