Travel insurance for being unable to fly in late pregnancy

jackieblack

yellowmug wrote: »

Well if all wasn't going well then clearly it wouldn't be advisable, I'm sure the OP knows that...

I know several people who've had totally 'normal' pregnancies, everything going well, right up to the moment when it suddenly and unpredictably wasn't :think:

yellowmug

jackieblack wrote: »

I know several people who've had totally 'normal' pregnancies, everything going well, right up to the moment when it suddenly and unpredictably wasn't :think:

Right, but flying wouldn't have any bearing on the sorts of fairly rare and unpredictable things that can go wrong at the very end of a pregnancy, such as cords around necks etc. Just to be clear - flying hasn't been shown to have any negative effect on pregnancy at any stage.

The assumption that women should completely stop their normal lives for the duration of pregnancy is something that annoys me. Yes, you could stay at home and avoid anything as taxing as a trip to the supermarket, "just in case" - but you'd go out of your mind over the nine months and, anyway, if something rare and tragic is going to go wrong at the last minute, this kind of ultra-cautious approach won't prevent that. All is does is cause unnecessary anxiety for the mother.

The OP wants to go to the wedding of a friend who is clearly important to her - as long as it's fine with her doctor (if it won't, OP knows she won't be going), why on earth should she miss out because of some kind of "just in case" with no roots in any kind of medical evidence?

(And actually, NoodleDoodleMan, I've had a 42 week and a 41 week pregnancy, and felt absolutely fine until the contractions kicked in both times - then it does admittedly start to smart a bit . What would definitely have been no fun at all would be missing a friend's wedding for no reason.)

bradders1983

soolin wrote: »

It looks like this is another non returning member, ask a question and not come back to see the responses. I always think it is a shame that we never get updated as to whether any of the advice was useful or not.

Probably didnt like the replies so has vanished for good.

peachyprice

yellowmug wrote: »

Right, but flying wouldn't have any bearing on the sorts of fairly rare and unpredictable things that can go wrong at the very end of a pregnancy, such as cords around necks etc. Just to be clear - flying hasn't been shown to have any negative effect on pregnancy at any stage.

The assumption that women should completely stop their normal lives for the duration of pregnancy is something that annoys me. Yes, you could stay at home and avoid anything as taxing as a trip to the supermarket, "just in case" - but you'd go out of your mind over the nine months and, anyway, if something rare and tragic is going to go wrong at the last minute, this kind of ultra-cautious approach won't prevent that. All is does is cause unnecessary anxiety for the mother.

The OP wants to go to the wedding of a friend who is clearly important to her - as long as it's fine with her doctor (if it won't, OP knows she won't be going), why on earth should she miss out because of some kind of "just in case" with no roots in any kind of medical evidence?

(And actually, NoodleDoodleMan, I've had a 42 week and a 41 week pregnancy, and felt absolutely fine until the contractions kicked in both times - then it does admittedly start to smart a bit . What would definitely have been no fun at all would be missing a friend's wedding for no reason.)

I wonder then why airlines stop pregnant women flying during the final stages of pregnancy?

Could it be that they don't want to be delivering babies or dealing with medical emergencies at 30,000 ft? There must be some reason they stop perfectly healthy but heavily pregnant women flying, or maybe they're just doing it to be awkward?

Gloomendoom

yellowmug wrote: »

Right, but flying wouldn't have any bearing on the sorts of fairly rare and unpredictable things that can go wrong at the very end of a pregnancy, such as cords around necks etc. Just to be clear - flying hasn't been shown to have any negative effect on pregnancy at any stage.

Unfortunately, pregnancy can have a negative effect on flying though, costing airlines thousands and inconveniencing other passengers.

Loads of examples

NoodleDoodleMan

(And actually, NoodleDoodleMan, I've had a 42 week and a 41 week pregnancy, and felt absolutely fine until the contractions kicked in both times - then it does admittedly start to smart a bit . What would definitely have been no fun at all would be missing a friend's wedding for no reason.)

For no reason ?

yellowmug

peachyprice wrote: »

I wonder then why airlines stop pregnant women flying during the final stages of pregnancy?

Could it be that they don't want to be delivering babies or dealing with medical emergencies at 30,000 ft? There must be some reason they stop perfectly healthy but heavily pregnant women flying, or maybe they're just doing it to be awkward?

Well, the airline in question is quite happy to fly a pregnant woman at 35 weeks gestation as long as a doctor is happy with this, so why on earth shouldn't they fly?

Airline policies about pregnant women are designed primarily to avoid the situation you describe - it's vastly expensive to divert a flight. That's why pretty much no airline is going to fly a pregnant woman at 40 weeks (in fact some airlines in the Highlands will, where it's a case of women getting to the mainland from a remote island). But the chances of a woman with a pregnancy that is progressing normally going into spontaneous labour at 35 weeks is extremely small, which is why airlines are happy to fly them on this basis. (Those of us who've been at the sharp end of labour also realise that it's not like in the films where the water breaks at a party or something and everyone then says "oooh quick let's get her to a hospital" - I could have flown to Sydney and back during my labours :rotfl:)

I'm not criticising airline policies, which are drawn up on the basis of actuarial medical information and decades of expertise. What I'm criticising is the attitude of some posters, who seem to think a pregnant woman should refrain from doing something the airline, with all its understandable caution, and a medical doctor, are perfectly happy for her to do, all on the basis of some vague and completely unsupported theory that she might be harming her baby.

The "riskiest" part of pregnancy, by the way, is the first 12 weeks, during which anything up to 25% of fetuses stop growing/die, typically for no reason at all. A miscarriage can be a medical emergency. Should women in the first trimester be banned from air travel?

yellowmug

NoodleDoodleMan wrote: »

For no reason ?

Well yes, if the airline are happy for her to fly, and her doctor is happy for her to fly, then why on earth shouldn't she?

yellowmug

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Unfortunately, pregnancy can have a negative effect on flying though, costing airlines thousands and inconveniencing other passengers.

Loads of examples

It can do but it's very rare, much rarer that a plane being diverted because of a heart attack or similar. Airlines make their own decisions about pregnant women flying, based on actuarial science. They're bound to err on the side of caution and clearly this airline is happy for women to fly at 35 weeks.

photome

NoodleDoodleMan wrote: »

According to 'er indoors, and other female relations/friends, it's not much fun being in late stage pregnancy - and not being able to have a drink.

So flying in those circumstances appears, to me at least, not something to do, unless the journey is really necessary.

Other opinions obviously differ.

we dont all need to have a drink to have fun