Join Date: May 2005
Location: on a wonder wheel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My brother and SIL were faced with this aswell. Thankfully they ran it past them after my brother saw his boys for the first time via ultrasound. I had already read up on it at TC and told him about what I knew.
Basically it's like this. Triplet pregnancies are high risk, but not as high as you may think. They're almost like what twin pregnancies were risk wise thirty years ago. They've made major improvements in the "management" of HOM pregnancies in recent years. SR gives no significant benifit in triplet pregnancies. Studies have shown that reducing from three to two does not lengthen pregnancy nor reduce miscarraige. The body is programmed in early pregnancy that it is supporting three and continues to act that way. Now reducing from three to one can increase the length of pregnancy, however it's much more complicated and carries a higher risk of miscarraige. So basically, her odds of having three healthy babies is just has high, if not higher, than her odds of having one or two if she reduces. It's still a very personal choice though.
Oh, and FTR, my SIL was 5'2" and 87lbs (YES, EIGHTYSEVEN POUNDS) when she got pregnant with her three. It was her first pregnancy at 35 years old. She carried them to a day shy of 33 weeks. They were 4 6, 3 12, and 3 9, all very healthy and home within a month.
|36 members and 7,573 guests|
|Ajbaby , AllTomorrowsParties , bananabee , bluefaery , CricketVS , Dave RW , EmilyVail42 , frugalmama , joandsarah77 , katelove , lilgreen , LiLStar , lolo77 , MasiyM , mckittre , Milk8shake , moominmamma , neemoomommy , neenamommy , oaksie68 , One Art , philomom , pulcetti , rubelin , SandiMae , sarafl , sciencemum , Steinn , stillihgrip , Teetina , tournesol , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|