Has anyone refused induction & gone past 43 weeks???(33 Posts)
I'm 40+11 & have an induction booked for Tuesday. I've had two unsuccessful sweeps & another booked in for tomorrow.
The lovely MW I saw yesterday said that I can cancel my induction & see how everything goes. She says that 42 weeks is fine & that some people just have a longer gestation.
I was induced at 40+12 with DD.
I'm not at all uncomfortable or desperate for the pregnancy to be over. The baby is still VERY active & I had a scan at 41 weeks & everything is just fine in there!
Has anyone waited & gone into spontaneous labour later than 43 weeks??
No. For me the increased risk of stillbirth just wasn't worth it. I dreaded induction and it wasn't fun, but better than risking the loss of the baby.
There was someone on here who had four babies at 43 weeks... but only 3 pregnancies, the last two were twins.
Not sure of what any additional risks are though.
I had dd 17 days after my due date. Was reluctant to be induced, but I think it's risky to go too far beyond 42 weeks. Hope your LO arrives soon!
Your midwife is right! Some people just gestate longer than others! 42 weeks is still very normal and not really "overdue" if there is such a thing.
As for the risk of still birth, can I just say that the evidence that this advice is based on is very weak, and flawed.
You may find these article helpful:
There is also a facebook group called "10 month mamas" which you can find support from!
I am sure you are right that some pregnancies are longer stc but I wouldn't care about the evidence as such - I had two friends who both had still births at 42+ weeks after having scans showing all was well. Both in their mid 20's too.
Personally no way would I risk it. If they scan after 40 weeks, they do so for a reason IMO
In fact the hospital that these happened in changed their policy two years ago so no one goes past 40+10 days
I was induced with DS at 42 weeks (finally had him by EMCS at 42+2), then had a VBAC at 42+5 (no induction). My consultant claimed she was 31 days late which I at, but she came from a family of 'late bakers' as it were. I had a scan and a sweep at 41+6, then monitoring every other day for another week. I was the same though - not in any rush, baby was still moving the same etc. I was lucky to be supported enough to feel confident in making the right decisions for me, as I gather some areas are most insistent on mothers giving birth before 42 weeks. Good luck!
I had DS at 42 + 5 and it was the right decision for me.
Had to have extra monitoring the last 5 days to make sure that there was no deterioration - they had wanted to induce at 42 weeks but I said no. It also meant I had to have extra checks through labour and no water birth which I didn't know beforehand but which actually worked out well when DS got stuck and became distressed.
I read that many factors make you more likely to go over and I hit all of them (eg first baby, me being tall, having a boy, me having been born very late).
Just remember it's your body; do whatever feels right. I'd do the same thing again.
Why risk it, read some proper articles....if you google risk of stillbirth after 42 weeks journal/articles. You'll get some decent results which are in proper peer reviewed journals.
Ds1 was born at 41++ and my placenta had degraded, he was in special care for several days and I was quite ill afterwards. Dc2 &3 were induced at 40+4/7.
To be honest, I didn't even realise it was an option til the MW told me .
The Hospital I'm delivering in seem very confident that as long all is well 42 weeks is perfectly fine.
I would, obviously, never endanger my baby & by going overdue am following the MW advice.
I'm just interested to see if you're left over 42 weeks, you might actually go into labour spontaneously, or if you'll end up being induced anyway.
As an aside, I was 3 weeks late, my sister was 2 weeks late, my nephew 7 days & my niece 10 days. My family clearly have the gestation periods of elephants .
The thing is after that time things can change quickly, my friend had a scan one day, reduced movements the next and a still birth that very day.shes still going through the court as the hospital had only sent her home the day before. Not trying to scaremonger at all but not all hospitals are good at monitoring and at busy periods, opportunities can be missed. My second friend was due to get induced at 14 days late but when she turned up, was turned away as they were too busy with people in full labour and was told to return the next day. By then shed had no movements and suffered a still birth.
I've typed this 3 times and deleted it as I don't want to upset you - but please please don't. A lovely midwife is not a consultant obstetrician...
Would you gamble by your dd in the middle of the road when a lorry was coming because the lollipop lady had her stick in the air?
That looks really harsh and I didn't mean it that way, if I've upset you please accept my apologies but I feel so strongly about it that I couldn't go to bed not having responded. Sorry
One mw against everyone else that's been involved so far? Could you just be picking up on the one person that's agreeing with you?
If I'd have gone overdue (past 42w) with DS, I'd have refused induction.
I was induced at 40+15 with DD. No experience of 43w+ though, although others on MN have.
Ok, 3 of my 4 went over and the fourth was 13days over. One was induced at 19 days, the others spontaneous at 24 and 20.(although two of them i could not be certain of conception dates and the dating scan has a margin of error). It's a very individual choice based on knowledge, medical history and attitude to risk. What does stand out to me, is the casual attitude of your midwife. I had midwives and the odd consultant discuss my choice, pros and cons, each time with me and they all insisted on extra monitoring.
I suppose I will never know just how risky my choice was, but that's where my head was at the time. I would like for there to be more research and information about this one way or tother, until there is most women will want induction. Catch 22.
I believe there is a test you can have to see if the placenta is still working efficiently and that it is safe to carry on.
Induction is not offered as rountine at my hospital until you reach 42 weeks (assuming no other risk factors). Every patient has a routine 41 week apt with a midwife where they are offered a sweep if they want one to help encourage things along.
Waiting until 42 weeks before induction is not unusual. Induction has risks too. Always ask for a second opinion if unsure and "what happens if we wait?" Is a great question to ask for any intervention you're unclear or unsure about.
I'd be booking a reflexologist, eating spicy food and going for long walks desperately trying to get things moving naturally. Not that there's any evidence it works but sometimes you just need to be doing something!
I was born at 44 weeks! Personally I wouldn't risk it, but I seem to be ok!
sydlexic I've never heard of that, I've only heard of the expectant management scans which tell you how the placenta is functioning now - I'd be interested to hear about a test though!
It's not routine at mine to be offered before 42 weeks either. I'm just interested in hearing from people who do go past 42 weeks & if it ends up in an induction anyway or if some people do just go into labour later than others.
I never got that far but like Flisspaps I was planning to refuse induction and request monitoring and scanning instead if I went past 42 weeks. I read a lot of stuff at the time including Cochrane Reviews and the NCT factsheet.
I don't know how far past 42 weeks I would have been prepared to go but I do know a couple of people who have gone over 42 weeks and my previous point about 42 weeks being normal round here was to illustrate how common it is. Nothing happens overnight at 42 weeks and by the time you've managed to see a midwife or consultant and then had indication arranged it's usually over 42 weeks.
I think you're right to canvas the views of those who've been there, but also look at the medical evidence. Some of the views expressed on this thread are contrary to that evidence. They're still valid, because they are based in those feelings and anxiety we all have about making the right decision and "what if?" but they should be balanced with the facts.
It is worth noting that in some countries including France, a full term pregnancy is considered to be 42 whole weeks i.e. 43 weeks (and I think they have a much lower stillbirth rate than us).
The last statistic I read from studies was the risk of stillbirth between 42-43 weeks went up by 0.1%. You have to put that in the context of other risks including of induction etc.
My DD1 was stillborn (born before her due date so not due to post-dates) so for me its even more scary than most when stillbirth is mentioned in respect of my current pregnancy. However I am determined to be level headed about it and make an informed choice if I am faced with the hospital encouraging induction purely for post-date reasons. Its very difficult to balance everything but ultimately the important thing is to be confident in the choice you make, whatever that is, and you can only do so with all the information (something which I have found the midwives and consultants can be a little reluctant to provide at times!).
I think pregnancy is better monitored in France though - most women stay in a week afterwards whereas here I was kicked out after 6 hours with both!
sunny you may be right but from what i understand you can't get more thorough monitoring in the UK than what they do for expectant management when you go overdue.
Sunny - staying in for a week or 6 hours post birth is irrelevant here though.
I went to 18 or 21 days over with ds3, depending on which dates were used, mine is the hospitals.
Once you get to term plus 14 most hospitals will want you booked in for induction.
You can have expectant management which is what I opted for.
There is a fob page and website/forum called tenmonthmamas that has lots of info on it.
Fingers crossed you don't get that far.
I would have no concerns waiting till term plus 14days before inducing and then it would depend, with ds3he was very active and scans etc showed he was fine.
With dd (no5) I had concerns, lits if stress and was I'll, her movements weren't as good etc so I opted for a induction. With hindsight I would say that the issues were more MW being stressed due to other issues and an anterior placenta that meant I couldn't feel her as well.
My lab our was fine but I needed syntocinon drip, I think had I waited another few days and managed to get her to turn (she was back to back) that wouldn't gave been necessary.
As in, on this thread. You stay in after the baby is born. It's nothing to do with monitoring in pregnancy.
Of course it's not the same but maternity care varies lots throughout the country and many hospitals simply are not up to scratch. im just saying that just because one midwife says she's following procedure may not be the best care and advice.
With both my pregnancies I had thyroid problems and my treatment for the seconds was consultant led, loads of appointments and monitoring etc whereas nothing with my first. When I questioned why the extra attention the consultant replied its because I am hypothyroid and I "slipped through the net" the first time. I was denied an epidural both times due to over staffing and never got scanned once when I had intense itching during my first pregnancy until I went to A&E. again not relevant here but what's I'm stressing is that in many areas maternity care is rubbish. With my second I had one midwife to four women! Not even legal I'm sure but man hospitals are over stretched like this.
Maternity units vary and obviously you know how good your local hospitals are, how over stretched they may or may not be, other mothers views etc. therres no way I'd trust my local hospital with overdue monitoring but you may have complete confidence in yours in which case I'm sure you'll be fine
Gosh, no, not a chance.
There is no way to predict placental failure. All a scan shows is how the baby and placenta are at that point in time.
"As for the risk of still birth, can I just say that the evidence that this advice is based on is very weak, and flawed."
This is nonsense. The evidence is fairly robust. I suggest reading proper scientific evidence.
It comes down to whether you consider the risk of stillbirth to outweigh the risk of being induced. Personally, having had a stillborn baby (not post-dates) the 'birth experience' is far less important than having a healthy living baby.
I was induced at 40 + 14 with my first.
he really did not want to appear, and I went through all the increasing induction options until he was born. at 40 + 16
At that point he was 10 lbs and 1 oz and he had the biggest head on a baby I have ever seen (seriously, when I tried to put baby hats on him he went straight into 3-6 months
I was determined to wait and be natural etc. In the end I wished I had been induced earlier, as he obviously wasn't coming any time soon.
Was ill with dd1 and induced at 38 weeks, she looked as if she was only 36 weeks, totally covered in the white stuff, my dates were rock solid, but doc was convinced she was 2 weeks younger (like to know how she could have been conceived while dh was away )
dd2 was induced at 40 + 10, but she got moving after a sweep, and was born quickly. She was 10lbs 7 oz
so I really do think that some women gestate for longer, and babies are fine and healthy, but now I can't see the point in waiting if they are going to need help and are so big!!
My sister has 44 week pregnancies. First one was a perfectly well and healthy 44 weeker. Next two were induced at 42 weeks as she was living in France: they came out covered in vernix. Some women simply do gestate for longer I think.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.