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

Pregnancy

Talk about every stage of pregnancy, from early symptoms to preparing for birth.

Flip

Original poster

Oh bloody arsing hell! 39+1 and no longer engaged, dammit!

12 replies

Bogeyface · 18/05/2011 20:46

I was quite excited to hear on Monday that I was 2/5ths engaged, because as this is my 6th baby I wasnt expecting that until labour so therefore I thought that perhaps labour was on its way.

This morning I had a bad bout of the runs, and add that to the v v bad BH I was having over night and the supposed engagement of the head I thought we were on our way.....

But no. BH stopped, FUMW (Fucking Useless MidWife) finally turned up (an hour late, again) and said that she couldnt do a sweep as my cervix is very high and she couldnt even get a fingertip in although it is soft and 50% effaced but then it was that a week ago. She said that I should be quite pleased as my cervix is like that of a woman who is on her first pregnancy, not sure why that should please me but hey ho! The head is no longer engaged and I am as close to labour as I was a week ago....nowhere effing near in other words.

Oh well, seeing the consultant on tuesday which is my due date, for another VE to see if there is any progress and to discuss a date for induction. All things being equal I should have been induced a week ago due to my SPD but it was impossible due to my super tight cervix and she didnt want to risk a CS after 5 natural easy births if an induction failed because of an unfavourable cervix, which I agree with.

I said all along that this one would be late, as mine tend to be, and I was right! I shouldnt have allowed myself to be talked into maybe being early should I? My own fault! Onwards to the EDD and beyond!

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

whomovedmychocolate · 18/05/2011 20:48

I read somewhere that babies in multipara mums didn't descend till the start of labour.

Perhaps this one is preparing to dive!

Original poster

Bogeyface · 18/05/2011 20:53

:o:o:o

You just made me see in my minds eye a baby with a periscope shouting "DIVE DIVE DIVE" :o

Thank you and fingers crossed eh?! :)

OP posts:

whomovedmychocolate · 18/05/2011 20:55

Laughter is good! Laughter will help.

This one will probably poke the midwife with his periscope during descent

Almost6 · 19/05/2011 07:24

Hi bogey face, this is my 6th too and wasn't expecting him to engage so early he been there since 29w, am getting quite fed up with labour signs that then disappear! Am guessing he will make an appearance on sat as dh at work n mum is out for the day with sister so will have to deal with it on my own!
Just wanted to say good luck, here's hoping they get wriggle on! (downwards direction) :)

CBear6 · 19/05/2011 08:10

I had the world and it's bloody sister telling me that I'd go overdue with DS because he wasn't engaged. I'd been offered an induction because I'd had multiple bleeds so the consultant didn't want me going past 40 weeks. I had an appointment with him at 39+2 and, because I'd had no recent bleeds, he agreed to let me go the full two weeks "overdue" (on the provisio that if I had any more bleeding it was a same day induction).

I was told by my own mother that I was stupid to knock the induction back because the baby wasn't even engaged, he'll just stay in there growing, you'll go two weeks over and you'll end up being induced anyway but with a much bigger baby. Thanks mam :)

Anyway, 39+5 I went into labour. DS didn't engage at all until I was 6cm dilated (my water didn't even break until 10cm). My SIL's baby was engaged from about 32 weeks and stayed there and she went two days over. You never know,

Original poster

Bogeyface · 19/05/2011 09:22

Almost6 when is your due date? Hope it goes well for you, to have him engaged so early is very unusual isnt it? Fingers crossed it means a nice easy birth for you!

CBear6 Good point about the engaged head not really meaning anything, I think it was just that in addition to everything else that got me thinking we might be on our way. Ah well, she will come when she is ready, as you proved!

OP posts:

Almost6 · 19/05/2011 09:46

Thank you, im 37+2, all mine have engaged early, had 1st and 3rd late and others were from 4-11 days early. Had 2 really crap births with assistance and 3 normal, and last was 9"6 and natural so size isn't an issue either think it just depends on how baby's lying! am bit scared bout this one as I think he gona be massive, and I've also been told pph is more likely from 6 onwards! Has any one else heard of this or had this after bub 6.
Good luck to all you ladies, hope you all have lovely and easy childbirths!

BagofHolly · 19/05/2011 10:26

Do YOU think the baby is no longer engaged? Your mw might be wrong and it's not an exact science. The (useless) registrar I saw with DS1 said my boy was 3/5 engaged, without even examining me! I think it was her default observation. I saw my own obstetrician and he snorted and gave the baby a huge wiggle, and pointed out what I already knew which was that he was transverse! Maybe mw is just wrong?

Original poster

Bogeyface · 19/05/2011 10:36

Almost6 - I have been given dire warnings of PPH too purely because of the number of babies I have had. I am booked for home and the consultants reaction to that was the same as if I had said I was birthing in a whore pit and then sacrificing the baby on an altar! I was sent to the consultant as i think the MW team were hoping she would talk me out of it! I have had 5 natural easy births, no problems at all, yet because it is number 6 I am suddenly the worst risk in the world ever! :o If you look into it, the study that said that PPH is increased in women with more than 5 babies is flawed as it doesnt take into account previous obstetric and general health. It doesnt for example, take into account gestational diabetes, excessive weight in the mother, and previous gynae/obs problems which obviously have a bearing.

BagofHolly - The FUMW said yesterday that she could feel the baby on the brim but it was free and not engaged. She is effing hopeless at time and note keeping (she once had to take my BP three times as she forgot what it was in between taking the arm band off and writing it down ffs!) but seems to be spot on with the actual care part so I think she is probably right. I know that they can pop in an out in subsequent pg's, so I shouldnt be surprised! I have come to the conclusion that MW etc like to tell us that our baby will be early so we dont bug them for sweeps and inductions :o

OP posts:

Almost6 · 19/05/2011 20:55

Hi bogeyface, your a bit ahead of me, I'm 37+2, let me know how you get on! Hope all goes well with your homebirth. I would love another homebirth just so I don't have to find childcare for others, but am not brave enough just in case! do you know what your having, I have 4b 1g and another b to look forward to! Maybe babe 6 but I'm so excited I'm like a kid on Xmas eve lol and dosent help that I'm the most impatient person in the world either lol. Good luck, and wishing you a lovely birth n healthy mum n baby at the end!

BagofHolly · 20/05/2011 23:35

Bogey, is that your only risk factor for PPH? I had several risk factors last time - twins, on heparin, polyhydramnios, macrocosmic babies (so they thought) and general very stretched uterus. And I DID have a severe PPH straight after, and it was a Bad Thing! I'd listen carefully to the consultants and take into account what plans would be in place if you actually had one. If I'd been at home, I'd have been a gonner, no doubt about it.

Original poster

Bogeyface · 21/05/2011 08:00

BOH, yes that is my only risk factor. Had there been anything else then of course I wouldnt entertain a HB.

OP posts:

Flip