anyone gone beyond 42 weeks and refused induction?

[stella1w]

As I understand it, if I do that, I'll be scanned, monitored and be transferred to doctor rather than midwife care. And no doubt I'll be put under huge pressure to induce..
But assuming fluid, baby OK, what happens if you go beyond 42 weeks, and are not induced? How long can a pregnancy last? Does the baby get bigger and bigger? I've been told there is a slightly higher chance of a c-section or still birth.
My reasons for avoiding induction and that I cannot have an epidural for medical reasons which means a painful natural birth as I couldn't have a c-section without an epidural (unless I could have a general...)

It is said that after 42 weeks the placenta starts to deteriate.

the risk of still birth does increase but only marginaly

These are off the top of my head so may be wrong but between 42 and 43 weeks risk of still birth increases from 2/ 1000 to 3/1000. Between 43 - 44 weeks it rises to 5/1000 (so still alot

Stella, I'm at 40+9 and have declined to book in for induction at 40+13, which is the standard. Because I've declined, I have to see a consultant tomorrow to discuss our next steps. This doesn't mean that I won't be under midwife-led care any longer, it just means that we will need to start monitoring the baby to make sure he's okay to stay put. Even if I go past 42 weeks, if there is no medical reason preventing me from doing so, I should still be able to proceed with my plans for a home birth, although I will have to see a supervisor of midwives to discuss the increased risks.

From my experience so far, I will say that you will face a certain degree of pressure to induce at 42-weeks as that is the norm. I could tell that the MWs were not used to people declining to book induction, and did feel like a bit of a problem child pushing my case (especially as part of my argument is based on the fact that I believe my EDD was off by five days, meaning I would only be 40+4 now - which they won't take into consideration). But I think it's important to stand your ground and discuss all of your options.

Of course, if my baby needs to come out, I would do anything necessary to ensure that happens safely, but if it's not medically necessary, I just don't think induction is best for the baby. Nannyl is right that induction isn't risk-free; it carries a greater risk of foetal distress and uterine rupture, for example. It also often results in a chain reaction of needing other drugs and interventions as you are essentially overriding the natural hormonal reactions which would normally help you through labour. I would imagine that the chances of needing an emergency c-section are likely to be greater with induction than with simply going beyond 42 weeks, as having a bigger baby doesn't normally necessitate a c-section.

In any case, HTH and good luck!

I was induced at 42+1, and ended up with forceps as DD was in an odd position. Perhaps left to her own devices she would have got into a better position and I would have avoided the myriad of issues I had (forceps was just the start - retained placenta, 3a tear and PPH)

I would go for expectant management with any future overdue pregnancies if all appeared to be well. The placenta can actually deteriorate after 37 weeks, but we're not all induced at 36 weeks just to make sure.

My Dd came at 41 weeks and I'd made up my mind that I would not be induced if she didn't arrive at 42 weeks. I wanted a water birth and wouldn't get one if I was induced.
My brother was a 10 month baby, arriving at his own leisure back in '66. He was not a big baby either at (I think) 7lb 2oz.

Provocateurr - interesting you can have a home birth after 42 weeks - I think in my area they don't allow it or even birthing centre, hence my anxiety about trying to get labour going before then..
Also, I think they have got my dates wrong because I know precisely the date of ovulation/conception but not my Last Menstrual Period but they refused to calculate from the date of ovulation and made me guess my LMP!!