Reply
Stopping Labor KalikaRose Due January 11 (boy); 1 child; Minnesota 397 posts
7th Dec '12

I know it's different everywhere but how far along do you have to be before they won't try to stop labor?

Amy Lynn07 33 kids; Florida 966 posts
7th Dec '12

I ws told 37wks

Hy'ska 2 kids; Washington 50791 posts
7th Dec '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting KalikaRose:</b>" I know it's different everywhere but how far along do you have to be before they won't try to stop labor?"</blockquote>




35-36 weeks depending on hospital

Tash+1 1 child; Canton, Ohio 7839 posts
7th Dec '12

They won't stop it after 34 weeks here

TRISHA =] 2 kids; California 3368 posts
7th Dec '12
Quoting KalikaRose:" I know it's different everywhere but how far along do you have to be before they won't try to stop labor?"


my first false visit i was just 36 weeks and they said they wouldnt try to stop it cause the risk of the drugs they use vs the risk that the baby will come out really unhealthy... its just not safe to use those drugs.

wilde_mommy 4 kids; Columbus, Ohio 3459 posts
7th Dec '12

I was once stopped at 36 weeks, but with my following pregnancy I was told I wouldnt be stopped at 36. It was 2 different hospitals

Jennybananna 2 kids; Gilbert, AZ, United States 25079 posts
7th Dec '12

Depends on the hospital my first one would stop it all the way to 36 weeks 6 days. The second nothing after 35 weeks.

A, E & W's mommy 4 kids; 1 angel baby; Bulgaria 16529 posts
7th Dec '12

Depends on the hospital and what's actually required to stop the contractions. For example, if you go into a hospital with no NICU they may try giving you something simple like fluids to stop it but wouldn't probably give you Terb or anything like that because the risks start to outweigh the benefits. However, if you were to go to a hospital with a NICU at 36 weeks they aren't likely to even try fluids in an effort to stop it, they'll likely just deliver you. Some hospitals won't stop it after 34 weeks but those are usually the hospitals with a good NICU who have judged (unfortunately more to do with financial considerations and not health considerations) that the financial risks of delivering are potentially less costly than than the expense of keeping a baby in considering the minimal health consequences at that stage.

Tash+1 1 child; Canton, Ohio 7839 posts
7th Dec '12
Quoting A, E & W's mommy:" Depends on the hospital and what's actually required to stop the contractions. For example, if you go ... [snip!] ... potentially less costly than than the expense of keeping a baby in considering the minimal health consequences at that stage."


I completely agree with this. 34 weeks is my hospital, and they are cheap asses lmao