Fiddling your due date... bit sceptical... anyone done it?

[HatonHatoff]

My old boss (a man by the way) suggested telling your doctor your period started a bit later than it did so as to give your baby a slightly (lets say couple of days) later due date. My first baby did come 10 days late and just in time before being induced... I can see his logic but I wonder if this is a bad thing to do - afterall the baby's health and ones own is tantamount and if they aren't coming and and should be it's best everyone knows surely?? Interesting to know if anyone else has done this. I'm thinking it's a bit dodgy but then being induced doesn't sound like a bundle of laughs...

[3missyshohoho]

not sure about that....

[Nbg]

I think its a bloody stupid thing to do and no suprise the comment came from a man.

[3missyshohoho]

..... they get your ?more accurate due date after you have your scan anyway.

[Camillathechicken]

why would anyone want to do that?

you do not have to be agree to be induced at 40 + 10 or 12, you can have expectant management and go as long as you and your baby can do so safely.

due date is an estimate, a healthy full term pregnancy is anywhere between 37 - 42 weeks, but some women need to go to 43 weeks.

[bagpuss]

Erm, I would say that it wouldn't work anyway. If you go for a dating scan and the dates are a way out then the hospital usually go by the scan dates don't they?

[canmummy]

My dates were always changed at the 1st scan and from then on that's what they agreed on

[dooley1]

I really don't get why you would want to do this
The baby will come when it's ready. If you go overdue and really don't want to be induced then you can argue your case with your gp
You might not even go overdue especially with a second baby
The whole idea is mad!

[vitomum]

daft idea, what's the point

[flowerybeanbag]

Don't they alter your 'due' date once you've had your 12 wk scan anyway? What's the point? And what Camilla says as well.

[HatonHatoff]

ha! You know I thought I'd get this response and rightly so quite frankly. I thought it majorly dodgy but my blooming doctors were right bulllies about induction. Dooley1 thank you for reminding me that I have the right to argue with my doctor! I think finding out I'm pregnant has brought back memories of all those daft doctors putting pressure on me to get that comfy happy baby out! Sorry, I feel majorly daft now but I can only blame the hormones!!!

Ex -boss = ninney. HatonHatoff feels like one too.

[mosschops30]

wouldnt work in our hospital regardless of the fact that you may have only had sex once that year and knew your preiod date, if they scan you and its 7 days out then they go by their date and not yours.

Its your choice to be induced anyway, I hung on for 15 days but that was enough

[Flamesparrow]

They go by scan dates anyway.

Even if that puts you a month late based on the only time you had sex, your periods, and your baby's heartbeat being found before it is normally medically able to be found

[Kathyis6incheshigh]

Depends where you are.
With dd, my due date was changed based on my scan, then changed back again when I moved to another hospital because at that hospital they didn't believe in moving it based on the scan.

[fruitful]

It is worth making sure you remember what you think your date is (so when they get it wrong you can tell them why you're refusing induction).

And it is definitely worth telling your relatives that your due date is about a fortnight later than it is!

[terramum]

Depends on how they work out your due date. From searching on the net I've found there are 2 recognised methods of calculating an EDD, Mittendorf?s & Nägele?s and they usually result in differing dates depending on a number of factors. The key is to get the best one that suits you & your body so you shouldn't have to make a date up - just be more forceful in demanding that they take all factors into consideration & not just base it on your lmp a la Nägele?s rule (which usually assumes you have a 28 day cycle & ovulate on day 14) or a scan, neither of which are always accurate. If you know when you had your lmp, know when you ovulated & how long your cycles are usually then you can & should insist on a more accurate due date & if they refuse to listen then simply cross their date out on your notes & put the more accurate one in.

At the end of the the day though an EDD is just that - an estimate & women shouldn't be pressured or pestered simply because their pregnancy length doesn't conform to the 'average' of 280 days. Since when did 'average' become to mean everyone . Full term is classed as anywhere between 37 & 42 weeks - nothing wrong with having a baby outside of the 40th week.....despite what most hospital protocols are. The insistence on inductions at 40+10 that most hospitals do simply don't have any scientific basis & actually breaks NICE guielines. You shouldn't have to make up a date - just insist on an accurate one in the first place & know what hospitals should & shouldn't be offering and know that they can't make you do anything. It's your body your choice at the end of the day.

I for one will be using my date for my next pregnancy & only telling any HCPs and my husband that date. Everyone else will be told a rather vague month. That way I will avoid all the chat about my 'due date' and being late or early

[HatonHatoff]

back again and really glad I started this thread. Gave me a major kick up the *rse to remember to stand up for myself. Terramum you are quite a mine of information. Very interesting and yes I agree with what a few of you said... give the relatives and all a later date because that was the most annoying thing!

[franke]

Just read the OP. Actually I did this with dc2 (now 3.6). I had a difficult 1st birth ending in a crash cs but was determined to try for a vbac 2nd time round. I put my due date back by about 5 days to escape any outside pressure as my real due date approached. I was always aware of my real due date, went by that and knew how much I would allow myself to go over (not much as it happens) before going for some kind of intervention. I just didn't want the added pressure from HCPs. In the event I went into labour on my real due date and all was fine.

I'm not recommending anyone does this, but I have a fear of meddling HCP's and this was a way of avoiding any confrontations at a late stage of pregnancy, which for me personally would have been very stressful and which, I believed at the time, may have resulted in a second unwanted cs.

I'm now pg with no.3, have a midwife whom I trust implicitly and we are both working towards my true due date.

[bracingair]

there is some sense in the op. As it extremely difficuly (unless you are paying private!) to convince a doctor to go past 42 weeks.

I remember the doc saying the placenta cant as work efficicietly etc etc, and you get really presssurized to do be induced, even if not indicated in your case particuarly.

[maximummummy]

my granny had 5 kids everyone of them were late - she got so sick of doctors fussing about them being late she did start to change the day of last period - obviously they didn't have scans then and now they change d/d at fisrt scan don't they?

my ds was 15days late some babies just take longer to cook!

[Klaw]

My scan brought me forward by 9 days, and I had a stressful time putting off induction!

If I'd insisted we worked to my dates I would have given birth at 40+6 lmp with no worries instead of stressed out at 42+1 scan.

If there's a next time I will refuse the kind offer of a 'dating' scan. It's not needed, imho. Never had one with my ds 15 years ago, just the anomoly scan at 19 weeks.

I know of women fudging their dates a little and refusing 'dating' scans to get away from the pressure they don't need. After all they tend to know their own menstrual cycle, sexual habits and their body a lot better than a machine and an operator who was not there at time of conception.

The benefit of a dating scan is when women don't know their lmp, have not had a period (after mc etc), are extremely irregular but I don't think it's worth it for women who are ttc and/or are sure of their cycle. So therefore shouldn't be routine or compulsory. It's just the first instance where we are being given the idea that we don't know what to do, our bodies don't work, we cannot be trusted. It's insipid and is part of the reason why childbirth is the state it is today.

A woman deserves to feel trusted and to have faith that she can grow and birth a baby. She deserves to have mw who support and care for her so that she can birth her baby. But that takes us on to a whole other political issue!! I'm not going there just now, sorry >

It's just that if she doesn't have this faith, then she's already at a disadvantage. I should know....

[CarGirl]

Only read the op I did this with my 2nd pregnancy, I lied by 2 days on my early scan they queried it but didn't change my due date this meant when they induced me at 15 days (they were fully booked for the previous days) I was actually 16/17 days overdue. Didn't bother again just accepted I would end up induced!

[purpleflower]

I did this. It was only to try and speed my first scan up. I was really scared after a previous mmc. I only put it about 8 days different. They changed it after the scan.

[CarGirl]

with my first pregnancy I knew when I had conveived to the exact half an hour (contraceptive failure) but again have long cycles etc etc etc no dating scan where I lived so the induced me at 42 weeks and then told me that she didn't seem quite fully cooked - argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!