i visit www.babycenter.com almost daily, just to browse around and whatnot, and once a week to get the "development update" for my week. the best part about the whole thing is the user comments and posts.
there is a poll on delivery dates that i thought was pretty interesting though:
there is a poll on delivery dates that i thought was pretty interesting though:
How close to your due date did you deliver?It's said that less than 5 percent of women give birth on their actual due date. What about you? |
Did you deliver on your due date?
 | 49% | No, I was early |
| | 35% | No, I was late |
| | 16% | Yes, right on time |
(Total votes: 33302)
If you didn't deliver on schedule, how far off were you?
| | 20% | More than two weeks early |
| | 23% | One to two weeks early |
| | 18% | Less than one week early |
| | 17% | Less than one week late |
| | 19% | One to two weeks late |
| | 3% | More than two weeks late |
(Total votes: 30395)
so! out of 33,000 women--good enough for any statistical analysis--50% of women give birth early, and 35% give birth late... and yet, as this poll clearly shows, women are not allowed to go past two weeks late (only 3% actually did) even though 20% were more than two weeks early... proof that if you are "late" you WILL be induced. despite 35% of women naturally being late. if it's a bell curve--it was my understanding that medical science really likes bell curves--then in fact it should be balanced on both sides, 20% more than two weeks early, 20% more than two weeks late. but it should also show the majority giving birth "right on time" if the science were good, shouldn't it? the fact that only 16% of women give birth on time is a pretty strong argument for erroneous gestational dating (or simply an inability to pinpoint such an individual process).
and honestly, you have to wonder how many of the "right on time" women were right on time because they were induced? if the subtitle of the poll is correct, it's pretty clear the 16% who were 'right on time' had some pharmacological assistance forced on them.
*shakes head* what a mess. the problem is we have lost contact with what is "normal" in birth... we have so few unadulterated cases to base the concept on! there is so much intervention we don't even know what it is really like anymore...
so! out of 33,000 women--good enough for any statistical analysis--50% of women give birth early, and 35% give birth late... and yet, as this poll clearly shows, women are not allowed to go past two weeks late (only 3% actually did) even though 20% were more than two weeks early... proof that if you are "late" you WILL be induced. despite 35% of women naturally being late. if it's a bell curve--it was my understanding that medical science really likes bell curves--then in fact it should be balanced on both sides, 20% more than two weeks early, 20% more than two weeks late. but it should also show the majority giving birth "right on time" if the science were good, shouldn't it? the fact that only 16% of women give birth on time is a pretty strong argument for erroneous gestational dating (or simply an inability to pinpoint such an individual process).
and honestly, you have to wonder how many of the "right on time" women were right on time because they were induced? if the subtitle of the poll is correct, it's pretty clear the 16% who were 'right on time' had some pharmacological assistance forced on them.
*shakes head* what a mess. the problem is we have lost contact with what is "normal" in birth... we have so few unadulterated cases to base the concept on! there is so much intervention we don't even know what it is really like anymore...
Posts
December 23, 2008 at 4:33 PM
did you consider that they may give a later due date as a buffer before they start consider the "dangers" associated with being late?