judecorp.livejournal.com ([identity profile] judecorp.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] judecorp 2006-04-12 12:17 am (UTC)

It's amazing to me that only a big handful of years ago, a 36weeker was serious business and now we treat 36weekers as pretty much full-term. It's like, "Oh, 36 weeks? No big deal," even though it still IS a big deal. Just because we can save kids born much earlier doesn't mean that kids don't need those extra weeks!

And I've probably done the math of her current age wrong, because she's definitely older than a gestational age of 1.5. When we did her assessment, which was probably 2 months ago, she was testing at 2-3 months and that was right around her GA. So she's older now. But yes, right now she's on target with her adjusted age... but it's still early to tell about long-term effects. She was very lucky in terms of not having brain bleeds or any major early signs of cerebral palsy. I'm pretty sure the retinopathy she has is resolving as well and she isn't showing hearing concerns yet. She's INCREDIBLY lucky.

But she's in the serious minority. And I'm VERY curious to see how she progresses... but I'd really like to see who she is at 7 or so.

My step-niece was born early, I want to say 25 weeks or so, and as a baby she was fairly lucky... but she's got a lot of sensory concerns, CP, learning disabilities, etc. now. I'm not saying I wish she wasn't alive (even though I don't talk to them anymore), I'm just saying that both of those kids are pretty lucky and some of the babies the doctors end up "saving" live pretty tormented lives.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting