![]() |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Dr.'s (or patients) Is 36 or 37 weeks considered full term???From: anonymous@obgyn.netThu, 10 Jul 2003 10:00:52 -0500 (CDT)
At Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Abby wrote: > >Many dr.'s around here consider 36 weeks full term, but I've always >heard that 37 is the norm for full term. Chances are good that I'll be >delivering early with my baby, when is the gestational age that a baby >has a good chance of coming home with mom from the hospital? Is 34/35 >weeks reasonable to expect a healthy baby with no complications or >should I prepare for leaving my baby at this gest. age at the hospital? > >Thanks for any input!!! I think medically speaking 37 weeks is "full term" ... I also expected to have my baby early (it turned out she was born one day before her due date- so much for expectations). I know this much: In my very small-town hospital with no NICU they technically will not deliver a baby before 36 weeks. At 36 weeks, my doctor told me, you are mostly assured of a healthy baby who can come home very soon. However, my doctor told me that if the patient insists, they WILL deliver at 35 weeks. Before 35 weeks, however, the liability risk is too much for them. So there you have it- at around 35 weeks, you're pretty good. KM
|
| |
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 |