Re: 41 week Induction
From: Andrew Folley (agfolley@hotmail.com)
Mon Dec 5 12:39:32 2005
If we use the logic of when is the baby better off out than in.....it may be
even sooner such as 38 to 39 weeks??? andy
>From: rmodugno@aol.com
>Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>Subject: Re: 41 week Induction Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:54:13 -0600
>
>And there's the rub - after 40.5 weeks is the baby better off out than in?
>
>Robert Modugno MD MBA FACOG
>Marietta, GA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Raymond Stephen <stephen.raymond@dhhs.tas.gov.au>
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>Sent: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:10:33 -0600
>Subject: RE: 41 week Induction
>
>Only those where the baby is better out than in.
>
>Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Dr
>Eberhard W Lisse
>Sent: Monday, 5 December 2005 2:55 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>Subject: Re: 41 week Induction
>
>In message
><4536092D6B1A8140A17AEDB95566284806C61CAF@RHHLEX01.health.local>, "R
>aymond Stephen" writes:
>
> > In my training no emphasis was placed on the "latent phase of labour"
> > probably because I was brought up in the era of "active management".
> > In South Africa however there was a whole list of definitions of what
> > constituted "active phase" and distinctions between "active" and
> > "latent phase". It scared the hell out of me because junior residents
>
> > would dismiss patients with no progress as being still in latent
> > phase, and there were occasions when this contributed to morbidity.
> > For this reason I have always been unhappy with those who come in and
> > niggle, and would rather see them augmented.
>
>I totally agree. How many patients do you induce?
>
>el
>
>Tasmania Together 5 Year Review: Have your say
>http://www.tasmaniatogether.tas.gov.au/
|
|
