• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Pacific Medical Law

A founding member of BILA

Law, Justice And Compassion | Call Today

1-604-685-2361

  • Home
  • Team
  • Injuries
    • Birth Injury
    • Brain Injury
    • Cerebral Palsy
    • Infant & Child Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Janna Epp Bursary
  • Cases Won
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Patient’s Corner
  • In The News
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Team
  • Injuries
    • Birth Injury
    • Brain Injury
    • Cerebral Palsy
    • Infant & Child Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Janna Epp Bursary
  • Cases Won
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Patient’s Corner
  • In The News
  • Contact
Call
Contact
Blog

Health News

Is Inducing Labour at 39 Weeks Safer Than Waiting?

Wednesday, April 22, 2020 By Lindsay McGivern

A pregnant woman’s estimated due date is 40 weeks after the date of conception. Even without a premature delivery, however, not all women will deliver at 40 weeks. Forty weeks has the highest percentage of deliveries, on average, in comparison to any other length of pregnancy, but there is a wide range for how long a pregnancy lasts. Term pregnancy ranges from 37 weeks 0 days to 41 weeks 6 days. Once a woman reaches 42 weeks, she is classified as post term. Within term pregnancies, there are now a few subclassifications. Early term is the period from 37 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days. Full term is 39 weeks 0 days to 40 weeks 6 days. From 41 weeks 0 days to 41 weeks 6 days is considered late term.

In a previous blog article, I discussed the current British Columbia guideline for induction of labour in late term versus post term pregnancies, and the medical evidence supporting this guideline. The current standard of care in British Columbia is to continue pregnancy (absent signs of fetal or maternal compromise) until 41 weeks and then offer the woman an induction. The standard of care requires that women be informed of the risks and benefits of induction versus expectant management (monitoring while awaiting spontaneous labour) and allowing the woman to make the best choice for her and her child. For post term pregnancy, the standard of care is to induce.

Guidelines, however, are constructed based on the current, widely accepted, medical knowledge of various conditions and situations. This medical knowledge is constantly growing, changing, being confirmed or getting disproven. As knowledge is accumulated, standards of practice evolve. In the context of pregnancy, an example of this is the shift in recommendation from offering induction of labour to women only when they reached post term (42 weeks) to offering induction of labour at 41 weeks. Will the evolution of pregnancy guidelines continue to progress towards even earlier delivery? Some physicians are now advocating for induction of labour at 39 weeks. This subset of physicians believe that the safest option is to deliver the baby as soon as the mother reaches full term.

One such physician, Dr. Errol Norwitz MD, PhD, MBA, recently presented on this topic at the 36th Annual Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatal Medicine, Neonatology and the Law Conference.1 In considering whether to continue a pregnancy beyond 39 weeks, a physician and his or her pregnant patient must consider the risks of continuing the pregnancy and balance that against the potential benefits (to both mother and baby) of continuing the pregnancy. Let’s start with the induction of labour itself. One benefit to continuing pregnancy would be to potentially avoid the induction by having the woman go into labour spontaneously. There are some risks of induction of labour, but Dr. Norwitz argued, with studies to reinforce his position, that the risks of routine induction of labour are lower than previously thought. One of the risks is a risk of failed induction leading to caesarean section. Newer studies cited by Dr. Norwitz, however, have shown that there is no increased caesarean section rates in elective induction of labour at 39 weeks. The ARRIVE trial by Dr. William Grobman (and others) actually showed a lower rate of caesarean section with elective induction of labour at 39 weeks compared to expectant management until at least 41 weeks.

Dr. Norwitz argues that there are no benefits to continuing pregnancy beyond 39 weeks sufficient to overcome the risks associated with doing so. Benefits to a baby in continuing pregnancy before 39 weeks are a result of the decreasing risk of complications associated with prematurity. This decrease in risks, however, stops at 39 weeks. Dr. Norwitz cited a study by Dr. Brian Mercer showing the frequency of a baby developing problems at each gestational age. The risk of sepsis (infection), respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage (a brain bleed), necrotizing enterocolitis (a disease affecting the intestines), retinopathy of prematurity (a potentially blinding disease), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (chronic lung disease) and need for hospital stay are all at their lowest at 39 weeks. Dr. Norwitz also looked at a study by Dr. Joann Petrini (and others) showing that the risk of cerebral palsy, developmental delay and seizures are also at their lowest point at 39 weeks. Now, some of these risks remain at that same low level throughout 40-42 weeks. Others rise, in terms of risk, at 40 weeks. None, however, ever get lower than they are at 39 weeks.

So, the risks of known, common complications do not get lower than they are at 39 weeks. What about the risk of unexplained death or stillbirth? Dr. Norwitz cited studies by Dr. Christina S. Cotzias (and others) and by Dr. Ruth Fretts showing that the number of stillbirths is far greater than the number of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Dr. Norwitz cited numerous studies showing that the risk of stillbirth increases after 39 weeks. Stillbirth is the death of a baby during pregnancy or during delivery. If a woman’s baby is assessed to be alive and healthy at 39 weeks, and is delivered at that time, the risk of stillbirth drops to the risk that the baby will die during the delivery. If the pregnancy continues, there is a continuing risk of stillbirth. It may be a small risk, but any risk is higher than the risk of stillbirth at 39 weeks when the baby was assessed to be alive. In other words, if a baby has been delivered at 39 weeks, it cannot die in utero at 40 weeks. That risk of stillbirth disappears. A 1985 study by Drs. George Feldman and Jennie Freiman includes the following quote: “[b]etween 1 in 50 and 1 in 500 fetuses reach maturity in utero and then suffer a catastrophic event leading to permanent neurological injury or death.”2 If a baby has survived and is healthy at 39 weeks, full maturity, why do we accept any risk of stillbirth by continuing the pregnancy beyond that point?

As mentioned above, the current standard of care according to the British Columbia guidelines is to offer induction of labour at 41 weeks, not before. Medicine and knowledge evolve with time, however, and this is one area where some physicians are advocating for further change.

ENDNOTES
  1. Norwitz, Errol R. 2019. “Optimal Timing Of Delivery: Should It Be 39 Weeks And Out?”. Presentation, 36th Annual Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatal Medicine, Neonatology and the Law Conference, 2019.
  2. Feldman GB, Freiman JA. N Engl J Med 1985; 312:1264-7

Filed Under: Health News

People with Disabilities Among Those Most at Risk from Covid-19

Wednesday, April 22, 2020 By Andrea Donaldson

Public health and government officials are urging Canadians to practice social distancing. For some, social distancing could make the difference between life and death.

Andrew Gurza, a Toronto-based disability awareness consultant, has cerebral palsy. His condition could make him seriously vulnerable if he were to contract COVID-19. In an interview with CBC, Gurza, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, said that his lung function is impacted due to the fact that he is sitting down all the time. This makes him more vulnerable to complications from respiratory illnesses, such as COVID-19. Gurza indicated that in addition to the toll of the illness, he fears catching the illness at a time when the hospital staff is overwhelmed, especially if they need to manage someone with complex disability needs such as himself.

Gurza has taken steps to reduced risk and practicing social distancing as much as possible. He has cancelled all of his speaking engagements, and he is doing his best to reduce contact with his caregivers, who he relies on for many daily activities such as bathing and dressing.

Gurza asks the public to please be responsible. You never know if the person sitting next to you is vulnerable due to a visible or invisible disability. While contracting the virus may not be serious for one individual, it could have dire ramifications for someone else. He urges the government to let the public know who is going to be particularly affected: the elderly, the disabled, and the immunocompromised.

Staying positive at this time is important to Gurza. He suggests thinking of social distancing as a chance to take a break, and do things we may otherwise not have time for.

The goal of social distancing is to reduce transmission of the virus. It is transmitted when an infected person speaks, coughs, or sneezes. Droplets may land on surfaces in common spaces when someone coughs, and then be transmitted when someone touches the surface later.

Social distancing may be difficult or even impossible for some people with disabilities who may rely on close caregiver support for daily living tasks such as washing and dressing, and use shared services, such as public transportation. They also may have stamina and immune issues which can increase risk of catching the virus. Therefore, it is important for those who are able to reduce their contact with others to do so, in order to protect the vulnerable.

The full interview with Gurza as well as an interview with a public health expert can be found here: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/when-social-distancing-is-a-matter-of-life-and-death-1.5499767

Filed Under: Cerebral Palsy, Health News, People with Disabilities

Late-Term Pregnancies – Induction of Labour is Safer than Waiting until Post-Term

Friday, February 21, 2020 By Lindsay McGivern

A recent Swedish study compared the safety of inducing labour at 41 weeks to waiting until 42 weeks before inducing. The study was stopped early due to the significantly higher rate of stillbirths in the group that was not induced at 41 weeks. Visit our late-term pregnancies program doc.

A normal pregnancy is, on average, 40 weeks. Pregnancies can be categorized as full term, late-term or post-term. “Full-term” pregnancies are between 39 weeks and 40 weeks, 6 days. “Late-term” pregnancies are between 41 weeks and 41 weeks, 6 days. “Post-term” pregnancies begin at 42 weeks. Adverse outcomes for mother and baby gradually increase after 40 weeks and are substantially increased post-term.[1] Once a pregnancy is post-term, the risks to the baby include fetal macrosomia (being significantly larger than the average), meconium aspiration, cerebral palsy, neonatal encephalopathy (brain damage), need for respiratory assistance, and death at the end of pregnancy or shortly after birth.[2]

Recommendations for the management of pregnancies in the late-term period are varied. For late-term low-risk pregnancies in healthy women, one of two approaches can be considered. Women can be induced as soon as they hit the 41-week mark, as is recommended by the World Health Organization,[3] or they can be monitored for signs of fetal or maternal complications and await spontaneous onset of labour, if no complications arise. The Swedish study compared the safety of these two options.

The study compared the two groups by evaluating Apgar scores and umbilical cord blood gases.  The authors also compared the incidence of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, intracranial hemorrhage, convulsions, meconium aspiration syndrome, mechanical ventilation within 72 hours and brachial plexus injury. These outcomes were similar in women who were induced at 41 weeks and those who were monitored while awaiting spontaneous labour between 41 and 42 weeks.[4] The number of major maternal complications was also similar between the two groups.[5]

What was different between the two groups with the rate of perinatal death. There were no stillbirths or deaths in the first 30 days after birth for women induced at 41 weeks. In contrast, there were five stillbirths and one baby, large for its gestational age, died from lack of oxygen in the group that was monitored while awaiting spontaneous labour in the late-term period.[6] In addition, in the group that was induced at 41 weeks, fewer babies had to go to the neonatal intensive care unit, fewer had jaundice requiring treatment, and fewer infants were significantly larger than average.[7]

Based on the results of this study, the authors recommend that the induction of labour should be offered to women at 41 weeks or earlier.[8]  These results differ slightly from guidelines that have been in place in British Columbia for over a decade. [9]

The BC Reproductive Care Program (BCRCP) recommends that until 41 weeks, induction should be recommended only if there are signs of fetal compromise (babies that are too small or have a non-reassuring fetal heart tracing). At 41 weeks, all women with a healthy, uncomplicated pregnancy should be informed of the risks and benefits of induction versus expectant management (monitoring while awaiting spontaneous labour) and offered an induction. If the mother declines induction, the following monitoring should occur:  daily fetal movement counts, fetal heart rate testing twice a week, and ultrasound to assess amniotic fluid twice a week. If the fetal heart rate tracing or amniotic fluid is abnormal, the woman should be induced immediately. If spontaneous labour is not achieved by 42 weeks, labour should be induced.   

If earlier delivery is safer, should women be induced when they reach the full-term (39 weeks) or should induction wait until 41 or 42 weeks?  Clinical care practices and guidelines evolve over time as evidence accumulates. Some physicians are beginning to advocate for induction of labour at 39 weeks, rather than waiting for 41 or 42 weeks.  Look for our blog on these developments in the weeks ahead.


[1] Wennerholm et al, “Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks” (BMI 2019; 367:l6131), p. 1

[2] British Columbia Reproductive Care Program, “Obstetric Guideline 7: Postterm Pregnancy”, p. 5 http://www.perinatalservicesbc.ca/Documents/Guidelines-Standards/Maternal/PostTermGuideline.pdf

[3] Wennerholm et al, supra,  p. 1

[4] Wennerholm et al, supra, p. 3 and 10

[5] Wennerholm et al, supra,  p. 1

[6] Wennerholm et al, supra,  p. 8 and 10

[7] Wennerholm et al, supra,  p. 10

[8] Wennerholm et al, supra,  p. 11[9] British Columbia Reproductive Care Program, “Obstetric Guideline 7: PostTerm Pregnancy” http://www.perinatalservicesbc.ca/Documents/Guidelines-Standards/Maternal/PostTermGuideline.pdf

Filed Under: Health News

Spinal Cord Stimulation – Potential Game-Changer for Spinal Cord Injuries?

Monday, February 3, 2020 By Brenda Osmond

At Pacific Medical Law we have helped clients with spinal cord injuries that have been caused by, or worsened by, medical negligence.  Delayed diagnosis of spinal cord infections, delayed treatment of spinal cord compression or improper treatment of traumatic spinal cord injuries can all lead to life-altering injuries.

Sometimes, however, spinal cord injuries are caused by trauma alone, such as motor vehicle accidents. Ryan Straschnitzki is an example of that.  Ryan is a survivor of the 2018 Humboldt Broncos bus crash who was paralyzed from the chest down. In early December 2019, he returned to his home in Airdrie, Alberta after spending five weeks in Thailand having a spinal cord stimulator implanted. Since his surgery, he is beginning to be able to move his legs and has seen slow but steady progress after having the surgery, stem cell injections, and intensive physiotherapy.  Ryan is hoping to make Canada’s national sled hockey team and play at the Paralympics.

Limited Approval in North America

Spinal cord stimulators are approved for use in Canada and the USA to treat chronic back pain, but not for treating spinal cord injuries, where they may play a role in improving mobility, as in Ryan’s case. 

There is also a potential role for spinal cord stimulators in improving blood pressure control in those with a spinal cord injury. Vancouver’s International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (iCord), conducts research on various therapies, treatments, and surgeries that may help people with spinal cord injuries.  iCord reported on a BC man who suffered a spinal cord injury due to a diving accident and had a spinal cord stimulator implanted not to improve his mobility, but to improve cardiovascular function.  Prior to the procedure, Isaac Darrel, of Langley, BC, often felt light-headed, especially during transfers to and from his wheelchair or during exercise.  His blood pressure would drop dramatically, and he would sometimes blackout while sitting in his wheelchair. Now that he has the spinal cord stimulator, that no longer happens. He has also experienced increased sitting tolerance and improved bowel function.

Ongoing Research

There are no centers in Canada conducting further clinical studies on the use of spinal cord stimulators to improve blood pressure control, but studies are ongoing in the USA and Switzerland.

Research on the use of spinal-cord stimulators for the purpose of regaining mobility is underway in Minneapolis and is being conducted in collaboration with researchers from iCord and the University of Calgary. Dr. David Darrow is the chief resident of neurosurgery and a researcher at the University of Minnesota. He estimates that thousands of people have had spinal cord stimulator implants for relieving chronic pain, but only about 30 people in the US have had implants to restore mobility.  His team has the approval to conduct these surgeries on a research basis.

Not a Panacea

Although spinal cord stimulators hold promise to improve the lives of those with spinal cord injuries, they are not expected to be a panacea that will get people up and walking independently. And having an implant is not without risks. Some people with these implants have experienced unwanted electrical shocks and even burns. There is also the potential for infection, any time a surgical procedure is done.  Nonetheless, improvements in mobility that can assist in making transfers to and from a wheelchair, and improvements in blood pressure control and bowel and bladder function, have the potential to greatly improve the quality of life of those suffering from spinal cord injuries.

If you or a loved one has experienced life-altering injuries from a spinal cord injury that may have been caused by or worsened by, medical negligence, please contact us.  We would be happy to discuss your concerns and outline your options.

Filed Under: Adult Injuries, Health News

Was your baby cooled immediately after birth?

Wednesday, December 11, 2019 By Andrea Donaldson

Babies are cooled immediately after birth if they have hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE). HIE is a condition that occurs when an infant’s brain is deprived of oxygen. It is a significant cause of death and long-term disability in infants. The severity of the infant’s HIE determines his or her risk of cognitive impairment and disability.

Oxygen deprivation resulting in HIE typically occurs in the perinatal period – that is, just before, during or shortly after delivery. Potential causes of oxygen deprivation leading to HIE include problems with the umbilical cord, placental abruption, or uterine rupture.

Cooling Treatment for HIE

Cooling treatment – known as neonatal therapeutic hypothermia – is a relatively new option for treating HIE. It involves reducing the infant’s total body temperature by 2-3 degrees Celsius, resulting in modest hypothermia. The treatment works by reducing the brain’s use of energy, which slows disease progression and reduces the chances of the infant suffering from severe brain damage. Research suggests that therapeutic hypothermia is safe and provides long-term protection for the brain.

To meet the criteria for this treatment, infants must be at least 36 weeks’ gestation. The infant must be less than 6 hours old to start cooling treatment. After 6 hours of age, cooling does not provide the same level of protection. Infants may not be eligible for the treatment if they have certain congenital abnormalities or if they have a very low birth weight. Cooling is only used in very specific situations – the infant must have severe acidosis demonstrated by a low umbilical cord pH, abnormal blood gases or base deficit, and a complicated delivery and low Apgar scores, or have needed at least 10 minutes of help breathing. The infant must also show evidence of moderate to severe encephalopathy, demonstrated by a combination of signs and symptoms such as seizures, lethargy or coma, decreased or no activity, abnormal posture, decreased muscle tone, weak or absent reflexes and abnormal heart rate, pupils or breathing.

Because it can be difficult to assess some infants’ injuries, consultation with a neonatologist is sometimes necessary.

There are two main methods of cooling the infant – whole body cooling and selective head cooling. The type of cooling used depends on the hospital, but both methods have been shown to be safe and effective in bringing core body temperature down to therapeutic levels. Rewarming begins after 72 hours of cooling, and serial monitoring of the infant’s core temperature is important to prevent overheating.

Follow-Up for Cooled Infants

Cerebral palsy or other severe disability occurs in more than 30% of newborns affected by HIE and is most common in those who suffer severe encephalopathy. Because of the broad spectrum of developmental impairments found in infants who suffer from HIE, following affected infants throughout their development is important. Specialists such as neonatologists, physiotherapists, neurologists, occupational therapists, pediatricians, ophthalmologists, and audiologists working together to assess long-term outcomes is an important component of care for infants who have received therapeutic hypothermia.

Cerebral palsy may or may not be due to negligence on the part of the medical team attending the delivery. Our cerebral palsy attorney at Pacific Medical Law has a lengthy and established record of determining the cause of the infant’s cerebral palsy and, in appropriate cases, obtaining judgments and settlements on the child’s behalf.

HIE has Severe Consequences

HIE is a condition that can have severe consequences. Over the past decades, therapeutic hypothermia has emerged as an effective treatment option and has been shown to decrease severe long-term disability and death in infants with moderate to severe HIE. Further research is still needed to increase understanding of the progression of HIE, identify additional treatments, and develop more precise ways of predicting long-term outcomes. The use of therapeutic hypothermia can be expected to be more widely used as the process is perfected, with more infants benefiting from its use.

If your child received therapeutic hypothermia treatment and you have unanswered questions about what caused your baby’s HIE, contact our pediatric injury lawyers in Vancouver. We would be happy to discuss your concerns and outline the options available for your child.

Here is an infographic which shows the cooling process:


BILA Canada

Filed Under: Cerebral Palsy, Health News

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

  • Birth Injury
  • Brain Injury
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Infant & Child Injuries
  • Spinal Cord Injuries
  • Janna Epp Bursary

Categories

  • Accessibility (24)
  • Adult Injuries (25)
  • Cerebral Palsy (62)
  • Cerebral Palsy Association of BC (26)
  • Community Involvement (31)
  • Firm News (55)
  • Health News (67)
  • Legal News (25)
  • Medical Malpractice (34)
  • People with Disabilities (29)
  • The Verdict – Law Journal (33)
  • Understanding Birth Injuries (1)

Archives

  • September 2025 (1)
  • May 2025 (1)
  • March 2025 (1)
  • November 2024 (1)
  • August 2024 (1)
  • May 2024 (2)
  • November 2023 (1)
  • September 2023 (1)
  • June 2023 (1)
  • March 2023 (1)
  • December 2022 (1)
  • September 2022 (3)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • November 2021 (1)
  • October 2021 (1)
  • August 2021 (1)
  • July 2021 (2)
  • June 2021 (4)
  • April 2021 (2)
  • March 2021 (2)
  • February 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • September 2020 (4)
  • August 2020 (4)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (2)
  • April 2020 (5)
  • March 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (3)
  • January 2020 (4)
  • December 2019 (3)
  • October 2019 (3)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (3)
  • July 2019 (1)
  • June 2019 (3)
  • May 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (2)
  • February 2019 (2)
  • January 2019 (5)
  • December 2018 (3)
  • November 2018 (3)
  • October 2018 (4)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (8)
  • July 2018 (8)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (24)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • February 2018 (4)
  • January 2018 (2)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • March 2017 (2)
  • December 2016 (1)
  • September 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (4)
  • April 2016 (1)
  • March 2016 (4)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • January 2016 (1)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • August 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (3)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • November 2014 (1)
  • May 2014 (2)
  • December 2013 (2)
  • November 2013 (1)
  • October 2013 (3)
  • September 2013 (5)
  • August 2013 (2)
  • July 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (7)

Recent Posts

  • Digital Scribes, Legal Signatures: AI-Generated Records in Medical Malpractice
  • Caught on Camera: The Impact of Photo and Video Evidence in Surgical Negligence Cases
  • Defining the Standard of Care: When Will a Generalist be Held to a Standard Approaching that of a Specialist?
  • The Impact of Contemporaneous Medical Records on Credibility Disputes

How Can We Help You?

Contact Us

Footer

Our Office Location

Pacific Medical Law 1030 6th Avenue West Vancouver, BC V6H 1A3
Toll Free: 1-888-333-2361 Phone: 604-685-2361 Map & Directions

Copyright © 2023 Pacific Medical Law | Website managed by DataRoots