Woman Turned Away by Carnival for Being Too Pregnant

Interesting article in USA Today about a woman being turned away by
Carnival for being "too pregnant."

http://tinyurl.com/6es2zo

Good or bad idea?


--
Rik Brown
Message Origin: TRAVEL.com

Rik Brown wrote:
Interesting article in USA Today about a woman being turned away by
Carnival for being "too pregnant."

http://tinyurl.com/6es2zo

Good or bad idea?


I can't get the article, but off hand I'd say good idea. It's a
liability thing for the cruise ship.

Marsha/ohio

In article , Rik Brown
wrote:

Interesting article in USA Today about a woman being turned away by
Carnival for being "too pregnant."

http://tinyurl.com/6es2zo

Good or bad idea?

I think it is a good idea. Cruise ship medical facilities are not the
place to have a premature birth. I think Carnival is protecting the
health of the mother, the future child, and also protecting itself from
any liability.

--
Charles

Charles wrote in news:250620082103411924%
lid:

http://tinyurl.com/6es2zo

Princess is also 24 week cutoff. I suspect the whole leading cruise lines
will come in line if not already then soon.


--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

In Carnival's own brochure, they state... "Pregnancy: Please be advised that
guests who are 24 weeks or more into their pregnancy at the time of the
voyage will not be permitted to sail because of the risk of premature
labor."

Good idea or bad idea, it's pretty standard in the industry. I think health
concerns would override just about anything else.

Happy sailing...
John Sisker - SHIP-TO-SHORE CRUISE AGENCY (sm)
(714) 536-3850 or toll-free at (800) 724-6644 & (Agency ID: 714.536.3850)
www.shiptoshorecruise.com





"Rik Brown" wrote in message
...

Interesting article in USA Today about a woman being turned away by
Carnival for being "too pregnant."

http://tinyurl.com/6es2zo

Good or bad idea?


--
Rik Brown
Message Origin: TRAVEL.com

On Jun 25, 10:58 pm, "John Sisker" wrote:
In Carnival's own brochure, they state... "Pregnancy: Please be advised that
guests who are 24 weeks or more into their pregnancy at the time of the
voyage will not be permitted to sail because of the risk of premature
labor."


That brochure post-dates the woman's contract. The point of her
complaint and the media attention was that Carnival's 24-week policy
was implemented AFTER she booked. The more liberal policy in effect at
the time she booked would have allowed her to sail. Only after media
attention did Carnival offer her credit toward a future cruise.
(Unstated is why she didn't learn of the January change before her
attempted embarkation. Carnival claims the new policy was well-
publicized.)

I think anyone who has cruised once appreciates the risks of sailing
while in the advanced stages of pregnancy (or vulnerable to any other
medical condition which could turn life/death in an instant while on
the high seas and, at times, far from specialized medical care). In
all the years I've been participating in online cruise discussions, it
seems it's usually the pregnant women who are first-time cruisers, and
often first-time pregnant, who feel invincible. I'm the first to cheer
a Mother Earth approach to pregnancy, but even that has its limits. My
OB always told me to be sure I could draw a "1 hour or less from a
pedi ICU" circumference from any location.

Diana Ball
Austin, TX

On 6/25/2008 8:57 PM Marsha plucked Senior Frog's Magic Twanger and said:
Rik Brown wrote:
Interesting article in USA Today about a woman being turned away by
Carnival for being "too pregnant."

http://tinyurl.com/6es2zo

Good or bad idea?


I can't get the article, but off hand I'd say good idea. It's a
liability thing for the cruise ship.

Marsha/ohio


Not to mention what citizenship the child would have. Atlantis, maybe?
Then again how do you repatriate a baby who doesn't breath water? ;-)

--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951

D Ball wrote in
:

On Jun 25, 10:58 pm, "John Sisker" wrote:
In Carnival's own brochure, they state... "Pregnancy: Please be
advised that guests who are 24 weeks or more into their pregnancy at
the time of the voyage will not be permitted to sail because of the
risk of premature labor."


That brochure post-dates the woman's contract. The point of her
complaint and the media attention was that Carnival's 24-week policy
was implemented AFTER she booked. The more liberal policy in effect at
the time she booked would have allowed her to sail. Only after media
attention did Carnival offer her credit toward a future cruise.
(Unstated is why she didn't learn of the January change before her
attempted embarkation. Carnival claims the new policy was well-
publicized.)

Why she didn't learn is that the policy wasn't so widely made known as
some would claim. the brochure certainly precedes her booking, but
brochure informaton should never be used for much of anything as the
small print says somewhere, subject to change.


--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

Rik Brown wrote:


Interesting article in USA Today about a woman being turned away by
Carnival for being "too pregnant."

http://tinyurl.com/6es2zo

Good or bad idea?
I understand what they are trying to do but I think this is a bad idea
because...

How would anyone know how many weeks someone was pregnant?

There used to be a regulation that married teachers could not teach
anymore after their pregnancy started to 'show', and they had to tell
the board of education within so many weeks of getting pregnant or
their contract would be terminated. Because a married woman getting
pregnant - oh terrible - would give the kids ideas.

Of course in those days (the early 50s before the pill) if a girl got
pregnant in HS, she was forced to drop out of school. (Although the
father of the baby was allowed to finish) Neither of those things is
true anymore, and they shouldn't be.

Anyway - when I was having babies, I knew for a fact when one of my
children was conceived because his dad was only home for one week. (He
was in the Navy and was deployed before and after that week.) But
this didn't coincide with the way that the due date was calculated.
Due dates in those days (60s) were only approximate.

Most of the time, we didn't have anything like that degree of
knowledge. We didn't have ultra-sound in those days, but I have not
had the impression that ultrasound was absolutely completely 100%
accurate. Even today, people are sometimes pregnant that don't
realize that they are, and there are false pregnancies as well.

In my case, I would look like I was just getting a little chubby until
the fifth month (approximately 20 weeks) at which point I would
suddenly look as if I was due any minute. So would they deny me
boarding based on my appearance? I would be really ****ed if they
did.

Rik Brown wrote:


Interesting article in USA Today about a woman being turned away by
Carnival for being "too pregnant."

http://tinyurl.com/6es2zo

Good or bad idea?

PS - I went for a 'cruise' on a small sailboat that we owned when I
was one week overdue with my first child. We got becalmed in the sea
plane lanes, and the boat had no engine and didn't even have a paddle,
so we just had to wait until the wind picked up again. Fortunately it
was Sunday and no sea planes were landing. I had the baby the
following Thursday.