To decline induction/c section for baby measuring small?

[imalreadythere]

40+2 today. Baby measuring small but also engaged so maybe that's why?

Midwives offered induction or c section but I want to wait.

Aibu? The midwife wasn't that pleased I don't think.

My 'small' baby was born at just short of 42 weeks. Advice was to wait as the baby was small

weighed 12lbs- largest baby born in hospital for a year

How patronising are you? I don't give a shit if my comment annoys you, it's my opinion. I'd listen to a midwife over some random on mumsnet every time. Oh and I was induced by the way and had a fairly traumatic birth with my first, but I have a gorgeous 13 year old daughter to show for it now and I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

I didn't listen to the midwife or the consultant when I was told I "had" to be induced - they couldn't give me any specific reasons beyond increased risks. I have my two gorgeous babies to show for it without a traumatic birth....so how patronising are you?

Randoms on MN are simply suggesting some questions she can ask to clarify.

if you can wait. The less intervention the better for you.
get bouncing on your ball

There aren't any medals love. Let's just all be happy things turned out well and stop getting annoyed at others having a different opinion to you.

My baby measured small. I was advised that they’d keep an eye on her but not recommend induction just yet (38 weeks). We attended a couple more check ups - keep an eye on her. We were due the next check up on 40+6. At 40+3 my very active baby went still. Suddenly and completely. I went to my midwife who checked her heart was still beating, which it was but recommended that I was induced. Now. it was a vaginal birth but the cord was wrapped round her neck so it was tense for a while. She was 7lb so not tiny but she had stopped growing.
But that drive to the hospital desperately prodding her and willing her to move is the worst I’ve ever done. It turned out the placenta had calcium deposits on it which is apparently seen in smokers although I’ve never smoked, and it means the placenta isn’t working properly. We were lucky because she stopped moving which meant I got help. If she’d continued to fidget I might have left it and I might not have a teenager telling me I’m “so not cool, just stop,ok?”

I was advised to have an induction at 40 weeks due to my age at the time of birth (40). I was really unhappy with the idea and looked into the research and discussed it with the consultant. The risk of still birth starts to increase after 38 or 39 weeks (I cannot remember which but it starts to increase before even the 40 week threshold). Measuring small increases the risk further. Yes, the odds are in your favour, but there are on average 8 still born babies every day in the UK. I went with an induction because I would never be able to get over ignoring the advice and being solely responsible for taking a decision which led to an otherwise avoidable still birth. I was terrified of induction - everyone (apart from the medics) said to go for an elective c section. I had really bad DRAM and the advice is to avoid a c section where possible if you have this. I also know of a few bad c section recovery stories. Nothing with child birth is fool proof or perfect. I can however try to reassure by sharing my positive induction story. My labour post induction was quick, too quick for any pain relief - baby came 6 hours after the first pessary, and within an hour of my waters breaking - natural delivery with no intervention. Healthy baby. The contractions were intense and strong but it was over quickly and I coped. My first labour (without induction) was also intense until I was drugged up with pethidine. Then labour slowed right down and lasted for hours. Pros and cons to both. Do not regret my decision at all for the induction. I have no doubt that I would be suffering and struggling for the rest of my life if I had given birth to my DD still born. Not a risk I would be prepare to take. The induction was fine. The risk of need for intervention is higher with induction (not by a huge amount) but it's impossible to say whether there would have been a need for intervention without induction and if the reason for the pregnancy needing an induction is also an underlying reason for the intervention being needed as well. The point being there are so many unknowns and the data just does not exist to explain or confirm any of this when it comes to induction and the probability of intervention/ emergency c section. What they do know however is the increased risk of still birth given various factors and in those higher risk situations induction is advised. Gambling on the odds with something as precious as my baby's life was not for me.

Agree.

My last trust coerced me into an induction, using stillbirth stats that didn’t apply to my specific situation. They did several tests that said things were normal including one to check my placenta because they thought baby looked big (wasn’t even 7 lbs). The induction failed because my body wasn’t ready and I had even asked my bishop score which gives chances of success so I could make an informed decision and was never told, only told they had to start the induction process first. Reported them and notes were looked through and there was nothing there to support that it was needed or should have been recommended in the first place. My placenta was healthy and showed no signs of issues.

Had my youngest at a different hospital and they asked me my history. When I told them about my first pregnancy, they immediately rolled their eyes when they heard about the stillbirth stats and said those stats are meaningless for most women and aren’t even based on specific cases. I was overdue for a few days, planning for a vaginal birth until they told me how the baby was positioned. They had no issues with me asking questions, gave me my options, explained the risks and left me to think about it. I even asked if something else was possible and they were unsure. They went and asked another doctor. The options were to wait until I naturally labour, planned cs, or induction. Induction was out easily due to it being of high risk to both baby and me and them worried about my cs scar. I decided for an elective cs instead because the way baby was moving there was no guarantee she would remain in the right position during labour. She had already been shifted into a favorable position 12 hours before by one doctor and had shifted several times before that within 3 minutes during the ultrasound surprising the new doctor. If she were to have done that in labour at the wrong time it could easily turn it into an em cs situation and risky for both of us. I didn’t want to risk a vaginal birth that could end up in an em cs.

My planned cs was a few hours after I made my decision. It was really calm, able to use the music I had planned for labour, those working on me introduced themselves and we chatted while some prepped me and while others were performing the procedure. I had everything I had hoped for in my birth notes, just not the exit. I was happy with that and content in knowing it was an informed evidence-based decision I made myself, not told to me or forced upon me. Procedure was barely an hour, she has a healthy set of lungs, 10 apgar, and I was able to have skin to skin and start to establish bf. Milk came in day 2.

Firstly - why did you go to 2017 which had a very low birthrate. Lowest in 10ys! Why not use the latest data?

Secondly - that is NOT how to read or present data. Especially on this matter. It's incredibly misleading to oversimplify. Births at 42+ weeks are far far more likely to have been closely monitored with 'at risk' births already being induced or c-sectioned.

That data is absolutely not evidence that you can simply wait to 42wks & be less at risk & it's dangerous to present it as such.

@Caerulea
That data is absolutely not evidence that you can simply wait to 42wks & be less at risk & it's dangerous to present it as such.

I never said it was. I believe I said, ‘I am not suggesting OP should ignore medical professionals but I believe there are some myths surrounding stillbirths and going over 40-41 weeks which leads women to make decisions which are not based on facts.’

I had been induced 8 months ago for the same reason baby was measuring small. She was measuring small since 20 weeks. Have had check ups every 2 weeks until birth. Nothing wrong just small weight according to their scans. At 40 weeks on Valentine's exactly on my due date I was induced because the baby grew basically nothing in 2 weeks. Ended up with emergency C section because the baby's heart beat stopped due to distress from the drip. My daughter was born just under 3 kg perfectly healthy. Not small.

All along I knew/felt my baby is small but absolutely fine. Kept telling them my first one was small as well. Still I could not risk go against their recommendation. If something happened I'd never forgive myself. But I also knew I'd be induced either way as for some reason I cannot give birth naturally. Both my babies were induced and came out 3 days later.

Nobody is going to thank you for going intervention free. Your new child will not turn to you, as a grown up and say 'You know Mum, I'm so glad you chose no interventions when you were having me'.
Your only gain will be a misplaced sense of pride in yourself. The potential costs could be devastating.

TBH, in your position I would follow medical advice. My first DD was 40+5 and would have been allowed to go to 42 I believe (were on baby 3 and almost 16 years later so details are a bit hazy) medical professionals aren't keen to make extra workloads for themselves, so they were happy to let me go on, because I had an uncomplicated pregnancy.

Whereas my DS was measuring small, born on 4th centile, we were in and out of hospital because of growth scans and scans to see blood flow of his placenta. We made it to 37+3, but wouldn't have made it much further by the sounds of things. When he was born his placenta was very small.
Because things were more complicated with DS they were pretty insistent and I think it's good to follow advice that you're given by the professionals.

The advice is given with both you and babies health in mind, they're not making themselves extra work because they don't have enough already.

I appreciate that your birth plan is to have as little intervention as possible (most of us idealise the least intervention possible) but the lack of intervention now, may lead to your baby needing significant intervention when born. I know which I would prefer.

Your post/data also confused me to be completely honest.

I read in the news that NICE has recently changed its guidelines to say women should be induced no later than 41 weeks, as there was data to show an increased risk of both stillbirth and maternal death after this.

I gave birth at 42 weeks (EMCS following failed induction) and my placenta wasn’t working properly, with my son struggling. I believe one of the biggest risks of going overdue is the function of the placenta.

Saying ‘as long as baby and mum are safe that’s all that matters’ is patronising as hell. Because people say that all the time to women who have gone through severe trauma to shut them up. I’m sick of women and babies getting treated that way.

Delivery of baby is one of the most dangerous times in it's life.

You don't know why it's small, maybe is all is well but why take that risk when you don't have too.
I AGREE they should have explained risks better.

I also feel sorry for women brain washed by the anti intervention bridgaed.

Yes baby won't thank op if its not getting enough food etc now and will need intervention after birth and being separated from mum

Define trauma though? I don't know many women who have had an easy birth, induced or not. I'd rather listen to people who know what they're talking about, rather than myself, who knows fuck all, making that decision, which could potentially be devastating. When you gambled and it paid off its easy to say that you shouldn't listen to advice of professionals. I think we have to agree to disagree on this.

Really? I know quite a few people who have loved their births actually. But they’re pretty educated around them and didn’t just turn up passive to get treated like a piece of meat, which is unfortunately what happens a lot in the UK. Is PTSD bad enough for you? Let’s not pretend men would have the same experience.

I never said listen to yourself 🤣 I meant take various opinions as even consultants will differ in what they say. Thank god I asked questions and made informed decisions about my own birth .

@Lelophants whatever a strange comment.

I did tons of research before my 1st because it was so incredibly scared.

It was apparently text book and very easy initial stage at home and 5 hours established labour
They slept saying what amazing hips I have and how fast it was 1st time.

I'm not sure how anything in my brain helped with the animal side of me, my body performing a natural function? I didn't do anything, I didn't even push my body did it.
. Guess what... It was still hugely traumatic for me, she was also slightly turned and had scraped my spine.

No stitches, fast delivery birth.. Still traumatised. Because guess what... We arnt just peices of meat we are humans with feelings and emotions attached.

Second time had c section by choice... Wondeful!

This.

Some act as if doctors are always right and are never wrong when many have said how they not have only been wrong but it wasn’t based on evidence and they were dismissed and ignored which led to what they didn’t want and further harm.

I’ve noticed that some seem to think that seeking a second opinion is seemingly wrong for some reason and you should just believe the first without question even if something is telling you otherwise or you’re not comfortable with it.

I was in the hospital with a woman on the postnatal ward days ago who had pre-eclampsia and had never known or been told how dangerous it was. One doctor wanted her to wait until she went into labour naturally yet a midwife noticed the swelling of her limbs raised it with another doctor and they advised an emc-section. The woman said that they saved her and her baby’s life while the other doctor was seemingly still keen on her keeping baby inside. My own mum had it with my sister and I over 30 years ago and nearly died with me (she went to the hospital herself after noticing her limbs swelling and having headaches) and was sent straight to the hospital with my sister during a routine check-up with the same symptoms this woman had. The doctors and midwife were all in the same hospital for this woman yet had different advice.

OP is only a few days after her due date which is normal regardless if it’s your first or your fourth. Ultrasounds despite being an amazing machine still cannot accurately say for every woman the specific size of their babies.

OP is well within her right to not only ask for more evidence but get a second opinion so she has a clearer picture of what is going on so she can make an informed decision based on her specific circumstances. The second opinion could easily say what the midwives say or they may say something different with more explanation other than baby looks small. Either way what is the harm in asking and being sure?

You sound amazing 👏 pat on the back for you. Your comment about men is just irrelevant.

Using this supposed awful ‘birth trauma’ that people always experience from medical interventions as a way to scare people into having natural births is such bull 💩.

In my NCT group one of the women opted to have a low intervention birth in the midwife run birth centre - yes she has no interventions but she has blacked out her entire birth and can’t remember because the pain and experience was so awful for her.

I was induced and had an epidural and had a
wonderful and incredibly easy/peaceful birth experience.

low intervention (or natural) births ≠ no birth trauma.

You can have a completely natural no intervention Birth and still have a absolutely terrible time of it!

and trust me nothing is going to be more traumatic than a dead child.

That’s a bit of a simplistic way to view things. Birth trauma is very real and actual PTSD diagnosis from birth is also very real. Postnatal depression is a big issue for new mothers and suicide/mental health is the leading cause of death for postnatal women in the first year. Pregnancy and birth experience is the place to start when looking at how we prevent this. So a good birth experience isn’t some silly trivial issue.

It’s not about trying to have a birth with no interventions despite an obvious danger, or a horribly painful med-free birth as some sort of ‘achievement’. For most women it’s just about making informed decisions in their own care (not being treated like a passive piece of meat as PP put it!) and sometimes that does mean not blindingly obliging to hospital guidelines without properly researching and understanding whether it’s indeed the best thing to do your own situation. As mentioned being different hospitals, even different doctors in the same hospital will have completely different ideas on what is best.

It’s not just women like the OP looking at avoiding certain interventions who get stick. Women who come on here (and other forums or platforms) and post about wanting to choose a cesarean for ‘non-medical’ reasons are often called ‘selfish’ as well, and told to listen the drs who are reluctant to offer it. People are uncomfortable with the idea of women making their own decisions and having agency.