Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Childbirth

Share experiences and get support around labour, birth and recovery.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

elective c/s- when did you have it: 38 or 39 weeks?

44 replies

isidora · 08/05/2006 20:55

I need to have an elective c section to avoid another 3rd degree tear. I had a very quick first labour which is why the tear happened. My hospital has a policy that elective c/s can be done only after 39 weeks, which makes me worried in case I get into labour early and it ends up being as fast as the last one. DD1 arrived exactly at 39 weeks. What has your experience been with arranging a date? Does this policy change from hospital to hospital? Does anyone know about babies readiness in terms of lung development etc at 38 vs 39 weeks?
I would feel less anxious if the date was closer to 38 rather than 39 weeks provided it's fine for the baby. Thanks a lot!

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Uwila · 09/05/2006 12:10

I didn't say it was a wild theory Jimjam. And, as you know, I have a lot of respect for your words (on and off the vax threads). I just think labour is a bit more complicated and while it is certainly a factor. I'm just not convinced that the whole process is as simple as baby ready therfore labour activated.

I think sometimes babies are born too early because mum's body decided it was ready. and sometimes mums don't go into labour even after baby is well and truly cooked.

Uwila · 09/05/2006 12:30

So, do you think senior school should set guidelines on bedtimes?

If my 13 year old's teacher came to me and said "DD seems very tired by the time she gets to maths in the afternoon and I think her performance might benefit if she got m ore sleep." now I would appreciate that feedback. But if the school sent out a general guideline on what time all 13 year olds are to go to bed and when they should get up, I'd throw it in the bin.

Uwila · 09/05/2006 12:31

wrong thread.....

I hate when that happens.

RedZuleika · 09/05/2006 12:49

"sometimes mums don't go into labour even after baby is well and truly cooked"

Mary Cronk has a theory that those babies who become post-mature without labour starting are in some way 'faulty' though (for want of a better term). That they lack the capacity to trigger labour. Presumably they would be (in a pre-medical / surgical time) selected out of the gene pool in the same way that chromosomal abnormalities are, or my own clotty problem (which inhibits implantation).

Uwila · 09/05/2006 12:57

I have a theory that Mary Cronk is bonkers. Lots of things can go wrong. It isn't just down to faulty babies. I'm no doctor, but I'm generally skeptical of such broad sweeping statements.

The truth is we don't know everything about how labour is started and why it sometimes doesn't start. Lots of theories. Some are certainly credible. But we just don't know for sure which ones are right.

nearlythree · 09/05/2006 13:15

Dd1 was certainly ready but wouldn't come at 42 weeks'. No doubt Mary whateverhernameis would think it better for the gene pool if she wasn't around to pass her faulty ones on, but she is! (Sorry, but I have never heard such a load of cobblers.) I felt a total fraud in Nicu as dd1 was about 8lbs bigger than every other baby in there, and am firmly of the opinion that it was my body that was 'at fault'. Also think in-labour sections are appalling if you have been having contractions for 48 hrs like I had with loads of drugs to try and stimulate everything and then needed a g.a. because dd1's condition had deteriorated so quickly. My planned one was a dream.

muppety · 09/05/2006 13:26

El c sections at 39 weeks here. I wouldn't worry too much about the timing. With ds1 I went into labour at 39 weeks and with ds2 was absolutely certain he would be even earlier. In the end had an election section at term for various reasons and I am quite sure he would have stayed for longer as although he was huge was much more dopey than ds1 had been! IN other words your second could be much later!

ps what is a vax thread??!!

Uwila · 09/05/2006 13:53

vax=vaccination

Twiglett · 09/05/2006 13:54

39 weeks .. St Georges and Kings

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 09/05/2006 14:18

But uwila- the stats also show that leaving the baby an extra week from 38-39 weeks more than halves the incidence of breathing problems. That's why the guidelines take account of that.

Anyway very boring, far too boring to put here but the hormone pathways are pretty well sussed out now and the initial trigger is from the baby. Of course the pathway is quite complicated and things can go wrong (dpends on mothers hormone receptors as well), but the process is triggered by the foetus.

IIRC Michel Odent's book talked about a test that could be done on the amniotic fluid which could give a better idea of whether the baby was ready to be born or not.

RedZuleika · 09/05/2006 14:49

Mary Cronk may be bonkers - but it's an idea that I've seen her express - and a perfectly reasonable one on which to build a more evidenced-based conclusion. No on is making sweeping statements.

nearlythree: To my knowledge, Mary Cronk hasn't said anything about the gene pool - that was my extrapolation.

Uwila · 09/05/2006 15:18

Yes, Jimjams. I agree that all other things being equal, it is better to wait until 39 weeks. But, if going into labour presents it's own set of risk than those too should enter the equation. But they don't -- not in the nice guideline anyway.

Hope I didn't offend you. I'm sure you know more on the topic than I do.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 09/05/2006 22:08

god no you didn't offend me at all. I don't know much about it, I just had a baby born at 38 weeks with breathing problems, which was quite scary (and not something I'd really considered before it happened). I think towards the end of pregnancy there tends to be this strong feeling that you want to get the birth over and done with and know that everything is ok (that's how I felt each time anyway), but ds2 would definitely had benefitted from extra cooking.

nearlythree · 09/05/2006 22:54

The whole thing's so scarey, isn't it? I followed the 'best practise' advice with dd1 (leave it to 42 weeks', go for a vaginal delivery over a section etc.) and she nearly died. But if I do have ds early (I'd like 39 weeks' if poss.) I am putting him at risk.

I had to see a different GP today and she raised her eyebrows over the 39.5 thing, too.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 09/05/2006 22:56

nearlythree I'm sure you'll be able to argue a good case for 39 weeks- my local hospital does elective sections at 39 weeks standardly (which was xmas day in ds3's case so I was pleased to wait to go into labour :o).

Uwila · 10/05/2006 21:43

I thought everyone did them at 39 weeks as standard (as that is the nice guideline). SO, I wouldn't expect you'd have to argue much for 39 weeks.

nearlythree · 10/05/2006 21:45

I hope so! Am seeing my consultant tomorrow.

RedZuleika · 10/05/2006 21:53

Doesn't the NICE guideline just say not before 39 weeks....?

jeanini · 24/05/2006 18:16

im 37 wks preg today and im booked in for a planned c-sect friday. they said that they wouldve preferred to do it next wk but they are fully booked. i had ds1 at 38 wks naturally. reading this thread i hope my baby is ok. i have gest diab and they have said the baby is about 8lb already. as im only a shortarse they were worried i wouldnt be able to get baby out naturally.the consultant did say that the baby might have to go to scbu. im r worried.:(

Flip

1 2