A friend of mine was due on December 25th. She will be 42 weeks PG tomorrow. I talked to her yesterday and she said she does not want to be induced because she thinks it's too risky. She also said one of her aunts had a vaginal birth at 43 weeks and was fine. She is 22 and this will be her first DC. I am wondering what the risks are of going so far overdue? Is there a point at which induction becomes a medical necessity?
Sorry you're worried. Two weeks isn't really all THAT late, although I can understand your concerns. As I understand it, a lot of risks associated with going overdue are I believe balance by the risks of intervention.
I presume if she's still pregnant in a week then she will be revisiting the situation and that she is being monitored meantime?
I was the same as your friend, i was adament i was not being induced. Midwife still booked me in for induction at 42 weeks and told me to consider it but i went into labour that night and ds was born the day i was booked in fir induction so your friend will probably go intl labour naturally in the next couple of days
I can't see how induction is more risky than the placenta failing but each to their own I suppose I hope even if she does refuse induction she's getting regular if not daily checks to check everything is ok
After 42 weeks your chance of having an Emergency section actually increases if you wait rather than having induction. Baby getting bigger, placenta aging. I would encourage her to read whatever information her hospital have given her and speak to her midwife with an open mind. I don't think it is that unusual to wait until 42 weeks though.
I would encourage your friend to speak to her midwife and discuss it - what exactly are her worries of being induced? My friend is a GP and has said the risks once you go over 42 to both mum and baby really increase. Her friend was hugely against any medical intervention and at 42+ weeks tragically lost her baby. i believe its to do with the placenta. Obviously this doesn't happen to everyone, but its worth her understanding the risks to both options.
The risks of stillbirth go up after 42 weeks. They only go up slightly, but because it's a slight increase of such a terrible thing, the general NHS recommendation is for induction before that point.
There are also risks to induction, though (as there are for any medical procedure!). So some women decide that the risk balance they're most comfortable with is refusing or delaying the offered induction.
The hospital should be offering her increased monitoring (CTGs and ultrasounds) if she's choosing not to be induced. That will give more idea about how the baby's doing.
I refused induction at 40+10, went into labour naturally at 40+15, baby bor at 40+16. I wouldn't have gone to 43 weeks, though (in fact I had an induction scheduled for the day she was born!).
uhoh, I'm really pleased to hear that your two inductions went without as hitch, that's great for you. the fact is that induction is not without risk, and some women will decide that the risk of going a little over their estimated due date is overall a lower risk to them. from the research I have done there does seem to be a genetic link to late birthers in many cases, plus there is the fact that there is no exact science to when a baby is 'due', especially given the number of variables such as women who are late ovulaters, etc.
I don't think anybody is stupid enough to suggest that the women ought to sit at home, unmonitored, just 'seeing what happens'. So long as the placenta is still doing its job then, critically, it is the pregnant woman's body and choice.