Pushed into being induced again

[Jules7311]

Hi, this is my first time posting and would just like to see if anyone has experienced anything similar.

My DS was born 2 years ago at 42 wks, he was 7lbs which I thought was a fairly average weight. I was induced...it was hell! (Understatement)
I'm now 40 years old and expecting my 2nd baby in November. I had my consultant appt today and they are pushing me to be induced at 39 wks, the reasons being my age and also because my DS was low birth weight which I find really confusing as I though 7lbs was a good birth weight. Anyway I had a very rude consultant telling me I was risking a still born baby if I didn't choose to be induced.
Don't get me wrong, I would not want to go over 42 weeks but feel but being induced brings a whole load of other problems and I get the feeling they are just trying to scare me. I can't find any evidence to 7lb being a low birth weight.
Has anyone else experienced this and gone against being induced??

How strange. I just had a consultant appointment this week as I am 42. It's the only extra appointment I've had all pregnancy due to my age.
She said they offer induction for mothers aged over 40 if they go over 40 weeks, but the change in risk was minimal, and there was no pressure whatsoever to take up the offer. Both my previous children were a week late with very healthy placentas - and they are aged 2 and 5 so not so long ago. I'm not bothered

There is an ongoing study about whether induction is beneficial at 39 weeks, but it's by no means settled. I've never heard of 7lb being called low birth weight. If I were you I would ask consultant to explain the risks properly and point you to the evidence, and I'd ask for an appointment with a consultant midwife to discuss your birth choices. They will generally discuss risks and make a plan with you ensuring your choices are respected.

Thanks for the replies.

it's strange how they offer different advice, I suppose it's just your luck which consultant you get!

I'm definitely going to make an appointment with my midwife and talk it through with her. I really don't want to be bullied again into making a choice I regret.

They may be saying it's low as the baby was two weeks overdue? You can push for daily monitoring instead of induction. Can you request to see another consultant?

I resisted being induced and baby finally arrived 13 days late - it was a quick labour - I put this down to having had a few niggles everyday for a week or so and I believe babies come when they are ready to. Induction scares me! But I'm 34 so not sure if that means our situations are too different to compare but I do hope to try for another baby in. 3 or 4 years time. If you have a straight forward pregnancy then I personally wouldn't get induced until 41 weeks at the earliest. Good luck.

In the same boat - in my forties, due in October and automatically they want to induce at 39 weeks. I'm not keen either to put it mildly !! The risk of stillbirth after 40 is double, but what that actually means is it goes from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000. So you weigh up the risks I guess. Constant monitoring sounds like a plan though, that wasn't suggested to me.

You have the choice OP, even if they try to make you feel as if you don't! Let them give you the facts but you make your own decision.

I've had 2 children over 40. In the first one I moved half way through from a NHS trust that was insisting on consultant-led pregnancy and birth and induction at 39 weeks to one where I was just treated as normal and had no special intervention and my daughter was born at 40 + 8 without induction. Both were areas with large numbers of older mothers, but take a completely different approach. The second time I was even older and had a home birth without any intervention. It's up to you - don't feel pressured into anything if you are having a normal pregnancy without any complications.

My DS was 6lb 11oz but, due to when he was born (40+1), on my customised GROW chart (based on my height and weight) that was considered 7th centile and therefore restricted growth (no 2 child was 50th). I'm 39 now and expecting my third. I've been referred to a special clinic for women with previous restricted growth babies. This has meant additional scans to check growth, blood supply to the placenta and function of the umbilical cord.

I understand that they do like to induce early if there are concerns about the placenta function or growth due to the balance of risk but I'm surprised that they're suggesting this without further investigations. I'm at a world renowned hospital that is leading on research into this though so I suspect that I'm getting care that most other hospitals don't offer.

Could you ask for further scans to check growth and placenta function before any decision is made?

I think 7lb for 42 weeks actually sounds a low birthweight (although depends on your ethnicity and other factors too) - babies gain around half a pound per week from 37 weeks so that is more like a 6lb at term baby.

DC1 was 6lb 15 at 42+1. I never realised this would be considered restricted growth and risky. We also had a bradycardia during labour (both of us were fine due to the quick reactions of the medical team). Do these two things suggest maybe there was something wrong with placenta or embilical cord? I'm wondering if I should mention this to midwife about current pregnancy.

Risk of stillbirth after age 40 I meant to say

Bluebird NICE guidelines say you should be offered monitoring if you decline induction so that should be an alternative for you.

'Low birthweight' cut off is usually 2.5kg about 5.5lb I think? So 7lb ish would be well over. If your baby is small on a personalised growth chart that's another issue as in Wuthering's case. Harmony there are lots of reasons a brady can happen in labour, but it's not usually to do with a placenta/cord problem that would contribute to restricted growth. I would definitely discuss all concerns with your midwife so you can be reassured.