Duggar has 19th child- 14 weeks premature

[PilsnPinkysMom]

I just read that Michelle Duggar gave birth to her 19th child, a girl named Josie, 14 weeks early.

I don't regularly watch their show on TLC, but have seen an episode here & there.

...Wonder if they'll finally start avoiding sex during her fertile window? I'm not yet a mom, but if I was 43 and had birthed 19 babies, I think I'd be a bit scared to conceive again & have another premature birth. Time will tell, I suppose!


ETA: Apparently Michelle was having gallstones & gallbladder issues that resulted in contractions. The baby was delivered by emergency c-section at 1lb 6oz.

I can't say I'm in favor of their lifestyle & beliefs, but I still hope that mom & baby will be okay.

 

[cellososweet]

I read about this and was so sad to see that she had the baby so early. Agree with their lifestyle and choices or not, this is just a sad and tragic thing that could''ve happened to anyone.

I hope that they both get better.

 

[radiantquest]

I agree that is sad. She must be so worried. If I am correct I think that their religion is against BC and they feel that God wants them to keep having children because she keeps getting pregnant.

IMHO 19 is enough already. I mean 15 is enough. She is making her own baby boom. There are enough people on the planet and what would happen if everone had 19 kids. Can you imagine?

 

[Jas12]

I think she is partially INSANE to have that many kids, i can barely handle the one

But there are far worse things than having lots of kids, so heck, more power to her. i don''t think there is any danger of many women following in her footsteps these days.

But geez, how heart breaking would it be to have a baby that small? I couldn''t imagine, it''s so sad. And i wonder what their stance is on ''keeping he/she alive''? It always interests me as to how very religious ppl manage to rationalize things like medical intervention. If they are against any outside means of preventing life from occurring, are they then against artificial means of keeping it from extinguishing? I am sure this will come up at some point.

 

[MonkeyPie]

How awful and sad

I watched a minute or two of their show the other day, and they have a family they are friends with that has like 14 kids or something, and the woman had several miscarriages between each baby. You have to wonder - when is it too much of a health risk for these people? When do you put your safety above reproducing?

I hope little Josie thrives.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

From the statement I read from the hospital, she was admitted for gallstones, but found to have pre-eclampsia (pregnancy induced hypertension). My guess is that it must of been pretty severe for them to deliver at 25-26 weeks (back calculating from her due date she would have been 26+0). The baby is 1lb 6oz (about 623 grams), and is considered very low birth weight (VLBW), but is average size for the gestational age, so that is a good sign that the pre-eclampsia was not going on for too long. Long standing pre-eclampsia can rob the baby of nutrients and restrict growth. I have seen this kind of thing happen to some fairly young first time mothers.

Just from knowing how things go during these kind of deliveries, and some of the things that usually need to be done, all of her future pregnancies are going to be high risk now if she chooses to have another child. While Josie has a pretty good chance of surviving, she is at risk for having some long term problems that are going to require extra time and attention.

While I would not choose the same life they choose, and don't share their beliefs, my heart breaks whenever a micro-premie is born and I really wish nothing but the best outcome for the baby.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 12/12/2009 10:32:03 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker
From the statement I read from the hospital, she was admitted for gallstones, but found to have pre-eclampsia (pregnancy induced hypertension). My guess is that it must of been pretty severe for them to deliver at 25-26 weeks (back calculating from her due date she would have been 26+0). The baby is 1lb 6oz (about 623 grams), and is considered very low birth weight (VLBW), but is average size for the gestational age, so that is a good sign that the pre-eclampsia was not going on for too long. Long standing pre-eclampsia can rob the baby of nutrients and restrict growth. I have seen this kind of thing happen to some fairly young first time mothers.

Just from knowing how things go during these kind of deliveries, and some of the things that usually need to be done, all of her future pregnancies are going to be high risk now if she chooses to have another child. While Josie has a pretty good chance of surviving, she is at risk for having some long term problems that are going to require extra time and attention.

While I would not choose the same life they choose, and don''t share their beliefs, my heart breaks whenever a micro-premie is born and I really wish nothing but the best outcome for the baby.

If I''m not mistaken, she had pre-eclampsia with Jordyn too. She doesn''t seem to care about that.

 

[Rachel9]

That is so sad, I feel so bad for the siblings and I don''t even watch the show

 

[PilsnPinkysMom]

Date: 12/12/2009 9:57:36 PM
Author: Jas12
I think she is partially INSANE to have that many kids, i can barely handle the one

But there are far worse things than having lots of kids, so heck, more power to her. i don''t think there is any danger of many women following in her footsteps these days.


But geez, how heart breaking would it be to have a baby that small? I couldn''t imagine, it''s so sad. And i wonder what their stance is on ''keeping he/she alive''? It always interests me as to how very religious ppl manage to rationalize things like medical intervention. If they are against any outside means of preventing life from occurring, are they then against artificial means of keeping it from extinguishing? I am sure this will come up at some point.

I wonder the same thing, Jas.

Fortunately it seems (from news reports) that baby Josie is doing well-enough.

Does anyone know if she has suffered any miscarriages since her second pregnancy? I can''t imagine how worried all the other Duggar kids must be

I''ve got a hard time believing they''d want to become pregnant again, since, as Ltl said, all future pregnancies will be high risk (though aren''t all pregnancies at the age of 43 considered high-risk?)

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Well, if she had pre-e during her last pregnancy, it was mild enough to carry the baby to term. She has some pretty strong beliefs and I doubt that would sway them. I know of a couple mothers who have continued to have large families despite having multiple premature births that resulted in special needs children. I don't agree with that decision, but it does happen. My guess is that there was a good chance she needed a classical c-section. That is when a vertical incision is made instead of the typical low horizontal ones that most women get. Classical C-sections are associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture in future pregnancies. So if she gets pregnant in the future, and shows any sign of labor, the doctors are going to take her back to section right away even if the baby is premature. Her age and now her history of pre-e severe enough to require a premature delivery are significant risks in themselves. Only she knows what she will do in the future.

For now, there are going to be some major challenges ahead with a baby in a NICU that is in a different city than the rest of the children.

 

[MustangGal]

A co-worker had a micro-premie of 1lb 5oz last year. The poor boy stayed in the NICU until a week after his due date, had several procedures done while in the hospital, and will always have health issues. I wonder how a similar baby will fare with 18 older siblings. Josie will need much more time and attention than any of the other children.

I sure hope this will be the end of reproducing for them. They seem to keep it all together, but 19 is enough already!

 

[Maria D]

Date: 12/13/2009 9:35:58 AM
Author: MustangGal
A co-worker had a micro-premie of 1lb 5oz last year. The poor boy stayed in the NICU until a week after his due date, had several procedures done while in the hospital, and will always have health issues. I wonder how a similar baby will fare with 18 older siblings. Josie will need much more time and attention than any of the other children.


I sure hope this will be the end of reproducing for them. They seem to keep it all together, but 19 is enough already!

I do not watch the show, but read that in the Duggar family the older children help raise the younger children. Since that''s the case, this youngest Duggar will likely have more people to devote time and attention to him/her than your average special needs kid in a family where the parents only are primarily responsible for rearing the children. What I don''t get, if their religion requires women to have as many children as possible, is why the female children do not marry young and get started already. It seems ridiculous to me, from a biological standpoint, for Mrs. Duggar to keep having kids at 43 when there are now plenty of other female Duggars who can chip in and pop out a kid!

 

[Ara Ann]

Date: 12/13/2009 10:29:56 AM
Author: Maria D

Date: 12/13/2009 9:35:58 AM

Author: MustangGal

A co-worker had a micro-premie of 1lb 5oz last year. The poor boy stayed in the NICU until a week after his due date, had several procedures done while in the hospital, and will always have health issues. I wonder how a similar baby will fare with 18 older siblings. Josie will need much more time and attention than any of the other children.



I sure hope this will be the end of reproducing for them. They seem to keep it all together, but 19 is enough already!

I do not watch the show, but read that in the Duggar family the older children help raise the younger children. Since that''s the case, this youngest Duggar will likely have more people to devote time and attention to him/her than your average special needs kid in a family where the parents only are primarily responsible for rearing the children. What I don''t get, if their religion requires women to have as many children as possible, is why the female children do not marry young and get started already. It seems ridiculous to me, from a biological standpoint, for Mrs. Duggar to keep having kids at 43 when there are now plenty of other female Duggars who can chip in and pop out a kid!

I don''t think their religion ''requires'' them to have as many babies as possible, they just allow babies to come along as they do. In fact, the parents did use birth control when they were first married, (I think I remember hearing that, not 100% sure) and they were married for a few years before their first child was born.


I do respect this family a lot. While I would not choose to have so many kids, I come from a fairly large family and am the youngest of seven. I know my life would not be the same if one of my siblings was ''missing'' or never born. I ask myself, which one could I give up, as if they had never been born, what would my life be like without one of them? I''m sure the Duggars wouldn''t be able to imagine their lives without one or several of their kids either.

And something else I admire, they have earned a good living for their family, they are not sponging off of charity or their state to support their children, they make use of ''used clothing'' and are responsible with their finances and kids. You''ve got to give them credit for that. Some parents with far less children don''t do half as much with their resources.

I hope the new baby''s health is good and that she''ll grow and thrive! I agree about the siblings and the attention! As a ''baby'' of my family, I got lots of attention too!

 

[cara]

Eep, 25/26 weeks is tiny tiny. I hope little Josie comes out okay after the long road ahead of her.

Ara Ann, the Duggars used birth control initially but it is not consistent with their current beliefs. (They blame the pill for a miscarriage Mrs. Duggar had.) According to Wikipedia, quiverful adherents like the Duggars are supposed to use no birth control including no kind of rhythm method. Married couples are supposed to have sex freely and let God decide how many children to give them. So PilsnPinkysmom, I think the answer to your question is that they are not supposed to avoid conception according to their religion. How strict they are in the face of danger to Michelle (and future kids) remains to be seen.

Anyway, in addition to letting Josie out of the NICI without serious disabilities, I also hope God decides the Duggars have enough kids.

LtFirecracker, I'm curious about the c-section scar thing. So even though we know the classic scar is more dangerous in future pregnancies and deliveries, it is still done in some emergency cases? Is it really that much quicker than the other incision type? Or some other reason? I know Michelle Duggar is a big VBAC proponent, so I'm sure if she was in any position to have a preference it would have been against the classic incision.

Oh, and does anybody know if is there a relationship between the gallstones and the pre-eclampsia issue? I thought they would be totally unrelated medical issues, but I heard some comments that implied the person that a gallstone admission of a pregnant women turned into a preeclampsia situation.

 

[MustangGal]

Date: 12/13/2009 11:37:38 AM
Author: cara
Eep, 25/26 weeks is tiny tiny. I hope little Josie comes out okay after the long road ahead of her.

LtFirecracker, I''m curious about the c-section scar thing. So even though we know the classic scar is more dangerous in future pregnancies and deliveries, it is still done in some emergency cases? Is it really that much quicker than the other incision type? Or some other reason? I know Michelle Duggar is a big VBAC proponent, so I''m sure if she was in any position to have a preference it would have been against the classic incision.

Cara - I know my mom had a classic c-section 23 years ago (it was emergency, almost lost them both), then 6 years later had my 9 pound brother vaginally. But according to the pregnancy books I read when I was expecting earlier this year, they don''t allow VBAC for classic incisions...

 

[cara]

Date: 12/13/2009 11:46:12 AM
Author: MustangGal

Date: 12/13/2009 11:37:38 AM

Author: cara

Eep, 25/26 weeks is tiny tiny. I hope little Josie comes out okay after the long road ahead of her.


LtFirecracker, I'm curious about the c-section scar thing. So even though we know the classic scar is more dangerous in future pregnancies and deliveries, it is still done in some emergency cases? Is it really that much quicker than the other incision type? Or some other reason? I know Michelle Duggar is a big VBAC proponent, so I'm sure if she was in any position to have a preference it would have been against the classic incision.

Cara - I know my mom had a classic c-section 23 years ago (it was emergency, almost lost them both), then 6 years later had my 9 pound brother vaginally. But according to the pregnancy books I read when I was expecting earlier this year, they don't allow VBAC for classic incisions...

Right, but 20-some years ago they did not have the same understanding the classical incisions were dangerous during future pregnancies/VBACs. So it both makes sense that your Mom had a classic c-section and then was allowed to do a VBAC with that incision. Today, knowing that classical incisions are more dangerous, why are they still done? ie. quicker? safer for mother baby in current emergency delivery? etc. just curious on this one...

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 12/13/2009 11:49:34 AM
Author: cara

Date: 12/13/2009 11:46:12 AM

Author: MustangGal

Date: 12/13/2009 11:37:38 AM


Author: cara


Eep, 25/26 weeks is tiny tiny. I hope little Josie comes out okay after the long road ahead of her.



LtFirecracker, I'm curious about the c-section scar thing. So even though we know the classic scar is more dangerous in future pregnancies and deliveries, it is still done in some emergency cases? Is it really that much quicker than the other incision type? Or some other reason? I know Michelle Duggar is a big VBAC proponent, so I'm sure if she was in any position to have a preference it would have been against the classic incision.

Cara - I know my mom had a classic c-section 23 years ago (it was emergency, almost lost them both), then 6 years later had my 9 pound brother vaginally. But according to the pregnancy books I read when I was expecting earlier this year, they don't allow VBAC for classic incisions...

Right, but 20-some years ago they did not have the same understanding the classical incisions were dangerous during future pregnancies/VBACs. So it both makes sense that your Mom had a classic c-section and then was allowed to do a VBAC with that incision. Today, knowing that classical incisions are more dangerous, why are they still done? ie. quicker? safer for mother baby in current emergency delivery? etc. just curious on this one...

I am not sure why but I assume it must be quicker for some reason because they always seem to be done in emergency situations...even the Mayo clinic mentions it for emergency situations.

Now I want to go look it up!

ETA: I looked it up. It appears that a classical incision is faster for delivery of the baby which is important if either the baby is in distress OR there is a condition of the mother that can be solved by delivery of the baby and they want to get to it fast. So it is certainly possible Mrs. Duggar had a classical one considering that her pre-e must have been horrendous for them to deliver a baby at 25/26 weeks.

 

[Ara Ann]

Date: 12/13/2009 11:37:38 AM
Author: cara



Ara Ann, the Duggars used birth control initially but it is not consistent with their current beliefs. (They blame the pill for a miscarriage Mrs. Duggar had.) According to Wikipedia, quiverful adherents like the Duggars are supposed to use no birth control including no kind of rhythm method. Married couples are supposed to have sex freely and let God decide how many children to give them. So PilsnPinkysmom, I think the answer to your question is that they are not supposed to avoid conception according to their religion. How strict they are in the face of danger to Michelle (and future kids) remains to be seen.


.....

Yep, I realize that their beliefs on BC have changed... But I was mainly addressing the part of the quote of the previous poster who stated: "...What I don't get, if their religion requires women to have as many children as possible..."

From my understanding, they aren't 'required' to have as many children as possible, rather they let children come naturally....there is a difference.

 

[cara]

Date: 12/13/2009 12:05:05 PM
Author: Ara Ann

... I realize that their beliefs on BC have changed... But I was mainly addressing the part of the quote of the previous poster who stated: '...What I don't get, if their religion requires women to have as many children as possible...'

From my understanding, they aren't 'required' to have as many children as possible, rather they let children come naturally....there is a difference...

Um, a very subtle difference? (I'm musing here, not arguing, in case my tone comes out wrong.) Basically, if they were required to have as many kids as possible, how would that be different? They would... have to have sex even when they were not interested? On a schedule or something? As it is, their religion requires them to have sex whenever they are struck by the urge, but specifically forbids them from considering the consequences of that sex in following their urges. And they are supposed to accept children as blessings from God and never take any method to interfere with or prevent or hamper God giving them a child at any time. Sounds awfully close to ... having as many children as possible. I guess if someone in the couple had a low sex drive and if left to their own devices would have sex very infrequently, that would make it a real difference between 'have as many as possible' and 'let the children come when they choose'. (I think we have passed the point of the children coming naturally when their are emergency c-sections and NICU stays involved. Human intervention is affecting their reproduction.)

ETA: Thanks neat! So it must really be faster. OK then. Things to know.

 

[Ara Ann]

Date: 12/13/2009 12:17:24 PM
Author: cara

Date: 12/13/2009 12:05:05 PM

Author: Ara Ann


... I realize that their beliefs on BC have changed... But I was mainly addressing the part of the quote of the previous poster who stated: ''...What I don''t get, if their religion requires women to have as many children as possible...''


From my understanding, they aren''t ''required'' to have as many children as possible, rather they let children come naturally....there is a difference...

Um, a very subtle difference? (I''m musing here, not arguing, in case my tone comes out wrong.) Basically, if they were required to have as many kids as possible, how would that be different? They would... have to have sex even when they were not interested? On a schedule or something? As it is, their religion requires them to have sex whenever they are struck by the urge, but specifically forbids them from considering the consequences of that sex in following their urges? And they are supposed to accept children as blessings from God and never take any method to interfere with or prevent or hamper God giving them a child at any time. Sounds awfully close to ... having as many children as possible. I guess if someone in the couple had a low sex drive and if left to their own devices would have sex very infrequently, that would make it a real difference between ''have as many as possible'' and ''let the children come when they choose''. (I think we have passed the point of the children coming naturally when their are emergency c-sections and NICU stays involved. Human intervention is affecting their reproduction.)


ETA: Thanks neat! So it must really be faster. OK then. Things to know.

Yep, it is a subtle difference.

I take the meaning ''required'' to the literal extent, meaning yes, they would be pressured, try to conceive, even if they weren''t ''in the mood'' at the right time. It just gives their philosophy a negative connotation and I''m sure they would not agree with that terminology.

And as far as human intervention keeping their new preemie alive, I don''t think that is contrary to their beliefs and appreciation for life. If one of their grown children became ill and had to be hospitalized, I am sure they''d see that child had proper medical care...I don''t believe that''s going against their beliefs. Each child is precious to them, period.

 

[Maria D]

"Required" was a poor choice of wording on my part. Semantics aside, I think most would agree that it is more accurate to say that their religion's practice of not using any method of birth control at all *encourages* as many children as possible, no? I disagree that the idea is to let the children come naturally. If left to nature, this 19th Duggar would not survive. Also, many people consider the "rhythm method" to be "natural" family planning. For the Duggar's, it does appear that the goal is to have as many children as possible, letting nature take its course when it comes to conceiving and letting medical science and technology take over if/when necessary.

I don't admire them any more or less than any other couple who has managed to create a loving family. People all over the world do this all the time with/without a multitude of children and with/without religion. It is great that they are self-supporting but I believe that is because they are a novelty that people find fascinating. If they didn't have income from their TV show and books, would they be able to support their brood? Personally, I feel that if I had been born into that family as one of the older children I would have resented having to help my parents raise their children to that extent. But who knows, maybe if I had grown up with it I would be as delighted with the 19th as the Duggar's claim their family to be. Nah, who am I kidding ... I would have moved out a long time ago!

 

[steph72276]

I don''t watch the show, but I just hope the baby survives....it is sad no matter if we agree/disagree with their lifestyle.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Date: 12/13/2009 11:37:38 AM
Author: cara
Eep, 25/26 weeks is tiny tiny. I hope little Josie comes out okay after the long road ahead of her.


Ara Ann, the Duggars used birth control initially but it is not consistent with their current beliefs. (They blame the pill for a miscarriage Mrs. Duggar had.) According to Wikipedia, quiverful adherents like the Duggars are supposed to use no birth control including no kind of rhythm method. Married couples are supposed to have sex freely and let God decide how many children to give them. So PilsnPinkysmom, I think the answer to your question is that they are not supposed to avoid conception according to their religion. How strict they are in the face of danger to Michelle (and future kids) remains to be seen.


Anyway, in addition to letting Josie out of the NICI without serious disabilities, I also hope God decides the Duggars have enough kids.


LtFirecracker, I'm curious about the c-section scar thing. So even though we know the classic scar is more dangerous in future pregnancies and deliveries, it is still done in some emergency cases? Is it really that much quicker than the other incision type? Or some other reason? I know Michelle Duggar is a big VBAC proponent, so I'm sure if she was in any position to have a preference it would have been against the classic incision.


Oh, and does anybody know if is there a relationship between the gallstones and the pre-eclampsia issue? I thought they would be totally unrelated medical issues, but I heard some comments that implied the person that a gallstone admission of a pregnant women turned into a preeclampsia situation.

From what I remember, the uterus has to reach a certain size before a low transverse can be done. I am not sure what gestational age that is. I know most of the 23/24 week deliveries I have seen have been a classical, I am not sure about 25/26. The OB's I know really tried to avoid it if they could.

 

[phoenixgirl]

That''s so sad. Their lifestyle isn''t at all appealing to me, but after watching the show some, I do like them as people. They seem to have fun and the whole family seems to like each other.

I remember that Michele seemed surprised to have gotten pregnant again, as though she thought the previous baby (Jordyn?) was the last. I''m sure whether or not to keep trying for more is not the first thing on their minds right now, and if/when they do get to the point to think about it, it may be too late anyway.

I wonder what the doctor''s recommendation was concerning trying again with the preeclamsia she developed last time. On one hand, it seems obvious that a 43 year old would have a higher-risk pregnancy than a younger woman, but on the other hand, a woman who has borne 18 previous children successfully would probably be pretty confident about her ability to do it safely.

In any case, it''s very sad. I hope the baby thrives.

 

[PilsnPinkysMom]

Date: 12/13/2009 4:06:01 PM
Author: phoenixgirl

I wonder what the doctor''s recommendation was concerning trying again with the preeclamsia she developed last time. On one hand, it seems obvious that a 43 year old would have a higher-risk pregnancy than a younger woman, but on the other hand, a woman who has borne 18 previous children successfully would probably be pretty confident about her ability to do it safely.

Here''s my question: Would they ignore doctor''s advice (ie: You should not have any more children. It''s WAY too risky) or leave it all in God''s hands? Is there a point at which they put their convictions to the side to prevent almost guaranteed harm to both mom & future baby? Or will God do as s/he sees fit?

I understand there isn''t an east answer to this question. And it probably doesn''t pertain to the Duggar''s situation (who knows what her doctors have advised her to do). I''m not a woman of faith or religious conviction, so it''s very hard for me to understand such strong devotion, such that one would ignore warnings of probable death.

I feel bad speculating and analyzing, so I had better stop. I''m sure all the Duggars are worried about at this time is the health and well-being of Josie, and I still certainly hope that she grows stronger and healthier each day.

 

[Kaleigh]

I hope the baby makes it. Any updates on her conidtion?

 

[Ara Ann]

Date: 12/13/2009 4:50:09 PM
Author: Kaleigh
I hope the baby makes it. Any updates on her conidtion?

This is posted on TLC''s site:

"12/11/2009

Duggars-200
Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar welcomed baby 19 earlier than expected on Thursday, December 10, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

Michelle, who has been in the hospital recovering from a gallstone, was taken to the OR for an emergency c-section. Daughter Josie Brooklyn was born at 6:27 p.m. weighing 1lb., 6 oz.

Michelle is resting comfortably and baby is stable and in the NICU for extended care. The most important thing right now is for Mom and baby Josie to get as much rest as possible. The family is grateful for all the prayers and well wishes during their recovery.

Leave your well wishes in the comments and TLC.com will be sure to pass them on to the Duggars. "


and here is the hospital release:

Statement from the Hospital where Michelle delivered Josie Brooklyn:

"During Mrs. Duggar’s admission to University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to evaluate pain related to gall bladder disease, her workup revealed signs and symptoms consistent with a condition known as preeclampsia.

Preeclampsia is a pregnancy-related disease that affects 5 to 8% of all pregnancies and is characterized by high blood pressure and the presence of protein in the urine.

Thursday evening, December 10, the obstetrical and neonatal teams reached the collaborative decision that Mrs. Duggar needed an emergency c-section to ensure the blood pressure problem would not be detrimental to her or the baby.

Josie Brooklyn was born at 6:27 pm, weighed 1 lb., 6 oz, measured 30 cm long and is currently in stable condition. Michelle is recovering well from surgery.

UAMS is the best place for Mom and baby, as we have a state of the art NICU care facility with some of the top neonatal doctors in the world.” -- Paul Wendel, M.D., Director, UAMS Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

That is very sad. I know I have mentioned this before but my brother was born at 28 weeks at 2.5 lbs (dropped to 1.5 lbs though) and is completely healthy. We got VERY lucky. He didn''t need any major surgeries. He was in the NICU for 3 months and came home with a heart monitor (more for my parents than him). My mom had to get special diapers from the hospital and donated blood for him every week. A lot happens in two weeks though. I cannot imagine had be been born at 26 weeks. I am not sure what the survival rate is. I hope she is a little fighter.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

Date: 12/13/2009 7:08:58 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
That is very sad. I know I have mentioned this before but my brother was born at 28 weeks at 2.5 lbs (dropped to 1.5 lbs though) and is completely healthy. We got VERY lucky. He didn't need any major surgeries. He was in the NICU for 3 months and came home with a heart monitor (more for my parents than him). My mom had to get special diapers from the hospital and donated blood for him every week. A lot happens in two weeks though. I cannot imagine had be been born at 26 weeks. I am not sure what the survival rate is. I hope she is a little fighter.

At this point, every week makes a difference. Survival is looked at by both gestational age and birth weight.

23-24 weeks are what most hospitals consider the lower limit of viability (some medical centers will go down to 22 weeks). At this age, most parents are given the option of weather or not they want to resuscitate because the mortality rate is fairly high (50% for 24 weekers) as is the rate of a major morbidity. The hospital I trained at was a bit more conservative and we only gave a choice at 23 weeks.

25-26 weeks is still with a lot of risk, but the numbers get much better. A 26 weeker is quoted to have a 80% survival rate. The rate of disability is much lower too.

At 28 weeks survival gets into the 90% range. I can also tell you that the NICU course of a 28 weeker is much different than that of a 24-26 week baby.

Tacori - I am glad to hear that everything went so well for your brother.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Date: 12/13/2009 8:38:02 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker

Date: 12/13/2009 7:08:58 PM

Author: Tacori E-ring

That is very sad. I know I have mentioned this before but my brother was born at 28 weeks at 2.5 lbs (dropped to 1.5 lbs though) and is completely healthy. We got VERY lucky. He didn''t need any major surgeries. He was in the NICU for 3 months and came home with a heart monitor (more for my parents than him). My mom had to get special diapers from the hospital and donated blood for him every week. A lot happens in two weeks though. I cannot imagine had be been born at 26 weeks. I am not sure what the survival rate is. I hope she is a little fighter.

At this point, every week makes a difference. Survival is looked at by both gestational age and birth weight.


23-24 weeks are what most hospitals consider the lower limit of viability (some medical centers will go down to 22 weeks). At this age, most parents are given the option of weather or not they want to resuscitate because the mortality rate is fairly high (50% for 24 weekers) as is the rate of a major morbidity. The hospital I trained at was a bit more conservative and we only gave a choice at 23 weeks.


25-26 weeks is still with a lot of risk, but the numbers get much better. A 26 weeker is quoted to have a 80% survival rate. The rate of disability is much lower too.


At 28 weeks survival gets into the 90% range. I can also tell you that the NICU course of a 28 weeker is much different than that of a 24-26 week baby.


Tacori - I am glad to hear that everything went so well for your brother.

Oh I know there is a BIG difference between a 28 weeker and a 26 weeker. I think that is why it is so hard to imagine. My brother is now 23 years old so I don''t think there was such a high survival rate back then. That is wonderful that there is now. I remember feeling much calmer once I get the 28th week.