 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pregnancyFrom: William F. von Almen, II, MD, FACOG (anonymous@obgyn.net)Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:55:21 -0500 (CDT)
At Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Satish wrote: > >--------------5224A1D62C64E07A4811A912 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >I was under the impression that Naegle's rule was applicable to the last menstrual >period and not the date of intercourse. I would think the due date would be around >July 3rd, 2000 assuming that you ovulated on Oct 10,1999. >Satish > >William F. von Almen, II, MD, FACOG wrote: > >> At Sat, 29 Apr 2000, oscar wrote: >> > >> >my wife and I planned our baby, so we did not have sexual intercourse >> >2-3 months before Oct 10, 1999,(the date that we did have sexual >> >intercourse) and we did not have sexual intercourse 2-3 months after >> >this date. If all goes well, what will be the date of birth, normal 9 >> >months pregnancy? >> >thank you for your time. >> >> Oscar >> According to Naegle's rule, it is 'minus 3 months, plus 7 days'. That >> makes it July 17, 2000. >> Remember, this is only the DUE date. I think the baby will have a >> little more to say about its birthdate. Good Luck. >> >> -- >> William F. von Almen, II, MD, FACOG >> Editorial Advisor-Pregnancy and Birth >> Private Practice >> New Orleans, La. >> >> *Please understand I can not respond to private emails. >> >> *These comments are for educational purposes only. They are >> not meant to take the place of an examination by a qualified >> health care provider. They are not intended to be the start >> of a physician-patient relationship. >> >--------------5224A1D62C64E07A4811A912 >Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >I was under the impression that Naegle's rule was applicable to the last >menstrual period and not the date of intercourse. I would think >the due date would be around July 3rd, 2000 assuming that you ovulated >on Oct 10,1999. >Satish > >William F. von Almen, II, MD, FACOG wrote: >At Sat, 29 Apr 2000, oscar wrote: >> >>my wife and I planned our baby, so we did not have sexual intercourse >>2-3 months before Oct 10, 1999,(the date that we did have sexual >>intercourse) and we did not have sexual intercourse 2-3 months after >>this date. If all goes well, what will be the date of birth, >normal 9 >>months pregnancy? >>thank you for your time. > >Oscar >According to Naegle's rule, it is 'minus 3 months, plus 7 days'. >That >makes it July 17, 2000. >Remember, this is only the DUE date. I think the baby will have >a >little more to say about its birthdate. Good Luck. > >-- >William F. von Almen, II, MD, FACOG >Editorial Advisor-Pregnancy and Birth >Private Practice >New Orleans, La. > >*Please understand I can not respond to private emails. > >*These comments are for educational purposes only. They are >not meant to take the place of an examination by a qualified >health care provider. They are not intended to be the start >of a physician-patient relationship. > > > >--------------5224A1D62C64E07A4811A912-- I apoligize. You are absolutely right. Naegle's rule does apply to last period, not ovulation. You need to subtract 2 weeks from my answer. July 3, 2000 it is. Mea Culpa
-- William F. von Almen, II, MD, FACOG Editorial Advisor-Pregnancy and Birth Private Practice New Orleans, La.
|
| |
Women's Insurance Checklist from Auto Insurance Quote home | medical professionals | women | industry | forums | internationale-mail | about us | advertising | our sponsors | contact us | disclaimer | This information is provided for educational purposes only. Please read the disclaimer. ©1996-2008, all rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission of MediSpecialty.com |
![[ Pregnancy & Birth Forum ]](/pregnancy-birth/pnb_forum_L.gif)