Has anyone refused induction & gone past 43 weeks???(53 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??
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.
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
Thanks God! Really appreciate my still born baby, it was the gift that keeps on giving.
Given your strong opinions on what God does I have a few questions.
Do you refuse all medicines? Antibiotics etc?
Do you drive?-God didn't give you wheels.
Where do you live, did God just present you with a home, or did people build it?
I guess it would save the tax payer a fair bit of money if we didn't have to pay all those pesky Drs and midwives who don't do anything.
Well done momma bird of4 for killing this thread and upsetting more than likely a lot of people in the process! The original poster asked a simple question and wasn't asking for you to preach about god's plans etc etc! God didn't deliver me into this world and it wasn't god to saved my son when he nearly died during delivery! It wasn't god who monitored my eclampsia daily! So keep your god stuff to yourself!
Should I report the last 3 posts (including mine) so if anyone searches this topic again it's not derailed?
Ultimately it's up to you. I know some hospitals don't like you to go past 41+5. I would argue that up to 42 weeks would be fine. Not sure about after that to be honest. I've never really looked at all the evidence surrounding it.
I refused induction Until 3 weeks when I caved in as worried about still birth. So I had my induction at three weeks - seemed crazy to let the pregnancy go beyond that. My situation was a little tricky though , they wanted to skip the induction altogether and give me a section as my previous baby was born by Elcs due to being breech. In the end we agreed on me having just the one pessary of prostin and to section if it didn't work but luckily I went straight into labour and did was born shortly after . I'm glad I held it off, no regrets as a repeat section would have devastated me .
Forgot to add- went in for daily monitoring and extra scans and they told me my placenta was in good shape and baby was still thriving , which led me to push to labour naturally
I went 10 days to 2 weeks over 40 wks over 4 pregnancies, and went into labour spontaneously. I was very anti-induction (with my knowledge as a trained doula as well). However now I am of the opinion that if it's not the first pregnancy and your body already knows what it's doing, the risks of induction past 42 weeks are minor compared to other risks at this stage.
However I do have a close friend (not in this country), her husband is a doctor and she only wanted(and had) home births, her pregnancies went like this: 1st - 43 weeks (56 hour labour), second 43.5 weeks (27 hour labour), third - 44.5 weeks! (8 hour labour), fourth 43.5 weeks (4 hour labour), fifth 40.5 weeks (2 hour labour). First four were boys, last one is a surprise pregnancy and a girl . She did research the subject extensively and thoroughly and had close monitoring in the last couple of weeks of pregnancies, always went into labour spontaneously. The biggest her kids grew with such long gestation was just under 9 pounds, otherwise they were average weight.
I did a lot of research into this as I really wanted a home birth which an induction wouldn't have made possible. I had been trying to get pregnant for 6 months so was very aware of my cycles so knew that the estimated due date they gave me was 4 days later than my dates. My midwife tried to pressure me to start monitoring at 41+4 but that felt too early considering how smoothly the pregnancy was Going. I chatted with the SOM who agreed it was my choice & was happy to book my 1st monitoring session for 42 weeks. My son arrived at home at 41+6 weighing 7lb 14 so not exactly huge. If my pregnancy had continued I would have accepted monitoring & taken advice if any issues had arisen. I would've tried acupressure & possibly would have accepted a sweep closer to 43 weeks. My advice would be to take each day as it comes without ruling anything out but equally don't be pressured into something you don't feel is in either yours or your baby's best interest. Good luck & keep busy
MiL didn't refuse induction, it just wasn't offered to her and SiL was born at around 43 weeks. She didn't talk till she was 3 and does have mild learning difficulties, no idea whether it's connected.
I had a baby at 42 weeks and I wouldn't personally take the risk and go over. My baby was pretty overcooked (skin peeling) and didn't show any signs of coming herself, even on being induced. The end of my labor was scary though (very low heart rate and baby not moving) so yeah I just wouldn't take the risk and wait any longer. Doesn't seem worth it. Sorry.
I was induced at 42 weeks with number 4 anklebiter (mainly, I think, as it was pregnancy no4, I was an 'older' mum and the medical staff were wondering what the flippin' delay was.) Took 48hrs for her to appear and the whole labour experience wasn't at all the same as with the previous 3 which was a shame.
If the midwife is happy to wait it out until 42 weeks and then induce (medically risks to the baby do increase significantly after that) then I'd do that.
Good luck regardless!
Oh, and if you can have a water-birth do-it's wonderfully relieving during the more intense labour (wish I'd done it with all of them instead of just biter4)
1) Most stillbirths occur BEFORE 40 weeks.
2) The risk of stillbirth increases after 42 weeks yes, from a minuscule amount to a minuscule amount.
3) Cointries that class full term as 43 or even 44 weeks and don't induce until this date in fact have a LOWER stillbirth rate than the UK.
4) Induction is not a harmless procedure and carries risks to both mother and baby.
The decision has to be yours but please don't make one on scaremongering. Read the actual facts, do some research and decide what is best for you!
If you refuse induction you will be offered daily monitoring and told be very aware of your babies movements.
If you would never endanger your baby then ignore the midwifes advice. What she is suggesting could result in your baby being still born. Your baby may be fine but not a risk worth taking.
Your baby appearing fine on a scan is just a snapshot at that particular time, it means nothing.
Just seen this thread is from 2013! I would hope the OP has had her baby by now 😂
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.