timing is everything + And This Is News Why?

What do you want to bet the woman was hoping to give birth on US soil, hence the 11th-hour flight. Look at the disappointed expression on her face in the video... Oh well, at least the it's "Canadian"!

article

Admin: Links are wonky since the upgrade - I fixed this one.

Hmm, link didn't work. Try this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090101/ap_on_fe_st/odd_born_in_the_sky

I'm surprised the airline let her fly if she was that close to her due date, so I wonder if she actually looked pregnant or just grossly overweight.

Quote
Tiquer
I'm surprised the airline let her fly if she was that close to her due date, so I wonder if she actually looked pregnant or just grossly overweight.

I wondered the same thing. Most of these dummies who deliver in unusual places should NOT have been where they were and when they were there anyway. When they are close to a due date (I consider 6 months as "close") then it's generally not a good idea to do the following:Fly long distances thousands of feet in the air with no guarantee of medical support should something go wrong, camping trips in remote areas where cells don't get signals and the closest hospital is 70 miles away, participation in ANY "daredevil" type activities, , trips out of the country, staying alone for long periods of time in isolated areas such as rural cabins with no phones or fast access to medical care, or even shopping trips into the city where traffic is thick and a taxi or bus delivery is on the horizon. If they are in the ninth month, WHY can't they just stay at home???? It would be better for them AND their baybee and they wouldn't be such an eyesore and in the way of the general public either with their gargantuan guts.

Strange story; I thought I recalled that the airlines try to discourage heavily pregnant women from taking long flights. Was her need to travel so pressing that it couldn't have waited a month till after the delivery? In lieu of having a birth in probably the least accommodating circumstances possible, among non-medical personnel, with zero resources in case of complications. Not to mention possibly jeopardizing the whole flight if the pilot decides to make an emergency landing. They made no mention of the baby being a preemie so one presumes the mom knew she was due.

I found this tidbit at http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/travel/diseases/pregnancy_and_travel.htm

"Most airlines allow pregnant women to fly up to and including the 36th week, provided the pregnancy has been straightforward.
Under IATA guidelines, pregnant women are allowed to fly in weeks 36 to 38 if the flying time does not exceed four hours. However, many airlines will not carry pregnant women after 36 weeks - make sure you check with the airline before booking."

I am very curious if this woman disclosed her pregnancy status at check-in and produced a doctor's note giving her the okay to be on a transatlantic flight. What airline would willingly take the chance that there could be complications during the delivery if the child is birthed in-air and there are no passengers with medical training? Does anyone know how much beyond basic first aid and CPR that flight staff are required to be proficient in?

Found this right at the top spot on Yahoo! News when I went to check my e-mail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/odd_born_in_the_sky

Because she's not as good at holding it in as Sarah Palin?

Quote
walflower
What do you want to bet the woman was hoping to give birth on US soil, hence the 11th-hour flight. Look at the disappointed expression on her face in the video... Oh well, at least the it's "Canadian"!

I vote for this.

She probably did this because we all know that breeders have shit for brains. You know how these bitches are--a) they don't care about how much inconvenience they cause and this one was probably thinking pre-repugnancy when she could do anything that she wanted.