Talk:Pregnancy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Sexual reproduction.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pregnancy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance assessment scale

Sexuality Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Additional information:
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
	This article is a vital article.

Archives
Archive 1 (Apr. 2005 - Sep. 2006) Archive 2 (Sep. 2006 - Nov. 2007)

[edit] POV issue: Terminology, "symptoms"

In this edit, I changed the word "symptoms" to other phrases, such as "health effects", with the rationale that pregnancy is not a disease, and that "symptoms" is inappropriate terminology to describe the effects of pregnancy. Orangemarlin immediately reverted this edit, stating that the word "symptoms" "is not used exclusively for a disease state".

While technically the word "symptom" may be used to describe a mere change in state, the fact remains that the word "symptom" is primarily used to mean "an indication of disease". Merriam-Webster's first definition of "symptom" is "subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance; broadly : something that indicates the presence of bodily disorder". Is this the light we want to cast upon pregnancy, that it should be considered a "bodily disorder"?

See this Google definition search, where 21 definitions describe the word "symptom" as meaning "an indication of disease", while only 3 refer to the word as a value-neutral indication of a change in state. Even our own Symptom article begins with this: "A symptom is a medical sign indicating the nature of the disease." Thus the word carries a negative connotation.

Certainly, pregnancy should not be referred to as having "symptoms", as it is not a disease. Any effects or detriments to health that come as a result of pregnancy are their own entities to be treated. They should not be described as "symptoms" of the pregnancy, as the pregnancy itself is not a disease with symptoms. To uphold NPOV, I suggest that we build a consensus to refrain from using the word "symptom" to refer to the natural effects of pregnancy. I refer you to this version, which suggests use of the word "effects". Response? Photouploaded (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please learn how to use Wikipedia templates. This is hardly a POV issue. It is a definition. Since I am a doctor, and you are what??? The word symptom is used much more loosely than a bullshit amateur dictionary uses it. Moreover, until the something is definitive, the patient could have cervical cancer and present with many of the same fucking symptoms. But if you're so fucking upset about it, then revert. I don't fucking care all that much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I made an edit, you reverted it, and so I placed a dispute template in the article and calmly brought up the issue on Talk. You responded with foul language in your above comment and its edit summary.

Your response surprised me. I don't think this use of a dispute template was problematic. Personally, I like it when people use dispute templates, because it alerts readers and allows us to find and weigh in on discussions. I understand if you found placing the template to be unnecessary, but I think that swearing at me is completely uncalled-for.

I would like to build an actual consensus with you and the other editors, so if you feel the issue is unresolved. Per your consent above, I will change it now, but if you would like to discuss it civilly please reply here. Thank you. Photouploaded (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't do civilly. I do discuss honestly and rarely in these fucking talk sections. So here are my points, in as civil manner as I can digest:

There is no consensus here, since only you, me and about 500 vandals care. Oh, there was some putz about a year ago that has a community ban for edit warring here, but we're over that. So, since only you and I care, let's get this done.
Get over the swearing. That's the normal way of talking in my world, which is made up of MBA's, MD's, CPA's and tons of smart people. Oh and in the United States Navy, where I worked for a number of years.
So, now we get passed the crap, and move into the real points. The template is flat wrong. I would suggest you spend some time reading WP:NPOV, and I am not someone who does not read them, there are no POV disputes. The only POV dispute would be say I thought Pregnancy was an act of God, and you thought Aliens cause pregnancy. Luckily, neither of us is saying that. Remove the POV tag, to be honorable. Or don't, and I'll have an admin take care of it.
I removed Symptoms per your constant pushing of that POV. You are using symptoms in a negative way, per a non-medical dictionary. However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary a symptom is: "A phenomenon or circumstance accompanying some condition, process, feeling, etc., and serving as evidence of it; a sign or indication of something." However, to make you happy, and frankly it is a minor point, I'm not going to push it any further.
WP:MEDMOS is the manual of style of Wikipedia that covers medical related articles such as this one. You are using Diseases/disorders/syndromes in a negative sense. Yes, pregnancy is NOT a disease or disorder, but it is arguably a syndrome. Pregnancy is one of the rare significant medical changes to a person that is not a result of a pathogen or other immune system problem (I guess aging, puberty, and a few others would work).
I do appreciate what you are trying to do. However, the whole point of WP:AGF is that you presume that I'm trying to do the right thing too. The article is a medical article, not some philosophical treatise on the state of being a woman. That deserves an article, but not here.

OK, I hope you understand my attempts here. Please remove the POV tag. It's not very useful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes per Diseases/Disorders/Syndromes section of WP:MEDMOS

Since hir recent expletive-filled response to the concern I raised above, Orangemarlin has made major changes to Pregnancy, in alignment with the format set forth in the Diseases/Disorders/Syndromes section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style for medicine-related articles. I find this reorganization to be troubling, in light of the above discussion. Orangemarlin, would you please explain your recent edits? Photouploaded (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, your changes to this article are drastic. Please come to the talk page for discussion. Photouploaded (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I did. You don't own the article. It is a medical article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck does this mean? You think I'm stupid? Or maybe you jump the gun, and keep conflicting with my edits. Try to be patient, will you? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Please stop using foul language. I would be more interested to explain if you would cool your jets. Photouploaded (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural differences in measuring age

There was an edit on 02:50, 23 July 2007 that added Japan to a list of countries that measure a person's age from conception (rather than birth). Such that someone is born 9 months old (rounded up to 1 year). While I can't speak for the other countries (Korea, China & Vietnam), I live in Japan and can say that this is not true here. A child is zero until its first birthday.

Personally, the whole thing screams 'urban legend' to me, I can't find any corroboration on-line, and can see a few sites that imply it's not true(i.e. Chinese oriented sites talking about the importance of a baby's first birthday). However, I'm only taking out Japan because it's the only one I'm certain of. The Zig (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It has no references cited to help verify, so I've added {{fact}} tags. As for "In the context of personal treatment, bedside manner generally dictates that doctors make sparse use of clinical language like "fetus" and "embryo," and instead simply use the word "baby." likewise seems spurious to me - most doctors in the UK that I've encountered would (when then think before speaking) choose not to use emotive term such as "baby" in discussing with a women an inevitable spontaneous miscarriage, and a deliberate use of of "embryo" would be prefered, or indeed state that the "pregnancy has ended" and make no direct mention of the loss of a hoped for embryo -> fetus -> baby -> child -> offspring. Fact tag applied again here. David Ruben ^Talk 02:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely true among some Chinese culturues, e.g. it is the case amongst many Chinese in Malaysia. East Asian age reckoning suggests you are mistaken about Japan. I think you're confusing the difference between the modern method of counting the age, used in most contexts in East Asian societs such as Japan and the tradiational method still used in some contextx such as fortune telling and in some other contexts. There is not surprsingly a big difference betweem what people use in every day life and a tradition which is still maintained in some contexts. You may want to ask people who should know in Japan and make sure you aren't perhaps mistaken Nil Einne (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate reverts

Orangemarlin, this diff is an example of a very inappropriate revert. Reverting someone's edit and adding an edit summary explaining you are guessing wastes your time, the prior editor's time, and the following editor's time. If you don't know something, please either look it up or leave it alone. --Una Smith (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immunological Tolerance

Hi. I just noticed that one of the sections of this article had been cut and pasted from a different Wikipedia article's,sub-section. I have no idea what Wikipedia policy on this is. It's not plagiarism as it's the same website, though it does seem somewhat redundant. But then, it is relevant information for this article. Anyway, it had been wrongly cut and pasted across such that it included reference numbers and not actual references. Subsequently it had been tagged as needing references. I decided the best way to resolve this was re-cut/paste the same material in a way that included its actual references, which I've done. I also removed the 'need reference' tag, and replaced it with a 'main article' link. If this was the wrong way to handle this, do what you gotta do with the article, and let me know what I did wrong. I'm new here.The Zig (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seminal fluid

One study, with only 28 women, which resulted in minimally useful data is hardly mainstream. Strongly suggest striking the seminal fluid cervix ripening as a violation of WP:UNDUE and probably of WP:FRINGE. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

After being accused of "stalking", I have removed the offending sentences. E kala mai. --Ali'i 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin apparently now agrees with the sentences and has replaced them. I'm confused. Should this be included or not? --Ali'i 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It appears that OM is simply reverting to the compromise I put in place pending some kind of consensus on this issue. I didn't see it as an endorsement of including the statement, but rather as trying to stabilize the article. I could be wrong, of course. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he reverted with the comment "Matches source. Not sure why it's contentious to anyone." Although I thought my edit to delete the sentences about seminal fluid, but leaving the sentence about the efficacy remaining uncertain would have been a good compromise. Either way... Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the version by KC. That's all. sorry I missed this conversation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; glad you're here now - Drrem made some unsourced edits, Ali'i tried to source them, I objected to the source as not supporting the edits (or at any rate not very well) and in general the source says no mechanism which is not mechanical or chemical is efficacious so I am concerned about undue weight. Meanwhile, Drrem has posted in the section below, without any sources other than his own knowledge. So that's the situation currently. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But why would you knee-jerk revert to KillerChihuahua's version? ;-) I had removed the seminal fluid bits, but left the sentence stating that the efficacy remains uncertain. Here's the rub... intercourse is a widely distributed (although perhaps old-wives tale-ish) method of induction (repeated by old-wives and OB/GYNs/midwives alike). The problem is the lack of rigorous, "standardised" clinical studies (as noted). So, where do we go from here? I think it must be noted somehow, but obviously have no problem stating that the efficacy remains unclear. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy page: regarding characteristics

The information given is confusing at the best of times if not incorrect and misleading (the use of archaic terms does not help). Let me try to explain. The use of lunar months to measure a pregnancy is certainly confusing to the lay-person. It is sufficient to say that a human pregnancy lasts, on average, 40 weeks or 280 days. This is the time lapse between LMP and EDD. This is the clinical evaluation that an Obstetrician or Midwife performs. It is certainly also true that the correct duration of human pregnancy is 38 weeks when considering the average time lapse between fertilization and EDD; this however is usually not clinically evident and so not utilised by O's or M's - except for women who have ovarian cycles that last 35 days or more. International agreement is to consider duration of pregnancy as being, on average, 40 weeks or 280 days. I propose leaving out the bit about lunar months (confusing and pointless).

On the page "term" is defined, incorrectly, as being from 37 to 43 weeks. This is an extremely serious error: the correct and universally accepted (I'd like to point out that there are very few points in medicine that are universally accepted but this just happens to be one of these) definition of term is from 37 weeks up to 41 weeks + 6 days (i.e. 259 days to 293 days). As I did point out, in the edits I inserted, this derives not only from mathematical and statistical considerations but also from biological and medical facts. Complications to fetus and mother are considerably higher from 42 weeks on (294 days). Telling laypeople that term lasts up until 43 weeks is very dangerous and irresponsible.

On the page the word "term" is incorrectly defined as pointed out above but correctly utilised. It is plain logic that prior to 37 weeks events are preTERM (NOT premature) and after 41 weeks + 6 days events are postTERM (NOT postmature). The word mature expresses a biological concept, not a temporal one. Therefore it is best avoided. For this reason O's and M's use term, preterm and postterm. (Premature can be used in other Obstetrical context such as premature rupture of membranes).

Ripening of the cervix is a biological fact, Obstetrical necessity and correct medical term.

I believe that this can be enough to be getting on with for the time being even if there are many other points to be clarified (don't have enough time). drrem Drrem (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just put back as much as I could of what you wrote.

You do sound like you know what you're talking about - more than I do, I'm sure. But the problem with what you wrote was that it was presented totally unsourced. Everything has to be repeated from a reliable source for Wikipedia. Experience means nothing here, as anyone can edit. So everything needs a cite. It's just the way it works. Honestly, if Einstein were resurrected for one hour and just barely managed to type in his "theory of everything" here, it'd be deleted by some teenager with - "WP:OR". So if you don't want to be reverted, try to include a reference or three. More the better really.

I imagine you'd have some better sources on this than me, most the medical journals are subscription, so if you add information again, please put up some references to show people that you're really not some kid making it all up!

Hope I put back enough to address your above concerns. Cheers! The Zig (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why measuring pregnancy by lunar months is confusing to the lay person. For anyone who is using a lunar calendar, they may very well be more familiar with the idea that a pregnancy last 10 lunar months instead of 280 days. Remember this is an encylopaedia, not a medical text book and it is intended for anyone that reads English not just people who uyse the gregorian calendar Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy

MOVED from User talk:KillerChihuahua 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, KC, I don't want to have a big kerfuffle here, so, please hear me out: I accept, for now, that the hatnote reads "female humans". But I don't think it's accurate to use the word "males" to glom together biologically male animals, and female-bodied, male-identified humans. It's an odd, catch-all use of the term to say "males", meaning "animals which are biologically male and humans who are biologically female yet identify as male". My intent is simply to make a distinction between the use of "male" to refer to biology and "male" to refer to gender identity. The meanings are different. What do you think? Photouploaded (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy is a biological function. The biological term applies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

But... if you're saying that "males", in that instance, means "those who have male biology", then having the hatnote read "males" is inaccurate. The people in question have female biology (or biology that is intersexed). Photouploaded (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo, there are several issues here: One, that pregnancy is a biological process, and two, your desire to have a distinction made in a hatnote concerning gender identification. You started a war about this before, which, if I recall correctly, darn near got you blocked. You were a newbie then. You're not now. Attempt to gain some kind of support or consensus for making this change before starting this up again on the article itself. Its not being bold when you know the last consensus was unanimously against you; its edit warring against consensus and that is disruptive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo, you did cause a kerfuffle about this previously, so I'm glad you don't want to do so again. What I'm missing is what are you trying to say? Are you concerned that the biological and medical description of pregnancy is going to be confusing somehow? You keep trying to make these changes, but I guess I don't understand "why". OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that in the hatnote, the word "males" is being used in a way that doesn't make sense. I think it's odd enough that seahorses are being lumped in with pregnant transmen at Male pregnancy, but at least the language is accurate: the adjective "male" can be interpreted to mean gender identity OR biology. That simply isn't the case when you use the plural noun, "males", as you insisted upon in the hatnote. What sort of "males" are these? Biologically male organisms? No, that isn't correct. The humans in question have female biology. My suggested version reads: "For pregnancy in male animals and male-identified humans, see Male pregnancy." The other version reads: "For pregnancy in males..." -- is this really more accurate? Photouploaded (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

~~What's a hatnote?~~ OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, female is a biological term, not a psychiatric term (or psychological or sociological). In humans, except under some very very rare (which means, I can't think of one of the top of my head, so it's probably impossible), only human females can become pregnant. I don't think you're making a point there. With regards to "male pregnancy", I'm actually beginning to see your point. But the problem isn't this article, it's Male pregnancy which is an odd one. Other than getting long and complicated terminology in the hatnote, maybe it should be deleted, since from a biological and medical standpoint, only humans that are female can get pregnant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because even females that self-identify as males are still biologically female. And like Orangemarlin states, the only humans that can become pregnant are females (whether they identify as such or not). --Ali'i 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

<personal remark refactored> But why mention male pregnancy at all with respect to this article, since it is physiologically impossible, except in some bad movies. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You should be happy you've found common ground! Which makes all of us - everyone who has weighed in so far, at least - just like last time. Photo, you are in a minority of one. You have zero support for your desired changes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again and again with the personal remarks, KC, but no clear answers. What does "males" mean, in the hatnote? Photouploaded (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Term, preterm and postterm

Thank you for understanding the necessity to change what was written in the "characteristics" chapter. I fully realise that all must be double-checked and referenced but you must appreciate that I cannot have that much time to dedicate to your pregnancy page (besides the many errors on the page, much of what I read was also non-referenced or referred to insignificant literature). My sources are RCOG,ACOG,SCOG guidelines and journals such as BJOG, AJOG, EJOG, Clinical OG and I try to put my time to best use possibile.

The page is better as it now stands but still allows for much improvement. AGAIN, premature and postmature in this context are best forgotten (they belong to medical history - archaic). I also edited a minor detail directly on the page (term is attained at 37 weeks, NOT beyond).

I also favour dropping the bit about lunar months as that has no clinical significance and is confusing to most people. One could just as well measure the length of pregnancy in X nanoseconds or Y light-years. What is the point? It's just a curiosity that doesn't actually add anything to a person's knowledge of important facts on pregnancy. I honestly cannot envisage an Obstetrician or Midwife - or anyone else for that matter - basing a clinical decision upon the gestation age in lunar months. Sorry. Drrem (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. One thing though - this is your pregnancy page as much as it is mine or anyone else's. No-one's being paid for this! In my opinion, really wasting your time here is writing a comprehensive, clear, balanced and accurate piece, and then failing to source it. Because you leave it at the mercy of the next layperson who rolls along - someone almost certain to know less about this than you do! And a LOT of Wikipedia editors seem REALLY keen on deleting un-sourced stuff nowadays. So a far better use of your time is to write a few sentences that are reliably sourced - cos at least they'll still be there next time you look.

As for the stuff about pre-term - premature, I'd love to put this in the article, it sounds true and relevant, but I can't. I looked last night, and I can't access any reliable sources that discuss this. If I add it, chances are someone will assume I'm talking out of my arse and revert it. If you have any sources on this, share them here in this talk page so that someone maybe can build it into the article. Or add it yourself with sources. As knowledgeable as you sound, I can't take your word on this and add it, and then expect other people to take my word on your word - this is the internet nobody should trust anyone!!!

cheersThe Zig (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ps. I agree about the lunar months stuff, it's not really helpful. If it's still here next time I feel motivated, I'll take it out. By the way 'light-years' is a measure of distance, not time. (this ps comment was added by the zig I presume)

As I said above, it seems to be you're guilty of cultural bias. A lot of people do use lunar months, particularly I suspect many traditional cultures still use lunar months significantly (it's removes the need to keep track of each day). And lunar or lunisolar calendars are still a part of life in many less traditional cultures who've adopted the Gregorian calendar for everyday use but where it has been traditional used, e.g. much of East Asia, South Asia and many Muslims and I believe Jewish people. Since pregnancy is something which affects everyone it seems relevant to me. As I said above, this isn't a medical text book or a guide for midwives/obstrecians, it's an encylopaedia intended to inform everyone and yes this includes people who use lunar months and people who don't use lunar months who may be interested in the fact. 10 lunar months is no less or more natural then 9 gregorian calendar months both are artificial human constructs used in everyday life by people. Aand yes, it would be silly for us not to mention the fact that a pregnancy lasts approximiately 9 gregorian calendar months given that in general terms this is what people tend to think but thankfully we do mention it lasts about 9 months + 6 days (but the 9 months is there which is a key part)and you haven't decided it's a useless piece of information. Your comment on nanoseconds is frankly just plain silly and offensive since no one keeps track of such a long period of time in nanoseconds. The nanosecond of course being an artificial construct as well. Nil Einne (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it occured to me that it didn't make sense because a lunar month isn't that different from a normal month. After checking lunar month it appears someone thought it was a good idea to use a sidereal month, but this is dumb no one uses them in real life. They may have some meaning in some cultures, but lunar calendars always measure time by the synodic month which is as I've said, close enough to the month in a gregorian calendar that 280 days doesn't come out to 10 months (it's nearly exactly 9.5 synodic months). So I agree it should go, but not for the reasons you mentioned Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The word premature

The word premature has all but disappeared (thank heavens) from use in Obstetrics when talking about events prior to 37 weeks. When the acronym PROM was coined it was used, erroneously, as the abbreviated form of "Premature Rupture Of Membranes". In this context modern day Obstetrics has correctly replaced the word premature with the word PRE-LABOUR, and quite rightly so. Even the original use of PROM (where the P signified premature) the Obstetrican INTENDED pre-labour. This has, at last, been rectified. As things stand today PROM is "translated" as prelabour rupture of membranes and NOT premature.

There are two forms of PROM, according to when PROM happens. If PROM occurs at term (i.e. at 37 weeks or after) it is called tPROM (term prelabour rupture of membranes). If PROM occurs prior to term (i.e. before 37 weeks) it is called pPROM (preterm prelabour rupture of membranes).

Premature is best forgotten altogether in the field of modern day Obstetrics. Use of premature should be avoided. Drrem (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)(forgot to sign)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some citations for that. And I'd like to know if what you're insisting is utilized in the US.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "premature" has two senses here: premature as in a baby younger than 37 weeks gestation (this term is common, although imprecise), and premature as in the ordinary sense of too soon. PROM is Premature Rupture of Membranes but the premature is in the ordinary sense, meaning only rupture of membranes before onset of labor. pPROM is Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes. Although with respect to babies premature and preterm are almost the same, they are not exactly the same and some people (such as NICU nurses) take great care to distinguish between them. A preterm baby is younger than 37 weeks gestation. A premature baby is a baby born too soon, ie before it is able to survive outside the uterus without intensive medical care. Some term babies are premature; some preterm babies are mature. Delivering a premature baby is one of the more important risks of an elective C-section. --Una Smith (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cervical ripening

To those who don't like the term, those who don't remember the term and those who, on the basis of having reproduced, think that they should have already heard of the term had it existed.

Please visit the Royal College OG's site (rcog.org.uk) and check out Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 9 dated June 2001: subject matter "Induction of labour". Table 3.1 on page 15 defines cervical ripening. As I did previously say, cervical ripening is not only a correct medical term but it also expresses a necessary biological function, without which we would all be extinct. Thank you. --Drrem (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, "cervical ripening" is a real term. --Una Smith (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cites

Could we please:-

cite potentially controversial new info, even just a sentence re-order if it changes the meaning. (see WP:CITE)
not revert new info as un-cited without at least LOOKING for cites first.

I found a this cite to confirm Drrem's changes just by googling "obstetricians induce 42 weeks". Not difficult, and so much more productive than destroying good information, and potentially inciting an revert cycle. If people really don't have time to do that, slap a 'fact' tag on it, and state that you will delete it a few days later if it hasn't been improved, please. Give people a chance! And for adding cites, there are templates here, if you put these between reference tags, which look like this (but without the spaces)

< ref > .... </ ref >

then it puts all the info in a nice little footnote. Don't clutter up the article with it! You're new, so I doubt this was intentional, but this could easily be misunderstood as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I've fixed it up in a way I hope will please everyone.

Can everyone please remember citations, assume good faith, and not bite

Cheers, The Zig (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy page - Characteristics

The first 5 lines of "Pregnancy characteristics" are much plainer reading now (oocyte, spermatozoon, intercourse, insemination).
I haven't added references, but there weren't any there prior to my edit anyhow.
What I have written is NOT opinion (mine or anyone else's) but is pure medical FACT so I don't know on what logical basis anyone can object (if not just for the sake of objection and "reversion").
--Drrem (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy page - nutrition

Recommended weight gain during the 9 months is 10 - 12 kgs. (If BMI is normal).
Obese gravida needs less, skinny gravida needs (a little) more.--Drrem (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted this earlier as no cites were provided for changes. You ask quite rightly on your user page why some of us are so keen on citations when we have let drivel get through in the past. Possibly because we don't know the editor and when numbers are changed by editors without explanation it is often vandalism. However, I note that your edits are pretty damn good so I shall tend not to revert yours in future - unless I reckon they are egregious, and then I shall explain! Welcome to WP ! Gillyweed (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this; please cite a source. Certainly, one flat figure is not accurate; one who is 4'11" is going to be different from one who is 5'11", one who is underweight might need to gain three times what one who is obese should, etc. Also, the figure you mentioned is inaccurate for one experiencing a multiple pregnancy. Photouploaded (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How come weight gain in pregnancy is such a sensitive issue? Anyhow, here's a link - http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=2311 - to the British NHS that confirms what I am trying to get through: i.e. (10 - 12 kgs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not as cut and dried as you'd like to make it. Or as NHS would like to make it. That a weight range is specified, instead of a pct of BMI, is like mixing apples with rocks.

Also, for females (especially) it is indeed a very sensitive issue on a number of levels. •Jim62sch• 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy page - Complications

Common symptoms and signs CANNOT be considered complications. I have purposely renamed the complications chapter because only dehydration and GERD could be considered complications. All the rest are basic signs or symptoms that are more or less frequent in individual pregnancies.
It should suffice to say that a medical sign CAN sometimes be considered a complication or part of a complication. Same goes for the word symptom.
None of the signs and symptoms included in the list automatically qualify as complications.
--Drrem (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

TO THE BENEFIT OF EAGER BEAVERS i.e. those who love reverting for the sake of reverting and do not discuss, explain or try to make a point. I checked the Wikipedia page for complication: the first line reads: Complication (medicine) - an unfavorable evolution of a disease, a health condition or a medical treatment

The list of signs and symptoms that I keep defining as such are certainly not complications (if we are to accept WKP definition of complication). They are simply signs or symptoms.

Sign = a state that can be identified by a third party (objective). Symptom = a state that is referred by a person. (subjective). Neither a sign nor a symptom ALWAYS identify an unfavorable evolution of a disease, a health condition or a medical treatment. 2 examples: sweating is a SIGN but it certainly does not mean that the person who is sweating has some sort of disease. Headache is a symptom: not everyone with a headache is diseased.

The list on the pregnancy page is a list of SIGNS and SYMPTOMS, certainly not complications.

If you visit my user page or check out my history you will find that some have granted that "I seem to know what I'm talking about" - at least in this field.
--Drrem (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy page - Supplementation in pregnancy

Prenatal medical care is of recognized value throughout the developed world. 100 % TRUE.
Various vitamins or supplements are recognized as beneficial during pregnancy. NOT TRUE. This is true ONLY for Folic acid.
Prenatal multivitamins as well as folic acid and the choline available from lecithin have either government approval or published studies supporting their use. IS THIS THE SITUATION IN USA? This is certainly NOT the case in Europe.
Folic acid reduces birth defects. 100 % TRUE.
Prenatal Choline derivable from lecithin improves the performance of rats on mental tests throughout a rat's entire life.[29] So what, aren't we talking about human pregnancy? Don't think my wife would appreciate me considering her and our offspring a family of rats.
Omega 3 fatty acids support the mental and visual development of infants and they are also beneficial postpartum. NO EVIDENCE FOR OMEGA 3 SUPPLEMENTATION IN PREGNANCY.
As I see it (visit drrem user page), and that's according to current medical literature FOLIC ACID IS THE ONLY SUPPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDED IN NORMAL PREGNANCY. NOTHING ELSE GOES.

Anyone got different info? Otherwise this part of the pregnancy page definitely needs major overhaul.
--Drrem (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The chapter states: "Prenatal Choline derivable from lecithin improves the performance of rats on mental tests throughout a rat's entire life.[29] Omega 3 fatty acids support the mental and visual development of infants and they are also beneficial postpartum".[30]

WAFFLE. This does not prove the need for supplementation during pregnancy.
--Drrem (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - get rid of it. Gillyweed (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, no refs to support your position? I don't care that you're an ob/gyn, I want to see refs. •Jim62sch• 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you prove a negative with references? How can I find a reference that says: "Crushed dung beetles should not be used as supplements in pregnancy?" Those who claim that these supplements are needed for a pregnancy should provide citations that they are useful. Gillyweed (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. If other supplements are ineffective it would follow that studies have shown their inefficacy. Yes? Yes. This is not proving a negative, see. This is showing that only folic acid supplements are efficacious. Quite simple, really. •Jim62sch• 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy page - Complication

The word complication is defined by Wiktionary as: "(medicine) A disease or diseases, or adventitious circumstances or conditions, coexistent with and modifying a primary disease, but not necessarily connected with it."

Need I say more.

Complications are complications; signs and symptoms are just that. Not TOO difficult.
--Drrem (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, lose the snarkiness.

OED Also (Med.), an additional disorder or condition that develops during the course of an existing one; freq. in pl. complication of diseases: ‘a collection of several distempers that seize on the body at the same time, especially if they depend one upon another’ (Bailey). •Jim62sch• 20:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what Wiktionary states? You realize where wiktionary definitions come from, don't you?--Filll (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad it was changed. I agree, what complications? There are "complaints", such as "this feels uncomfortable" or "jeeze, I have to pee a lot", which are like a cough and sniffle as one has with the common cold. "Complications", which implies problems with the health of fetus and/or mother, like a cold developing into bronchitis or pneumonia, is a complication. I have a feeling that more men than women are writing this article. lol. ←Gee♥Alice 06:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS

You say: "Signs and symptoms - Signs and symptoms are not a part of prognosis; furthermore, these aren't signs or symptoms".

I beg to differ.

You insist on making the assumption that signs and symptoms imply disease. NOT TRUE.

Signs and symptoms are part of everyday life and, thankfully, most of the time do not belong to the realm of disease states. Being a medical doctor, gynaecologist and obstetrician I fully understand that the words sign and symptoms automatically bring to mind "a doctor making a diagnosis" but you must see beyond this.

These ARE signs or symptoms. They are part of NORMAL pregancy and in no way represent a disease state. They can be present in any altered state (altered meaning pregnant vs non-pregnant) and their presence in no way implies a diseased state.

Pregnancy is an altered state of being. Many parameters are physiologically altered (this is a necessity in pregnancy) and this does not mean that there is disease. For example, the white blood cell count is altered (remember the film Love story?). Does this mean that every pregnant woman has leukaemia? Didn't think so.

Please would you realise that what has been listed as "complications" is basically a list of signs and symptoms that are present in NORMAL PREGNANCY. In this context revert your revert.

Further examples: constipation in pregnancy is normal, not a disease. It can certainly sometimes require medication but that doesn't qualify it as disease. Headache often requires medication but headache is a symptom that can often be down to being overworked or a number of other non-disease states.
--Drrem (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're starting to get tendentious. This has been discussed, you're incorrect, and you need to read WP:MEDMOS. Finally, I'm moving this argument to the talk page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be getting tangled up in semantics. See my comments below.

You might enjoy the OED definition: 1. a. Path. A (bodily or mental) phenomenon, circumstance, or change of condition arising from and accompanying a disease or affection, and constituting an indication or evidence of it; a characteristic sign of some particular disease. Esp., in mod. use, a subjective indication, perceptible to the patient, as opposed to an objective one or sign. •Jim62sch• 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think we should go with the medical usage, no matter what you think and no matter how many tantrums you decide to throw here on these talk pages. Sorry. We need articles that are useful to our readers, not to your weird political agenda or taste.--Filll (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Prognosis"

This is a term that implies disease.
Putting this on the pregnancy page is equivalent to suggesting that pregnancy is a disease. Surely that can't be what someone is trying to say.
PLEASE somebody remove the term from the page. PLEASE
--Drrem (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin changed the article to this wording, as part of reorganizing the article per WP:MEDMOS, as according to the section on diseases, disorders, and syndromes. Please review this section to get up to speed on the circumstances under which these changes were made. Photouploaded (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Photouploaded (I wonder what that means, BTW). Prognosis does not mean disease, it is simply a discussion of what may happen in any medical state. We've been through this before, so please read the previous discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what I typed. I know perfectly well what prognosis means, thank you. What I am saying is that prognosis is a word that only applies to a disease state: don't apply it to healthy pregnancy - at least not until a disease actually occurs, which can and does, of course, happen. Thankfully not always. At that point it's no longer a healthy pregnancy amd prognosis, along with diagnosis and treatment become the 3 main clinical aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.88.244.182 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, here's the signature
--Drrem (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit less snarkiness might be nice. Also, suggesting a word to replace prognosis would be beneficial. Linguistically, both you and OM are correct: prognosis in and of itself does indeed have the broad definition OM stated, yet in medical usage it has generally become specialised and has been narrowed in scope to refering to disease. In other words, it can stay or go, but if you want it changed suggest an improvement rather than simply bitching about the word's usage. •Jim62sch• 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to argue with a linguist like Jim, but I slightly (ever so slightly) beg to differ. Prognosis has become a lay-term for disease prediction, but in medicine, it can be used for any medical state. Moreover, if any editor, whatever their claimed background, wants to head on over to WP:MEDMOS and fight the battle, be my guest. It really isn't worth the trouble. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More like neologist than linguist. Snarkiness???? Just thought I'd mention it. Words usually have precise meanings.
--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I missed this. From the OED: Snarky, a: Irritable, short-tempered, ‘narky’.

1906 E. NESBIT Railway Children ii. 49 Don't be snarky, Peter. It isn't our fault. 1913 J. VAIZEY College Girl xxiv. 326 ‘Why should you think I am “snarky”?’ ‘Becauseyou are! You're not a bit sociable and friendly.’ 1953 E. COXHEAD Midlanders x. 247 I've known you were the soul of kindness, under that snarky way. a1974 R. CROSSMAN Diaries (1976) II. 627 We also have to overcome something elsethe stream of anti-government propaganda, smearing, snarky, derisive, which comes out of Fleet Street.

Hence snarkily adv.; snarkiness; snarkish a.

1912 R. FRY Let. 16 Mar. (1972) I. 355 So sorry I seem so snarkish just now. 1960 Economist 28 May 859/2 In some of his comments on bureaucracy there is a relapse into snarkiness. 1967 Listener 20 July 91/3 Viewers' letters are not just read out. They are commented upon by Kenneth Robinson (usually rather snarkily).

The word is over 100 years old. Neologist, indeed.

BTW: every word that has ever exzisted, currently exists or will exist in every language in the world was, is, will be a neologism. •Jim62sch• 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoah! So I'm the snarky one! Sorry I also disagree with you on the "bitching". I'm trying to help and I notice that this doesn't gain your favour, sir. Of course, "suggesting a word to replace prognosis would be beneficial". Evidently it's not that easy, otherwise I would have already forwarded a suggestion. Btw, could use of "bitching" against an informed and well-spoken newby be defined mobbing? Sincerely yours
--Drrem (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This section seems to be looking at where pregnancy progresses to. That is, either childbirth or via various complications to stillbirth. Is that correct? Perhaps then Progression needs to be the heading of the section. Mind you, that reads a little oddly, but I do agree with Drrem that prognosis does make pregnancy sound like a disease. I'm also not sure that pregnancy is "a medical state", as Orangemarlin suggests. What is a medical state? If we start from first principles that pregnancy is a natural mammalian condition, then medical terms are not warranted, except when we deviate from the healthy normal state. Comments? Gillyweed (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GW. The word progression is a good suggestion. "Outcome" might be better.
--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the high drama of high dudgeon. Yes, Doc, you are being snarky. Newbie or not, you've apparently not learned 'nel cammin di nostra vita that being obnoxious/tendentious/arrogant will get you nowhere. Molto triste. Mobbing? I suppose it is terrible that my opinion happens to match that of another editor's. Assuming that's your point.

Signature? Sorry, but I beg to differ once more. Continual use of this neologism explains a few things.
--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Progression does indeed sound better, although I'm not sure it's perfect (but I don't know if we'll ever find the perfect word). Change it to progression and let's see if that works. •Jim62sch• 22:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What about "outcome"?
--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the word "prognosis" only has negative connotations in your own mind. I certainly do not interpret it that way. I am not sure progression is much better, and maybe not even as good.

I will also note that until fairly recently, pregnancy was pretty much of a gamble for a woman, and a huge number of women died in child birth. Just look at a graveyard that has some graves in it from the 1800s. What many of these activists forget, now that pregnancy is pretty safe for most women, or even abortion is pretty safe in most cases, that there are huge risks associated with outlawing abortions, and pregnancies undertaken without medical technology. Before Roe v. Wade, the number one cause of death for women of childbearing age in the US was botched abortions. In the Phillipines and Brazil, where abortion is still illegal, the number one cause of death for women of childbearing age is botched abortions. People do not know much about history and live in a fantasy world as a result.

Pregnancy is a pretty dangerous condition, and I personally have had two or three friends who were pregnant and came close to dying, except for medical heroics. I also have had two that would have died if it were not for therapeutic abortions. However, people are so insulated from this in the modern world, and so ignorant of reality and history, that they make really stupid decisions and statements. So frankly, the word "prognosis" is quite apt, even if it is associated with a dangerous medical condition, because that is reality.-Filll (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Righto. I've read WP:MEDMOS and it suggests using Prognosis as a heading. So we go and look at Prognosis and it reads: "Prognosis (older Greek πρόγνωσις, modern Greek πρόγνωση - literally fore-knowing, foreseeing) is a medical term denoting the doctor's prediction of how a patient's disease will progress, and whether there is chance of recovery." Who amongst us believes that pregnancy is a disease? Raise your right hand. Now what does WP say about Disease? The WP article reads: "A disease is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions." While some bodily functions may be impaired by pregnancy, many other functions are enhanced - such as growing a baby! I think therefore that we are pathologizing a natural process. Now a semantic question. Let's assume that pregnant women are diseased. How can the heading Prognosis make any sense? Are we here at WP making some guess at how an individual's pregnancy will progress? I do not believe that WP:MEDMOS requires us to use a heading that doesn't make sense. The material under the current prognosis heading is all about how a pregnancy might progress. It has little to do with deciding if there is "a chance of recovery." Gillyweed (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Thank you GW, that was very well put.
--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I hope you understand that I didn't mean to call you a vandal. Watching a hockey game and using Twinkle at the same time should be a blockable offense! Second, I partially agree with you. Prognosis in the non medical sense is: A prediction, a forecast, esp. of the future course of events based on present observation; the probable outcome of a process or event. In the medical sense it is a disease, although one could use prognosis (medically) to state what may happen as a result of a broken leg. The prognosis is that the leg will heal nicely, you'll have a limp, or you have a chance for osteomyelitis. But a broken leg is not a disease. Pregnancy is the same thing. The prognosis is that you have a beautiful healthy baby. Or not. I really think we are stuck on a word that doesn't matter all that much, but it is a medical term that has been hijacked to mean the development of disease. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on many points, except;

1) Prognosis is NOT a disease. (Non-equivalence). But use of the term IMPLIES that tou are talking ABOUT disease (this is exactly what I said in the very first line of what I wrote and what we are talking about. THIS is why it is a term that should not be used when talking about healthy pregnancy.

2) Whether you have a healthy baby or not is not prognosis, it is OUTCOME.

3) I think the correct use of this word DOES matter, especially on WKP, because most people on here automatically would associate the term prognosis as pointed out, i.e. implying disease. The reason for this is exactly as you have pointed out that "it is a medical term that has been hijacked to mean the development of disease".

Otherwise I agree with you.
--Drrem (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the use of prognosis. I must point out that, while pregnancy isn't a disease, it can be thought of a short term disorder, much like breaking one's leg; which is why I think this term fits here.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but some editors are getting all cranky about it. Not sure why. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't a 'disorder' either. Nothing is out of order with pregnancy. It most cases it works perfectly. It is an ordered manner of bringing a new organism into the world. Breaking one's leg is a disorder - the bones are out of alignment. It is broken. Pregnancy is simply 'a different state', not a disordered state. And I'm not cranky - that implies disordered! : ) Gillyweed (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

on the contrary, it is a disorder; it alters her daily life, her hormones, etc. The only reason a Doctor wouldn't refer to it as having a 'prognosis' is to not up set the mother-to-be, in the same way they'll refer to it is an unborn child/baby, even if pure medical terms would still have it as a fetus, or what have you. Doctors aren't just men and women of science, they also have to be skilled in the art of Bed side manner. But Wikipedia is not a doctor, and we don't need Bed side manners. Are articles should reflect, as close as possible, a neutral point of view, and I can't see that happening without using 100% pure medical terminology for articles relating to medicine.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT?! I hope this is over and done with, and saner heads prevailed. Pregnacy is no disorder. lol. (Okay, I understand I'm coming in late in the game, but still...WTH?? ←Gee♥Alice 06:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy page - complication

Just resolved the complication issue.

We were debating about COMPLIANTS. These are all common complaints (not complications).
--Drrem (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then move the Complaints to some other section. Complications are complications. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of extra image of pregnant woman

I saw that there was a "hidden comment" stating not to remove, as there was much debate. Why is that, and where is the "debate". Since I see no debate here I was bold and removed it. How many images of a pregnant woman does one need to show what pregnancy "looks like"? There is already an image that shows a woman at 26 weeks beside an image of her at an earlier gestation period. That's plenty, IMO. I see no discussion, nor need for the additional, and what I see as a "gratuitous" photo. ←Gee♥Alice 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for future reference, when 'talk' pages get long, they often get archived, like this. If you look in the archive for this page, you'll find the debate you were looking for. Links to archives like this appear near the top of the discussion page, right of the contents menu. (If you look now, you'll see the Pregnancy discussion page currently has two archived pages). I'm just telling you so you know next time, I'm not gonna revert you or anything, as I honestly don't care whether the picture is there or not. Cheers, The Zig (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So you pretty started the debate up again. If it said not to remove, then don't remove it. 24.145.217.44 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2D versus 3D ultrasound

This article currently has some ultrasound images using what's known as "2D" technology. However, I wonder if it would be a good idea to provide more modern "3D" ultrasound images. Wikipedia has an article about this subject. Also, see this external link that's provided by the Wikipedia article. According to the external link, 3D ultrasound provides "a clear, life-like image of the baby. The images are displayed with quite amazing surface details which delineates facial, limbs and body features." Is there any reason why the 2D ultrasound images in this article shouldn't be replaced by 3D ultrasound images?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, here are three of the 3D ultrasound images. You can compare them to the 2D ultrasounds that are presently in the article, and see that these are much more advanced.

3D ultrasound of 3-inch fetus (about 14 weeks gestational age)

3D ultrasound at 17 weeks

3D ultrasound at 20 weeks

In contrast to 2D and 3D, there also exist "4D" ultrasounds, which are simply the 3D ultrasounds with the added dimension of time --- in other words, a movie. For example, here's a 4D ultrasound at eight weeks and two days after fertilization.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections or other comments?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My one concern is that 2D ultrasound images are still the preferred diagnostic standard. I've seen some articles discussing why -- give me some time to look them up. Nandesuka (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off for awhile more. Even if 2D is more common, 3D still seems interesting and notable. Both could be mentioned, as well as 4D.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to mention 3D ultrasounds, I remember reading (in a tabloid, so I doubt it's a reliable source, but I can look it up if you like) that the prolonged exposure used for a 3D ultrasound can harm the fetus - if someone has a more scientific source for that it'd be responsible to note. Kuronue | Talk 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, here's a link about it. Both 2D and 3D are discouraged for non-medical use, which could certainly be mentioned in this Wikipedia article. (BTW, the bit at your page about the cylinder is hilarious.)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'm inclined to go ahead and insert these more modern 3D ultrasound images into the article in place of the "2D" images, unless Nandesuka or someone else has some reason why we should wait, or why we should include both 2D and 3D. 3D is gaining in popularity for prenatal diagnosis, and is also widely performed in non-medical facilities.[1] Certainly, the 3D images are more detailed and informative than the 2D images. Both 2D and 3D are discouraged by the Food and Drug Administration for non-medical use,[2] but there are no definitive studies linking ultrasound to any adverse medical affects.[3]

[1] Sheiner, E. et al. “A comparison between acoustic output indices in 2D and 3D/4D ultrasound in obstetrics”, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2007 Mar;29(3):326-8): “Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound is gaining popularity in prenatal diagnosis. While there are no studies regarding the safety of 3D ultrasound, it is now widely performed in non-medical facilities, for non-diagnostic purposes.”

[2] Rados, Carol. "FDA Cautions Against Ultrasound 'Keepsake' Images", FDA Consumer Magazine (January-Febraury 2004).

[3] Kempley, Rita. “The Grin Before They Bear It; Peek-a-Boo: Prenatal Portraits for the Ultrasound Set”, Washington Post (2003-08-09): "There are no conclusive studies proving there is any damage at all caused by ultrasound," says Charlotte Larson, assistant clinical professor of obstetrics at the George Washington University Hospital. Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex during pregnancy.

If you are pregnant and you have sex is it possible to become second pregnant? Like get pregnant while you are pregnant. It might sound stupid but I am genuinly curious. Haysead (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. No eggs are released for fertilizing once a woman is pregnant. Gillyweed (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does happen rarely; it's called superfetation. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go. Thanks for that bit of information. Gillyweed (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pregnancy and cramps?

Does pregnancy cause cramps, and if so should that be included in the article for the people who are unaware of cramps being a side effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.163.227 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The most common pregnancy "cramps" are Braxton Hicks contractions, which are mentioned in the article here. Round ligament pain can also occur but is not mentioned in the article. However, if you or someone you know is pregnant and experiencing cramping, you should contact your health provider right away, as it can also be a sign of impending miscarriage or preterm labor. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a little late to the game, but a sudden, sharp pain in either side during pregnancy can be a sign of ectopic pregnancy. This is when the fertilized egg implants somewhere it shouldn't, usually the fallopian tubes. Usually this would occur in the first trimester. If you or someone you know experiences this, you should go to the doctor right away. 71.37.146.197 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Why is the main image in black and white? It seems like it was taken from an artistic POV, not an informative one. Perhaps a better picture could be located/taken? Matt (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dark line

A dark line appearing on the skin between navel and pubis. I am wondering about the cause of the phenomenon. From an evolutionary standpoint, what is the advantage ?

It's called the linea negra. From the wiki article: "It is a type of hyperpigmentation resulting from increased production of the pigment melanin thought to be caused by increased estrogen, the same process that causes the areolas to darken. Why this process of hyperpigmentation occurs on the midline of the abdomen is uncertain." Maybe this article should be linked to, or integrated into the main pregnancy article? 71.37.146.197 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "female human"

I vote for "woman". Science fiction fans, though they are surely prominent among Wikipedia's readers, aren't the only ones. "Woman" is not only standard but also good style, for the time being. --VKokielov (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.