Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Childbirth

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

Home birth after 42 weeks

76 replies

ginagenie · 09/12/2016 07:08

Hi
I'm currently 41+4 and still very much want to try for a home birth if I go over 42 weeks.
The midwives don't even want to let me go past 42 weeks as its hospital policy to induce by then so have booked for me to come in at 42 weeks but if baby is ok I would much rather wait and monitor.
No complications in pregnancy and I'm low risk. I keep reading that it's my decision and no one can force me to be induced or refuse me a home birth but I'm feeling a lot of pressure and not very assertive or confrontational at moment.
Just wondered if anyone had any tips or experiences they could share on home birth after 42 weeks where midwives were reluctant?
At the moment my best idea for a plan is when in labour just to say I'm not happy to come into hospital and hope they don't argue too much.
I'd obviously go in if there was good reason but a blanket 42 week rule doesn't feel v logical or fair to me. Thanks

OP posts:
ispymincepie · 13/12/2016 23:38

OP I planned to decline induction and proceed with homebirth after 42 weeks. Fourth baby so more confident in my 'rights'. My midwife said she'd be happy until around 42+4 but most wouldn't be. I had a lot of anxiety about who would be on call when the time came. Luckily baby arrived at 42+0
Ensure your birthing partner advocates your wishes and remember if the midwife attending isn't supportive you can ask for somebody else. Good luck!

minifingerz · 13/12/2016 23:58

"We are talking about a clear risk factor that results in dead or brain injured babies, versus the alleged comforts of a home birth."

Alleged comforts?

How about half the risk of emergency surgery and a lower risk of ending up in HDU or needing a blood transfusion?

Don't trivialise the benefits of a homebirth for mothers - they're real and striking. Second time mums birthing in hospital have 4x the rate of emergency c/s compared to similar women birthing at home.

As for 'clear' risk factors - it's really not as clear as you make it. Many mothers give birth to 42 weeks + babies with the support of their midwives. The wording of the Cochrane index is this: Births after 42 weeks seem to carry a slightly increased risk for the baby.

Note: The Cochrane index is used by NHS clinicians in making decisions about patient care.

People are so inconsistent on the subject of what risks it's acceptable to take when it comes to babies. SIDS is the most common cause of death in babies under one, and exclusive breastfeeding reduces the risk by a half according to the NHS and the Lullaby Trust. Do you get people jackbooting all over the boards telling women they're being irresponsible to formula feed, and putting their babies at risk? Do you shit! Hmm No - you get told to 'do whatever you feel most comfortable with' .

So shall we apply the same logic to induction then?

CatchingBabies · 14/12/2016 00:51

Well said minifingers. No choice is without risk, you choose which is most acceptable to you and I choose which Ian more acceptable to me.

EstelleRoberts · 14/12/2016 01:25

Minifingerz your question might just as easily be turned back on you: why are you so fixated on the risks of not breastfeeding (evidence for which is often weak due to poor quality studies), yet are laissez-faire about the risks of going over 42 weeks? Why focus on one but not the other?

My two-pennorth on this is that I would not find an increased risk of stillbirth acceptable at all, and I would rather face the risk of surgery etc myself, than pass increased risk on to my baby. I realise that the increase in risk of stillbirth is likely small (though the small size of the historic studies means the figures may not be reliable, though this could just as easily be in the other direction, i.e. the actual risks could be higher than stated). However, my risk assessment in such matters always takes into account the magnitude of the event, should it happen. The death of my child would be such a huge catastrophe that I would not be happy to accept any increased risk of that. Others may weigh risks differently, and that is their prerogative. I just hope this thread has been helpful to OP in weighing up the differing opinions and the evidence, scant though it is.

CatchingBabies · 14/12/2016 01:43

Estelle - in that case you'd best ensure all your babies are born m
p'before 37 weeks as the stillbirth risk is highest at this gestation.

And when you talk about willing to take on surgery to prevent your baby having any risk, you do know that both induction and elective section carry a risk of death to the baby as well don't you? Again a tiny risk as is the going overdue risk. Even a natural birth before term with no expected problems can lead to the death of the baby in rare situations.

If youre unwilling to take on even the tiniest risk of potential harm I'm not quite sure how you are going to have a baby?

EstelleRoberts · 14/12/2016 01:54

Catching that's a rather silly and patronising post, isn't it?

I'm not entirely sure what I said to make you so angry, but I think you will find I did not say anything in my post about eliminating all risk. That is not, of course, possible with pregnancy, mode of birth, or indeed life. I am as well aware of that as you are, thank-you. I was speaking about weighing risks and balancing them against each other. I have in fact had to make this decision myself, and am very happy with my decision, and the outcome.

I note from your posts that you have a different take on it to me, and may well make a different decision. That is fine by me. I feel no need to be rude or patronising to you about that. Different strokes for different folks.

CatchingBabies · 14/12/2016 02:05

Not patronising or rude. You stated you would not accept any increased risk of stillbirth to your baby and accept any risks to you to prevent this as being acceptable. I was pointing out it isn't that simple.

The OP isn't choosing between a perfectly safe option and an unsafe option, both are potentially risky and both are more than likely safe. Therefore the choice is surely up to her?

She has stated she's looked at the evidence, others have pointed out the evidence and the strength of the evidence highlighting risks of induction (to the baby) is much higher than that highlighting the risks of postterm stilbirth.

No stillbirth is acceptable ever, but as stated earlier countries that don't induce at 42 weeks have a MUCH lower stillbirth rate than we do.

The Mbrrace report lists maternal and fetal deaths annually and the vast majority of preventable stilbirths listed are before term yet people would think it madness to start inducing all women early based on these tiny risks. Yet when women question an invasive and risky procedure they are called selfish and told they are putting their baby at risk (not by you). I find that disgusting.

Alorsmum · 14/12/2016 02:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Alorsmum · 14/12/2016 02:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EstelleRoberts · 14/12/2016 02:40

Catching I'm afraid I did find your post patronising and rude. Having read it back, I still find it so. You came across as though your attitude was that I was a silly little girl, who had failed to appreciate the fact there were risks attached to all the options. I hope you don't speak to your patients like that, as to do so at a time they are vulnerable could be damaging. However, I guess from your latter post that you didn't mean to come across the way that you did.

Of course the choice is up to the OP. I never said differently. However, she has posted on MN to get views from other people, and that is what I, and you, have given. She is free to take on board the views that chime with her, and discard the rest.

With regard to strength of evidence, there is a lot more evidence to be had about induction, whereas the evidence on stillbirth is scant and we actually don't have much to go on. If we are to question the evidence, it would be truer to say we don't really know if going over 42 weeks is hugely riskier, though the studies we do have suggest it is slightly more risky, rather than imply that the studies are probably wrong and there is no extra risk. Lack of evidence because studies have not been done is not the same as there being no evidence in favour of an intervention, once having carried out RCTs. My view would be to go with the evidence, even though it's incomplete at present. I would personally rather induce or do ELCS than go over 42 weeks. Others must feel the same as me, otherwise it would not be NHS policy. However, you and OP might choose otherwise.

With regard to stillbirth in the U.K. generally, I think it is disgusting that we have such a high rate, and that we are not offering better care, and doing more to reduce them. Why so few growth scans? Why so few Doppler scans?

minifingerz · 14/12/2016 09:36

Minifingerz your question might just as easily be turned back on you: why are you so fixated on the risks of not breastfeeding (C), yet are laissez-faire about the risks of going over 42 weeks? Why focus on one but not the other?"

I wouldn't tell anyone what to do when it comes to feeding choices - every parent has a right to make an informed choice for their child and we all have our own comfort zones around risk taking behaviours when it comes to our families.

However it's only in relation to feeding choices that people are not only perfectly happy to disregard advice given by major health organisations like the NHS and the American Academy of Paediatrics on the basis that ff 'works for me', but they also (as you have done above) insist that these organisations have actually got it wrong - that there is no good evidence that breastfeeding reduces the risk of death and hospitalisation for babies. Why is the mother's well-being more important than reducing risk to her baby by choosing breastfeeding, but not in relation to the risks to her physical and emotional health when it comes to induction?

Make up your mind - are NHS recommendations worthwhile paying attention to (as you seem to believe is the case in relation to induction) or irrelevant and unreliable (as in relation to breastfeeding)?

minifingerz · 14/12/2016 09:39

"The death of my child would be such a huge catastrophe that I would not be happy to accept any increased risk of that."

So you have breastfed exclusively for six months then?

Because this is associated with the lowest risk of SIDS.

EstelleRoberts · 14/12/2016 09:59

Minifingerz you need to pay much closer attention to what people actually post.

Nowhere did I 'insist that these organisations have got it wrong'. I did point out that the evidence for breastfeeding is not particularly robust. Which is perfectly true for the most part, seeing as it is not ethical to conduct RCTs for breastfeeding, and it is hard to account for confounders in the studies that have been done.

However, I did not suggest ignoring what evidence there actually is. I asked you why you are so fixated on breastfeeding - to the point you brought it into this thread about a completely unrelated subject - to the point you would treat the evidence for breastfeeding in one way, and the evidence for going overdue in another.

Make up your mind - are NHS recommendations worthwhile paying attention to (as you seem to believe is the case in relation to induction) or irrelevant and unreliable (as in relation to breastfeeding)?

This is what you need to do. I didn't tell people to do one and not the other. I didn't bring breastfeeding into the conversation. You did. So which is it, Minifingerz? Follow the guidelines or not?

happymumof4crazykids · 14/12/2016 11:14

Minifingerz the reason why many more women need intervention in hospital than at home is because anyone high risk gives birth at hospital not at home!
I have had two spontaneous labours and two inductions and I can tell you my two inductions were a lot easier and were much quicker labours than my spontaneous labours!
On my 3rd pregnancy my placenta fell apart as it was delivered and that was at 38 +5 weeks. At my dating scan my due date was pushed back by 8 days so chances are I was closer to 40 weeks. I had GD so that is why my placenta was failing if I had insisted on going term or over I wouldn't have had my healthy baby.

CatchingBabies · 14/12/2016 13:33

Diabetes isn't the same though, the risk of going to term or even overdue is huge when the pregnancy is complicated by diabetes. The stillbirth risk increases 10 fold! Not comparable at all and I would never advise any woman with diabetes to avoid induction!

Estelle - You mentioned how we don't really know the risks of going past 42 weeks, which I accept is true as the evidence is so tiny and weak in the UK. In other countries however, France being one, women routinely go past 42 weeks and their stillbirth rate is lower than ours. They clearly haven't had huge numbers of late stillbirths causing them to change their policy.

The fact is there isnt a right answer. I have seen babies die that may have been saved if induced earlier (may) and I have seen babies die as a direct result of elective sections. There is always risk.

However if you are low risk, no maternal or concerns, no history of concern etc. Then the evidence would say that the risk of intervening is higher than the risk of leaving well alone.

Everyone makes their own decision based on what they believe. Like I said no issue with you or anything you have said, it's the "your baby will die" comments I object to.

HomeIsWhereTheGinisNow · 14/12/2016 14:07

This is the bit where I duck out. The OP has disappeared, hopefully because she's occupied by a happy and healthy baby, but when people like Minifingerz start weighing in with stats that are simply incorrect or read incorrectly (ten times more babies are stillborn than die of SIDS in the UK) and people start talking about degrees of risk to their child that they deem acceptable, then I, who have had a stillbirth, fail to see the point in discussing it any further. Misinformation is one of the reasons still birth rates are so shamefully high in this country and this thread is pretty scary in some of the factually incorrect assertions made. Of course it's not "your baby WILL die" scaremongering, it's "there's an increased chance they might" and I find it unbelievable that anyone, anywhere, would willingly take that risk.

ghostspirit · 14/12/2016 17:21

Oh I had the scare-mail mongering when I said I was having a home birth to

Peregrina · 15/12/2016 00:29

Minifingerz the reason why many more women need intervention in hospital than at home is because anyone high risk gives birth at hospital not at home!

The majority of women give birth in CLUs and they are by no means all high risk. Minifingers is almost certainly referring to research comparing the place of birth for low risk women. The fact that women with high risk factors need intervention doesn't explain why the low risk ones do.

BeaveredBadgered · 15/12/2016 21:43

I felt something wasn't quite right with my pregnancy at 39 weeks and so went for a private scan. The sonographer said the placenta was worn and grainy. My baby's growth had really slowed compared with previous scans. I was induced two days later. It was only a hunch, and it could have worked out fine had I not checked but I'm beyond glad I had the scan and my baby was delivered safely.

ginagenie · 22/12/2016 09:39

Thanks everyone for all advice. I did go into labour at 41+6, managed to labour at home for about 36 hours which I'm really grateful for then they induced in hospital, induction didn't work in my case, well it did make contractions continuous but didn't dilate me. I'd definitely refuse the drip in future, it probably would've been ok with an epidural but without pain relief the drip contractions were too much, just feels like your spine is being ripped in half!
Baby was fine on monitoring the whole time but they wanted me to get to 6cm to try instrument delivery and it just wasn't happening so in the end they knocked me out and C sectioned me.
I'd definitely try for a homebirth next time but no sweeps and def no induction either the baby gets into right position and labour happens naturally in its own time or it'll be another GA C section. Labouring at home was definitely preferable, once in hospital it was all catheters, giant venflons and lots of pretty invasive internals. I'd feel confident about coping with pain if baby didn't flip back to back before labour, the front contractions are painful but manageable, the back ones not so much!
I think the risks of late delivery are still less than that of a GA C Section which is why I'd definitely choose homebirth again.
I'm happy anyway as have a beautiful baby boy who is healthy and strongSmile

OP posts:
BeaveredBadgered · 22/12/2016 09:44

Huge congratulations Flowers
I'm sorry you weren't able to have a home birth but healthy and strong is all that matters. Enjoy the froggy legged newborn cuddles!

Oly5 · 22/12/2016 10:15

I am glad you got to labour at home and congratulations! But i would still say all the interventions at hospital were necessary to produce this healthy baby you have now!

minifingerz · 22/12/2016 20:38

"This is the bit where I duck out. The OP has disappeared, hopefully because she's occupied by a happy and healthy baby, but when people like Minifingerz start weighing in with stats that are simply incorrect"

The statistics I'm quoting come from the NICE Intrapartum Care guidelines.

The outcomes are for low risk mothers in a range of birth settings.

here

minifingerz · 22/12/2016 20:40

Congratulations OP Smile

Sounds like you went through a lot to get your baby safely born. Wishing you a quick recovery!

Evergreen17 · 30/12/2016 16:29

"But i would still say all the interventions at hospital were necessary to produce this healthy baby you have now!" Please Oly dont be that person Hmm

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.