Interesting article about "full-term" definitions

shortms6 · October 2013

Sorry if this has already been discussed...

My midwife was talking about this at my 32w appointment and I came across this article today. It's looking like full-term will now be considered 39-41 weeks, vs 37w-39w. I had DD1 at 35w for medical reasons and thankfully she was healthy but there is no guarantee.

This hopefully may sway some doctors and mamas to not jump to induce earlier than 39w from now on (other than out of medical necessity). And for the record, I am certainly not opposed to inductions if they are needed. I was very thankful for mine, as it saved my life.

https://news.yahoo.com/obstetricians-change-definition-time-delivery-014921022.html

AllyDogg · October 2013

Saw this article today as well - found it interesting! I'll be asking my OB his thoughts on it at my next appt

MissyC979 · October 2013

I was just reading that. I'm a little disappointed though, since I was so close to being full term before the new definition! I think I may grandfather myself into still using that term in a few weeks.

shortms6 · October 2013

MissyC979 said:

I was just reading that. I'm a little disappointed though, since I was so close to being full term before the new definition! I think I may grandfather myself into still using that term in a few weeks.

lol. I totally agree. I had less than 3 weeks to go! I am so miserable right now that 37w sounds pretty great as long as baby is healthy.

BootsOrHearts · October 2013

Oh good, another excuse for hospitals to hit us with NICU charges for babies born before 39 weeks. Well baby was 'pre-term' so we had to have them spend the night in the NICU just to be safe. Don't wanna get sued.

Not that I'm bitter and jaded about our healthcare system. Ok, maybe just a tad.

shortms6 · October 2013

BootsOrHearts said:

Oh good, another excuse for hospitals to hit us with NICU charges for babies born before 39 weeks. Well baby was 'pre-term' so we had to have them spend the night in the NICU just to be safe. Don't wanna get sued.

Not that I'm bitter and jaded about our healthcare system. Ok, maybe just a tad.

I didn't even think about that. I wonder if it will make a difference in how many babies go to the NICU? That being said, DD didn't need it at 35w so I would assume if the baby is healthy, breathing on their own, and isn't having feeding issues, then it wouldn't be an issue. Definitely something to think about though.

mavgirl_73 · October 2013

I personally agree to changing it. "Full term" is so over used as a reason for induction. As the article states, a lot of neurological development takes place in those last weeks. Of course there will always be special circumstances which necessitate an earlier delivery but for the vast majority it will ensure that babies develop to their fullest potential and aren't delivered simply because they are considered "full term." But do agree I was 3 weeks away from being "full term", shucks!

Danie007 · October 2013

I don't remember where I read the article, but I read another medical article saying that "full term" varies from person to person too. Just the same way that each person's cycle is different too. However, I am in favor of not inducing or scheduling a c-section unnecessarily early just because of the dates on the calendar.

mavgirl_73 · October 2013

@loolaide, I think in larger metro areas there are greater percentages of women who have elective cs and inductions at 36-37 weeks. My cousin had 2 in Los Angeles and another friend here in Vegas had elective cs and elective induction at 37 weeks.

mavgirl_73 · October 2013

Maybe a west coast phenomenon, idk

thetheisens · October 2013

I had a perfectly healthy baby at 38 weeks going into labor on my own. I think there is leeway both ways. I do not support inductions for non medical reason before 40 weeks, but I know several women to have gone into labor before 40 weeks on their own and have perfectly healthy, fully developed babies. A woman I worked with went into labor at 36 weeks and her son spent no time in the NICU, his lungs and everything else was fully developed.

tyedyeme12 · October 2013

I appreciate that the article explains the changes, while stating the pros of going as close to the "new full term" while not scaring mothers who need to be induced before then. I like that it's supporting a healthy and trusting relationship with your doctor to find out what's best for you and baby.

shortms6 · October 2013

Danie007 said:

I don't remember where I read the article, but I read another medical article saying that "full term" varies from person to person too. Just the same way that each person's cycle is different too. However, I am in favor of not inducing or scheduling a c-section unnecessarily early just because of the dates on the calendar.

That's interesting about it varying from person to person and it makes sense. Some women will have babies that are 36w and have health issues and others will deliver at the same time and their babies will be perfectly fine. Do you know remember the title of the article? I'd love to read it.

Danie007 · October 2013

shortms6 said:

Danie007 said:

I don't remember where I read the article, but I read another medical article saying that "full term" varies from person to person too. Just the same way that each person's cycle is different too. However, I am in favor of not inducing or scheduling a c-section unnecessarily early just because of the dates on the calendar.

That's interesting about it varying from person to person and it makes sense. Some women will have babies that are 36w and have health issues and others will deliver at the same time and their babies will be perfectly fine. Do you know remember the title of the article? I'd love to read it.

I'm trying to remember, but can't think of it. I'll post if I find it.

shortms6 · October 2013

Ashleynh5 said:

I didn't read the article yet, but I did just get home from my drs appt. She told me she will take the baby the day you turn 39 weeks and absolutely no later than 41 weeks. Not sure if that's the norm, but it sounded great to me.

That sounds like it's in the new time frame the article states as full-term so she is probably following those recommendations. Question though...yhy would the baby need to be taken at 39 weeks, rather than you going in to labor? Was she just saying that in the event you needed an induction for a medical reason?

shortms6 · October 2013

Ashleynh5 said:

shortms6 said:

Ashleynh5 said:

I didn't read the article yet, but I did just get home from my drs appt. She told me she will take the baby the day you turn 39 weeks and absolutely no later than 41 weeks. Not sure if that's the norm, but it sounded great to me.

That sounds like it's in the new time frame the article states as full-term so she is probably following those recommendations. Question though...yhy would the baby need to be taken at 39 weeks, rather than you going in to labor? Was she just saying that in the event you needed an induction for a medical reason?

Well, she is concerned about the size of the baby and the size of me mostly. I live in a very small town, and the hospital doesn't have a NICU at all. They just don't have the means for emergency situations there. She would rather control the situation then have something go wrong and have to fly us out to the nearest big hospital.

Ahh, I see. Well at least you'll be full-term by then.

mh89 · October 2013

Good, I'm glad this has been clarified. I get kind of ragey when I see moms hit 37 weeks and start trying to induce labor or ask to be induced/sectioned for no medical reason.

HerbanMom · October 2013

Loolaide said:

Being someone who was overdue last time, I find it interesting that 42 weeks is no longer considered full term. Honestly, I am ok with inductions after 40 and am glad for the poor women who go over that they might be offered one sooner than before. My other response to this is who the hell are all these women going in for elective c/s at 37 weeks? I think this change was more due to perception than any real trend. @bootsorhearts it's not mandatory for pre term babies to go to the NICU now. They are just assessed to make sure they don't need to, same as any other baby. I know someone who had a 36 weeker whose baby did not go to the NICU.

Both of my boys were 36 weekers and there was no NICU stay because they both did really well and had no problems. The only thing the hospital had procedure-wise was we had to stay 48 hours vs 24 hours and they both had to pass a car seat test.

KateVA · October 2013

My second came at 41w1d - if I had induced at 37 weeks, he would have had 4 fewer weeks to cook than he naturally needed. I think this is a great change. Thinking of 37w as full term/end point can set up unreasonable expectations for when it will all be over, you could have a whole nother month!