Baby born on British Airways flight

by Heather Craven (Subscribe to Heather Craven's posts) Sep 25th 2006 5:00PM

Categories: Pregnancy & Birth, Places To Go

It is likely many women's worst fear when pregnant: to be in an unfamiliar place and to go into labor. This is exactly what happened over the weekend to a woman aboard a British Airways flight. The London flight, bound for Boston, was rerouted to Nova Scotia, Canada in an effort to get the woman to a hospital. Fortunately there were enough willing hands aboard the plane to help the woman deliver her baby shortly before the diverted craft landed. The baby was born approximately 6 weeks prematurely. Although British Airways does no allow women who are past the 36 week mark to travel, the staff is medically trained to assist births in emergencies such as this one.

I don't want to judge to harshly here, but it seems rather chancy to get on a transatlantic flight towards the end of a pregnancy. I have no idea what circumstances surrounded this woman's journey, but unless it was a family emergency it seems better to remain home and prepare for the birth. Hopefully mom and baby are doing well after their aviation adventure. I wish them both the best of health.

Source

Comments (16)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Sadie 9-25-2006 @ 5:47PM

She may have been flying home to give birth in the states with her family or something, you really don't know. At 6 weeks premature, that was a full month and a half before her due date! I do think it is harsh to judge her, as you really don't know what kind of circumstances she was under. Single mom? Mom with a spouse deployed in active duty? Woman trying to escape abusive relationship? Hell, maybe she was just a business woman who had an important meeting, and figured she had 2 weeks before the no-travel cut off.

Angelica 9-25-2006 @ 5:47PM

She was well within the realm to fly. Six weeks premature is early for a baby to be born and unless she was a high risk pregnancy there would have been no indication that she should not travel through any method.

It is a matter of wrong place, wrong time. Could have happened at a shopping center or on a drive to another region.

We take all the vacations we can get. And I would gladly fly if the need be and I were in health.

Nicola 9-25-2006 @ 5:55PM

I flew from the UK to San Diego at the same point in my pregnancy. Totally selfish reasons -- we were about to have a new baby and I wanted to get home for one last visit before his arrival. The worst bit of my experience was having a flight cancellation due to weather and being moved to a different flight -- where we were squeezed into inside seats in one of those long middle rows. And then the man next to me slept most of the flight and there was *no* way for me to get to the bathroom without waking him (many times). Still, I was almost always ushered to the front of the bathroom line when I did manage to get back there -- people were very understanding.

stace 9-25-2006 @ 10:49PM

I have a friend and she was I think 36 weeks when she went from Canada to the southern states, I think all Air Canada ask for was a letter from her doctor or midwife saying she should not go into labour.

michelle 9-25-2006 @ 7:21PM

so then is the baby a canadian citizen? or will she carry a British Airway's passport?

Wallaby 9-25-2006 @ 7:55PM

Living in the UK myself I don't think it is that unreasonable to fly at 34 weeks pregnant. I probably wouldn't plan things that way myself (I flew overseas at six months pregnant, but didn't want to go later that that at the time), but you never know how things are going to work out. There could have been any number of reasons she was travelling - we just don't know.

Having a baby 6 weeks early can't be that common or the airlines wouldn't allow it - and what are the chances that even if you had your baby that premature that you would happen to have the baby during those exact 9 hours you were on a plane? I don't think the lady was taking an unreasonable risk.

For some people (like myself) international travel is a regular part of life and something that they have to do for whatever reason. Sometimes people who don't travel as often, or who come from an insular place (like the US) see it as a bigger deal than it actually is.

I do hope the lady checked her travel insurance before she went. I had to check mine when travelling while pregnant to see when it would cover my pregnancy. It is often different than when the airlines will let you fly (usually their cut-off is a bit earlier). You would want insurance to cover whatever care the baby needed as well as any flight arrangements they may need to make now.

Molly 9-25-2006 @ 8:29PM

I took a trip at 31 weeks pregnant, and my doctor told me that her cut off date for flying was 32 weeks. I was healthy and had an uneventful pregnancy so she gave me my doctor's note for the airline, my medical record and sent me on my way. She said that pressure change in the cabin can actually bring on labor, and though it sounds a little crazy to me, I wasn't ready to chance it! I also found all the hospitals with labor and delivery units close to the hotel just in case!

But, if you have to travel, you have to do what you have to do!

hols 9-25-2006 @ 9:04PM

interesting article, but kind of judgemental...don't you think?
Bad day?

Pavlina 9-25-2006 @ 9:58PM

Ouch! That was harsh. I think she was well within her travel times.

Brenda 9-26-2006 @ 9:56AM

Michelle,

Though the article doesn't mention where the placenta was born, that is where the baby was born under Canadian Law. So assuming that the placenta was born after landing and on the way to the hospital or at the hospital that is what would be listed as the place of birth on the birth registration.

That being said it is up to the parent, they can also register the birth with the British Consulate and the baby would be British (assuming both parents are, otherwise it could get messy)

Brenda

PS I also think this article was a pretty harsh for no reason. I think saying "I don't want to judge harshly" just made it seem more harsh, it is probably just a case of bad wording though.

VL 9-26-2006 @ 9:39AM

I agree with you guys, she was in the right to fly. I think you need to have a doctors note to fly that late in your pregnancy or they don't let you on the plane. 6 weeks is very premature for a low risk pregnancy. Saying a woman in late pregnancy shouldn't fly is like saying that someone with high cholestorol should stay home in case they have a heart attack.

If anyone is thinking about traveling pregnant, the following website breaks down all the airlines policies for you:

http://airtravel.about.com/cs/safetysecurity/a/pregnantflyer_2.htm

Heather 9-26-2006 @ 9:53AM

I think she would probably have dual citizenship. I heard that the airlines use to give free passage for life to kids born on thier flights is this still in effect ( was it ever?)

Nancy Toby 9-26-2006 @ 11:07AM

I don't think the comments were harsh at all. I wonder if this woman was flying against medical advice at 34 weeks pregnancy? Was it a first birth?

In 2001, 11.9% of births were premature.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-04-20-premature-births_x.htm

That's NOT uncommon, and often there are no risk factors known in advance.

Wallaby 9-26-2006 @ 11:26AM

Brenda, you don't have to have both parents be British to have UK citizenship passed on to you, you only need one parent (it was different decades ago, only being passed down through the father, but now either mother or father is fine).

Also, where you were born has nothing to do with British citizenship (ie you can't become a citizen here just because you were born here like you can in the US) so I was confused as to how things would get messy if both parents weren't British. It doesn't matter where the baby was born, as long as it has one parent who is British the kid has a right to UK citizenship :).

Wallaby 9-26-2006 @ 11:27AM

Nancy - yes, maybe 11.9% were premature - but how many of those were born at 34 weeks? And as I said before, how could she think the baby would be born in those exact 8 or 9 hours of that flight? Sure it was a risk, but so is a lot of stuff we do. I just don't feel it is that unreasonable. Maybe all pregnant women should stop driving at 33 weeks too lest they get stuck in a traffic jam on a highway and go into labor too ;).

I'm just saying - I would not personally plan to fly that late on, but having all of my large family in the US I can imagine several situations that could have percipitated just that. :)

Jenny 9-26-2006 @ 11:29AM

I think the word "harsh" applies to the sentence: "unless it was a family emergency it seems better to remain home and prepare for the birth." The woman was 34 weeks. From other articles I learned that she had seen her doctor the day before she travelled and had a letter from him authorizing travel. There is no increased risk of premature labor when flying and the cutoff is generally 36 weeks ( http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/air-travel-during-pregnancy/AN00398 ). So she took all normal precautions, and something very unexpected happened. That does happen in pregnancy, and I really wouldn't suggest that anyone spend their whole pregnancy in one spot waiting for the birth. The articles said her father was in the U.S. so she may have been going home. I just hope that she and her baby will be healthy; obviously her baby will be spending some time in the NICU. I've been there an it is no fun.

Also, I read in other articles that the mother has dual Egyptian/American citizenship and the baby will have Canadian citizenship as she was born in Canadian airspace.