Advanced search

Anti interventionists; if you are overdue, at what point do you decide

(56 Posts)
hobbgoblin Wed 15-Jul-09 16:09:08

that the baby is possibly better out than in and that one's overdueness is no longer perfectly natural and maybe there might be a problem. With my last pregnancy that went over EDD I was quite happy to wait as long as it took. With this one, I have more concerns because of earlier problems and am not as relaxed about it.

Am 40 plus 6 now.

craftynclothy Wed 15-Jul-09 16:15:52

For me, I'd want expectant management so the placenta function and baby would be checked regularly and I would agree to be induced if any of the checks showed there was a danger to the baby.

pigleychez Wed 15-Jul-09 16:22:50

I was induced at 40 + 12 with my first but with Number 2 im determind not to be induced and just wait it out. But yes theres the question as to how long DO you wait?

I'll be following this thread too to see what reponses you get from others.

Consultant I saw after DD's birth was great and didnt agree with induction said that soo many sre unnecessary. He said I would be perfectly within my rights to refuse... Would love to have him again.

Loopymumsy Wed 15-Jul-09 16:53:40

Message withdrawn

ceebie Wed 15-Jul-09 17:24:44

I'm with Loopymumsy. Actually I suspect my dates could be out by a week (ie I reckon my EDD should be 1 week later than it is - current EDD says that conception occurred 5 days before a blood test said that I hadn't yet ovulated...). On this basis, I anticipate allowing the normal +14 and another +7 for date inaccuracies. I would like to think that even then I would be reluctant to go for inducetion but, like Loopymumsy says, by 43 weeks I think imagine I will be wanting out... this is my first but I've never heard of anyone loving being massively over their due date and happy to keep going!!!

Ilovebeingamummy Wed 15-Jul-09 19:50:14

I'm with you all here. Stand your ground!!

It drives me mad that they book inductions when you are not even overdue yet - its the best possible way to stress you out of going into labour yourself and making you doubt your body.

Don't go along with induction just because they book it - there is no risk to going up to 43 weeks provided you are both well and baby movements still fine.

I would urge anyone to refuse induction until at least 42 weeks - it is a hugely invasive thing to do, often results in forceps/vontouse deliveries, makes you 3 times more likely to need a Caesarean and risks not only ruining your birth experience but also forcing a baby that is not ready yet to come out under stress of drug induced labour.

No-one except the baby knows when its is ready - in the 24 hrs before spontaneous labour the baby packs a 'picnic' of glycogen stores in its liver to help it cope with labour.....why on earth do we interfere unless there is something wrong with mother or child????

ARGGGHH! Rant over - but do think about not just accepting these ridiculous inductin bookings at term. If we all fight it we might get somewhere.

BintOfBohemia Wed 15-Jul-09 19:54:20

Also with Loopy et al - but I bet you won't go that far over. grin

juuule Wed 15-Jul-09 19:58:18

I was happy to wait untl 40+14. Longer than that and I felt uneasy so wanted to be induced.

funtimewincies Wed 15-Jul-09 20:17:33

I just didn't feel ready to go into labour, my body still felt 'properly' pregnant until at least 41 weeks.

I had 2 sweeps which did very little and finally I was induced with gel at 41+6, I knew that I was ready and labour was a fairly swift 12 hours from start to finish with little intervention.

If they'd tried much earlier I'm sure that labour would have stalled and intervention needed. The baby wasn't scanned or checked (other than BP and urine) at all during those 2 weeks.

CramItUpYourCramHole Wed 15-Jul-09 20:18:18

I was +11. wished Id left it a bit longer.

mummysleepy Wed 15-Jul-09 20:52:17

sorry to disagree but risks to the baby go up +++ after 42 weeks rather than 43. I was induced at 40 +13 and would have been really worried if I had been any later than that. As it turned out I had very straightforward induction and delivered within 7 hours so people shouldn't be too scared it can go ok (though I admit I was pretty nervous at the idea of induction)
hopefully this time things will happen on their own.
By 40 weeks babies are ready to come out,being in the womb for another 2 weeks is ok but after that the placenta can just stop working, is it worth the risk???

IwishIwasmoreorganised Wed 15-Jul-09 21:05:45

ds1 was induced at 40 +16. I'd had no signs of anything happening and no monitoring other than the usual BP and urine checks.

My cervix was assessed as being unfavourable, but I only had 1 pessary and he was born 8 hours later with just gas and air. I was completely fed up of being pg by then and the induction was a bit of a relief!

DS2 arrived on his due date!

oneopinionatedmother Wed 15-Jul-09 21:08:38

agree re: dates not being reliable - scan at 10 weeks is most accurate at +-12 days.
after 41 weeks -
i did my damndedst to 'naturally' induce birth, blew up balloons, walked up and down hills with the toddler on my back..had curries and hot baths. sex with nipple-heavy foreplay worked in the end at 40 + 9.. and produced a slightly jaundiced baby the m/w guessed at 39weeks. my only date was from the scans: they really aren't that accurate especially as my first scan was at 15 wks (too late to be accurate).

so: leave it as late as possible. it may just be the baby isn't cooked yet.

if you like, there are plenty of on-line studies into due dates...

lockets Wed 15-Jul-09 21:08:58

Message withdrawn

oneopinionatedmother Wed 15-Jul-09 21:11:33

risks to the baby go up +++ after 42 weeks rather than 43

isn't this because it can be a sign of sth wrong? a friend had an undiscovered breech, only found after 12 hours of an induction @42 weeks...unbelievable they didn't spot that.

Ilovebeingamummy Wed 15-Jul-09 21:22:38

In the UK, the risk of stillbirth is about 1 per 3000 pregnancies at 39 weeks, 4 per 3000 at 42 weeks and 8 per 3000 at 43 weeks.

Also babies who go this post mature often have pre-existing issues which contribute to the mother not going into labour (which in turn contributes to the stats) So a significant number of these babies may have not survived for other reasons.

So mummysleepy - they do increase - but look how tiny a number that still is. 4 in 3000 does not relate to the 1 in 5 babies (20%) induced in this country - it does not represent enough of a risk to expose mother and baby to the risks of induction and assisted delivery.

Placenta function can be monitored using scanning, fetal heart monitoring and just observing baby's kicks.

INMO most of these inductions are carried out for convenience (for either medics or perceived convenience by the mother) or for fear of litigation by the extremely tiny and very tragic few who may experience an IUD.

Ilovebeingamummy Wed 15-Jul-09 21:25:11

yes yes yes oneopinionatedmother....exactly right - many of them have something wrong. And much of what happens is truyly unbelievable.

Also second your point on dates - scans are hugely unreliable (new research suggests growth only uniform until 8wks so anything after that unreliable)

Unless you know cycle length and preferably ovulation date too (!) you could be inducing based on a nonsense date.

kookykid Wed 15-Jul-09 21:47:57

I went to 43+3 and produced a 7lb 11oz perfect, vernix-covered baby at home. So hard not to cave in to the tremendous emotional pressure put on to induce though. Currently 33 weeks with DC2 and hoping to brave it out again! Am certain my babies just need longer to be ready!

GaribaldiGirl Thu 16-Jul-09 10:46:36

My best labour was induction/epidural/drip on due date. Remember laying there drinking tea thinking this labour lark was all a breeze - as my contractions went on painlessly and she popped out perfectly. All others (3 subsequently) were very late and fast but without pain relief - hospital wouldn't agree to induce me until 14 days over and they all came out just before then. Maybe i was just lucky! Expecting number 5 imminently and am hoping for nice managed induction with epidural again this time.

hobbgoblin Thu 16-Jul-09 16:09:13

Thanks for all your comments, some interesting reading.

I saw my midwife today and she has advised my using the drop in clinic locally on both Saturday and Sunday this week where I will be able to have sweeps provided cervix allows. Failing that, I have an induction booked for Tuesday morning when I will be 41 plus 5. I'd probably prefer to go to 42 weeks but I am losing bravery especially as I am an unknown quantity due to Mifepristone taken at 9 weeks pregnant.

Another concern of mine is that I am genuinely overdue since I had multiple scans between 5 weeks and 16 weeks pregnant, the earlier of which dated me a week earlier than the EDD that has now passed. By that reckoning I would already be 42 weeks today. My official EDD was based upon 12 week and 20 week scans in which baby measured on 50th centile for all scanned measurements.

The midwife seemed overly concerned about induction, and I feel rather upset as I type. I mentioned that movements were still there and baby was pretty active when she was moving but that activity periods were reduced generally and that I found that a little concerning but otherwise that I was happy so long as well monitored.

Midwife did lots of grave looks and was not as jolly as usual so this has all freaked me a little. BP was a bot high but everything else was good including substantial kicks in response to doopler!

massivebump Thu 16-Jul-09 16:10:42

Well, I've read this thread with interest as I've just posted regarding my pg being 12 days od and def not going to be induced.

I wonder where some of you on here get your info from regarding the risks going up after 42 weeks when even the consultants don't seem to know any stats? Just curious, not being disrespectful etc.

Everyone is different and often a gestation of 43 weeks is normal. As is 37 weeks for others.

I was also very interested re the dates thing and having scans before 10 weeks to be sure of dates. I was unsure re my dates so I could actually be a week behind what the 12 wk scan said anyway, which is just one of my reasons for refusing an induction. Also, I feel the risks are far greater with induction than just waiting for things to happen natrually. There's a far greater risk of forceps etc and of a cs. And call me selfish, but for me the risk of pnd will go up so much as I had such a horrific time in hosp with first baby that the mere thought of having to go back there fills me with dread. Home birth with second baby was just wonderful but something you can't do with an induction. This is my last baby and I want to enjoy him/her to the full, I feel that if I have to go back to this dreadful hosp and have all the stress of everything I don't want (can't even have a water birth if I'm induced as they won't allow that at our hosp) then it will lead to problems post birth.

Sorry for waffling, I'm just desperate for things to get moving but also not stupid and know if there is anything at all I'm concerned about then of course I'll be phoning the m/wife. Fortunately this baby is an active little sole and it's very reassuring to feel him/her move so much. There are, as yet, no medical reasons whatsoever to induce!

naomi83 Thu 16-Jul-09 17:47:14

You lose anmiotic fluid as you get closer to your due date. I was very anti intervention, but I had nearly 0 anmiotic fluid left by 42 weeks, and so was induced at 42+1. I was bang on for dates, and baby just wouldn't of come out naturally, at least not alve. Low anmiotic fluid increases risk of still birth and birth defects, and it's one of the main reasons you most women won't get to 43 weeks.

alardi Thu 16-Jul-09 17:58:10

By the time I got to 40+9 I had decided that I would consent to be induced if I ever reached 42+4 (or +18). The local protocol is induce at 40+10. I was so afraid of arguing with MWs that I didn't book a MW appointment at 41 weeks. Maybe a bit foolhardy to shun the MW at that point, but the stress of having to stand my ground was going to be worse than the risk of something going wrong.

At 40+ weeks I felt that the baby was moving lots, so I couldn't perceive that the placenta was deteriorating in any way. As things turned out, the baby came naturally at 40+11 and the MWs said that the placenta didn't look that 'old' at all.

massivebump Thu 16-Jul-09 18:33:32

Naomi83, just wondered how you came across this thing about amniotic fluid as it's one thing I asked about at my assessment yesterday (due to a friend suffering this in late pregnancy) and they said it wasn't normal to loose the fluid until my waters went & it wasn't something they monitored for post term (unless there was suspicious leakage or it had showed up in the urine test anyway). It's usually something picked up on routine scans which is then monitored weekly, also, the fluid can top itself up which is what happened with my friend.

sleeplessinstretford Thu 16-Jul-09 19:21:09

i love being a mummy-i find your flippant approach to stillbirth offensive-a ventouse delivery is hardly comparable with a still born child-and i'd love to know where you get your information from regarding the fact these stillborn babies wouldn't have survived anyway-none of the people i know who have had stillborn babies discovered anything during the postmortem/investigation so unless you have further information i suggest you pipe down.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: