Even a week early can make a difference ?

[cyberseraphim]

breakingnews.heraldscotland.com/breaking-news/?mode=article&site=hs&id=N0028341276053357878A

though presumably choosing an earlier date of delivery (not sure how common that really is) is very different to early natural delivery . DS1 was 3 weeks early, not by choice . I've always wondered if there was a link to the autism but I suppose I will never really know

It is my unscientific view, that if the baby is born spontaneously at 39 weeks, with all the proper chemicals and flow of oxytocin etc. involved with a natural delivery, then SN less likely. Being yanked out at 39 weeks by C/S deprives the baby of that, but is also likely to be due to the fact that they baby is having difficulties anyway - surely!?

SO how do I explain autism in natural VB at term? Amongst genetic predeposition and environmental factors, I think that the natural oxytocin flow is disrupted by the medicalisation of the birthing process and the sheer fear that many many women experience.

Oxytocin is the hormone associated with love, and social communication. The mother is literally flooded with the stuff at the time of birth, as well as the baby, as a reaction to the pain, and to aid the birthing process. Adrenaline can inhibit the release, as can other drugs. I think MY baby was deprived of this, I also suffered PTSD as a result of the birth, and if it can give me psychological issues and flashback, just imagine what it probably did to a teeny developing brain during the exchange of hormones and chemicals.

Tis just my view/rationale, which probably won't be researched until the cost of autism exceeds the cost of sorting out our maternity services.

DS was about 3 weeks early too, natural delivery - I'd never considered it to be a factor as the due date was a bit of a guestimate plus I'd been told it was still within normal range.

I don't think news like this really helps, most people can't do anything about it (for natural deliveries) and it will just cause worry.

I agree the news is not much help. DS1 was a natural spontaneous birth at 37 weeks but I've always wondered if it was an early indicator of problems ahead - but as scm says, in such a situation would can you do anyway ?

Mine were all late, DS1 (the only non-NT one at this point) was the earliest at 12 days past DD, but I did wonder at the time if all the fighting I had to do to get my drug-free home birth (and the immense stress this caused everyone) affected him. And if so, what the implications might be for DS2 (16 days past DD so muchos fighting to be "allowed" a natural birth, let alone the home one we got in the end!

One of mine with ASD was over a week late and the other was over a week early.

I've heard of lots of stories though of pregnant women being given a different EDD after a scan yet the baby has arrived either on or near the original date that was calculated by using their LMP. In cases like that I would think it would be difficult to say with any certainty whether those babies were early, late, or on time.

DS was 11 days overdue, and induced, ended up emergency c/s.

DS was induced three weeks early (4 day induction!) because of Interuterine Growth Restriction. I think the link is with the IUGR rather than the birth if there is one.

My DD was born at 37 weeks and perfectly "normal", whereas my DS2 was born at 39 weeks and has AS. Hers was a really easy delivery, his was a "footling breech". Hers was without benefit of painkillers, his was done with an epidural which I think is standard procedure for a breech in case an emergency section is needed. So in my case either the fact that he was breech or the fact that I had an epidural seem more likely to be a factor than the fact that he was born at 39 weeks. (My other "normal" DS1 was born at 41 weeks).
I hate it when they relase these things which "could" be significant, because to be honest no one knows and as I went into spontaneous labour no one could stop DS2 coming early.

Surely it could be that having a developmental disorder causes the earlier delivery rather than early delivery causing the disorder?

That's how I read it Alison. Sorry if I did not say that.

Oh I see, didn't read link. It is interesting as IUGR babies have this 'brain sparing' mechanism in the last few weeks when they are not growing - their abdomens shrink while their heads get bigger and doctors know it's time to get them out.

There is a hypothesis that this causes neurological changes and I've often wondered if this is linked to ASD in some way.

Out of interest, not a burning desire to blame someone I might add!

DD1 has AS and she was born 3 weeks early by ELCS. I had really bad pre-eclampsia and her growth really slowed during the last few weeks.

I have always seen it the same way as you, Al1son -that the pregnancy/development complications were the reason for the early delivery.

Interesting to hear everyone else's stories.

This article doesn't prove that early delivery CAUSES SEN. It proves that earlier babies are more likely to have SEN. It definatly doesn't investigate whether these babies were early because of the SEN in the 1st place.

And if this is all true then how can you explain my situation. Twins, induced at 38 weeks. One with SEN one without. No idenitified genetic cause for my ds issues. Surely if it was his early, induced delivery then I would expect to have 2 children with SEN.

Twins here also. ELCS at 36 weeks. One with SEN and one without. Babies had grown well until then and then the rate of growth slowed so consultant reckoned they were better out than in. Have always wondered if prematurity was responsible although prematurity was meant to be a birth before 37 weeks so only 1 week premature. Not in scbu at all and thrived after birth. pretty low birthweight at 4lbs which was a bit small for 36 weeks

That's interesting..DD was born at 36 weeks and has had lots of problems from the start.

Dd1 was 1.2 weeks early, dd2 was a week early by my scan dates but full term with my dates. (not induced).

Very interesting article.

A doctor who is a friend of my parents told me he is convinced that if you are born later, you have a lifelong physical advantage because you have had more exposure to the placenta. He's not a pediatrician, he's a cardiologist, but he says he can see lots of adult patients who were born prematurely and have had ongoing health problems.

Maybe more research needs to be done on this. As other people have pointed out, we don't necessarily know whether the health issues cause the early births, or vice versa.

Neither of mine were in a hurry to come out (though DS2 came storming out as soon as he eventually got round to it). Both were born after my EDD and DS1 was dragged out 16 days late. (Clearly starting as he meant to go along!)

See I have dd who is nt and was 6 weeks early by emergency c section tine 3lb and 2 months in scubu no sen but whole host of medical ones not pd related either

ds on time c section sen and Sn but no asd traits but whole host other ones

It's also here
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10274047.stm

This article appears to suggest it's the earlier delivery which is responsible.

Another reason to undermine c/sections.

Wouldn't be surprised if the link weren't causal. I've got four kids three born before 40 weeks one born just a few days late. I'd say the child born late was the most near to perfect delivery followed by DS four who has ASD but labour onset was spontaneous, he was just a few days off of 40 weeks and he was born at home. The other two were induced with syntocinon with my daughter I had an epidural as well and with my son I had an anti-biotic drip but they don't have SEN. I know this is just 4 kids up against 400,000 in the study but still

DS was a week late, had to have c/section due to water break 24 hours early. I still think it's the failed forcep (sorry, can't remember proper spelling) attempt caused some sort of brain damage just before birth. After all if I had a consultant to check the position of the baby rather than all those midwives who could not tell that his head was in an angel and therefore normal delivery was not possible (despite doing internal exam every 10-15 minutes), DS probably would not be SN. I still feel angry that I had to go through so much pain and had to take so many drugs just because hospital wanted to avoid another c-section.

ds2 born at 28wks - the developmental paed told me that there is no link between Autism & prematurity, despite the fact he also has CP so obvious brain injury she said its just coincidence

Interesting, I heard about early delivery/c section/problems with baby after my dd2 was born; totally non medical background so had no suspicions at all. I was told dd2 was breech at about 36 weeks and though a "turning" was tried she did not turn; also I was told she was large; so having had an extremely easy normal birth with dd1 I opted for elective c section at 39 weeks. In due course it turned out dd2 has a very rare muscle disorder (a type of muscular dystrophy) so I reckon she was not strong enough to turn herself and if not a c section I have always thought her delivery would have been a disaster. She was pretty large (8 and a half pounds) so I think I did the right thing, but in retrospect am sure the breech etc was due to poor muscle tone.

I think it's bollocks - both my children born a week early with caesareans. One autistic; one not. I think there's a genetic tendency to autism or not, we just haven't found it yet.