Woman gives birth on carnival cruise

[tvguy]

This raises a whole lot more questions than it answers.
http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/...-after-woman-unexpectedly-gives-birth/94781/1

 

[kcashner]

Yup! (as to a lot of questions)

There are at least several very good reasons that DCL will not allow a woman to sail if she is beyond 24 weeks.

 

[MarkRG]

As opposed to how many have probably conceived on the party boat?

 

[kcashner]

Remember DCL's "little souvenier" commercial?

 

[tvguy]

Yup! (as to a lot of questions)

There are at least several very good reasons that DCL will not allow a woman to sail if she is beyond 24 weeks.

According to the article, Carnival has the exact same policy.

 

[jilljill]

I was reading some of the comments below the article and someone did point out something valid, the article doesn't say if it's a passenger or crew member that hid a pregnancy.
Definately raises more questions than it answers.

 

[clawmachine]

I believe RCCL just changed their policy in 2008 from 27 weeks to 24. I cruised with them in late 2006 and I know it was 27 then because I was very close to 24 and HUGE. I had all the proper documentation and was having a smooth pregnancy, but nobody asked for anything nor blinked an eye. I honestly don't recommend it though unless you are very resistant to seasickness. The waves, extra pressure on my stomach from the baby, and all the extra food made for a rather unpleasant experience, digestion-wise. On the other hand, I got treated like royalty, both onboard and in port.

 

[cats mom]

This raises a whole lot more questions than it answers.

It certainly does. Are you our official follow up guy in case more info is released?

I once saw an Oprah show that featured women who had no idea they were pregnant... until the baby was born.
I can't even fathom such a thing, but I guess it does happen.

If the baby is OK, and the article doesn't really make it sound like it was a crisis situation, she had to be further along than 24 weeks. Yes?

 

[tvguy]

It certainly does. Are you our official follow up guy in case more info is released?

I once saw an Oprah show that featured women who had no idea they were pregnant... until the baby was born.
I can't even fathom such a thing, but I guess it does happen.

If the baby is OK, and the article doesn't really make it sound like it was a crisis situation, she had to be further along than 24 weeks. Yes?

I will post anything I find.

There is a whole show on Discovery Health on women who did not know they were pregnant.....until they gave birth. It is cleverly titles "I didn't know I Was Pregnant".

 

[kcashner]

When I put on my doctor hat, I think DCL's policy of 24 weeks is very reasonable.

While survival of an infant born before 24 weeks gestation does occur, it is incredibly rare even when the infant is born in a tertiary center with all the best equipment and staff to care for mom and baby. Thus, in the unfortunate event that an extremely premature baby is born on the ship (before 24 weeks) the outcome is likely to be no different than if the baby had been born at a major medical center. Secondly, most of the medications used to treat premature labor have limited use and effectiveness prior to 24 weeks (note--limited, not none). This basically adds up to DCL being in a position to contend that the woman chose to cruise in pregnancy and that DCL couldn't have done anything that might have made a difference in an emergency.

27 weeks--YIKES!!!! Since more than 50% of babies born at 26 weeks in many tertiary centers ultimately go home healthy but that figure drops to less than half of that for a child born in a primary hospital, I'd hate to see what the numbers might look like for a ship! This is an area of medicine where the healthy take home survival rates are changing rapidly and the ability to prolong a pregnancy by even 1-2 days can make a difference in the infant's survival.

 

[clawmachine]

Just another perspective though, and I am one who has had both difficult and uncomplicated pregnancies: MOST babies are not born before 27 weeks, and most births are far less of a complicated medical event than say, a heart attack... but as far as I know, cruise lines do not make you prove that you are not at risk of having one while onboard. I think one's doctor should always make the call about fitness to travel (anywhere) but I see the need for cut-off dates as well...

 

[abdmom]

Just another perspective though, and I am one who has had both difficult and uncomplicated pregnancies: MOST babies are not born before 27 weeks, and most births are far less of a complicated medical event than say, a heart attack...

I completely disagree with the above. The physiology and possible complications of childbirth are much more complicated than a heart attack.

but as far as I know, cruise lines do not make you prove that you are not at risk of having one while onboard. I think one's doctor should always make the call about fitness to travel (anywhere) but I see the need for cut-off dates as well...

In fact, cruise lines do make you prove that you are not at risk of having a baby while on board.

 

[clawmachine]

I meant they do not prove you are at risk of a heart attack, which statistically is greater in older adults than a pregnant woman giving birth prematurely. I have no interest in starting an argument but a midwife would totally disagree with your assessment of birth and the stats speak for themselves. There have been plenty of discrimination claims against cruiselines regarding their pregnancy rules. It's not a simple issue at all.

 

[natale1980]

This raises a whole lot more questions than it answers.

Too bad LOST is over.

 

[dismom73]

Not to open a whole new can of worms....but, I am a flight attendant for a major us air carrier and we are allowed to work through our 32 week! Which is 4 weeks past the point Dr.'s suggest women not fly during pregnancy. Not only are we flying, but lifting, pushing, and pulling very heavy things. And to make matters worse, we have very limited medical supplies onboard and no guarantee of a Dr being present. On domestic flights you can land pretty quick (30 minutes or less) but international is a different story. I never could understand it.

 

[breakingd_awn]

I couldn't magine giving birth on a cruise ship I think for the pain I'd take 2 shots of tequilla and then head to the spa to deliver

 

[tvguy]

Not to open a whole new can of worms....but, I am a flight attendant for a major us air carrier and we are allowed to work through our 32 week! Which is 4 weeks past the point Dr.'s suggest women not fly during pregnancy. Not only are we flying, but lifting, pushing, and pulling very heavy things. And to make matters worse, we have very limited medical supplies onboard and no guarantee of a Dr being present. On domestic flights you can land pretty quick (30 minutes or less) but international is a different story. I never could understand it.

DW was 7+ months along on our cruise on RCCL back in 1986, RCCL at that time had no restrictions. We checked. And the only comment her Doctor had was "can I stow away in your suitcase?"
Was interesting, the baby always went the opposite direction of the ship in rough seas, so DW had a built in stabilizer. And DS since birth has had a fascination with water! DW also got a lot of room on the dance floor (yep, they still had a Disco on board in 1986!)

 

[LuAnimal]

Pregnancy isn't a disability, even Mary traveled by a mule at nine months pregnant.

 

[Davids-Coco]

Pregnancy isn't a disability, even Mary traveled by a mule at nine months pregnant.

It's not. But after viability - or when the baby can survive outside the womb - the ships are concerned with travel, especially since generally babies just at viability need extensive help in the nicu and have immature lungs. All babies born after viability run some risk, whatever slight, of needing help or having breathing issues. The cruise lines are just covering their rears on this particular risk.

ETA - you are also talking about a very different time.

 

[clawmachine]

FWIW, I read more details about the financial analysis behind this rule. From an actuarial perspective (cost/risk/income analysis) an unborn baby who potentially could be born onboard and then not make it, is a human being who is not a paying customer yet who potentially could cost the line a ton of $$ if there was a lawsuit of any kind. A woman who manages to have a healthy baby onboard can still choose to randomly sue for whatever she felt went wrong during birth, just like on land, which costs $$$ even if she doesn't win. An older person who clearly has a higher chance of having a fatality onboard (I also read that there are several deaths reported every year on every cruise line, due to "natural" causes) is nonetheless, still a paying customer and therefore it is a more cost-effective risk. It is also of course true that it is easier to identify a pregnant woman than a person who is at risk for a serious health event, unless that person discloses the info voluntarily. Still, since the lines are already saying that women in high-risk pregnancies should not travel at all, then we are mostly talking about healthy, uncomplicated pregnancies and so the issue of whether the cut-offs are fair is a real one, and not simple at all.

I however, am a rule follower and would never challenge this one myself.