INDUCTION ON DUE DATE AT AGE 42

[wools]

I'm seeking the advice of other mums/experts regarding a decision I will probably have to make shortly. Due to my age, I know my hospital will want to induce me on my due date (this happened a year ago with my youngest ds when I was age 41 - I am with the same hospital again this time).
With both my ds's births I have had long and difficult labours - both ending in a ventouse delivery. I am very keen to avoid intervention if I possibly can. Following my youngest ds's birth last year, I spoke to one of the midwifes in the postnatal ward who suggested that there really was no reason for me to be induced and that next time I should stick to my guns (she showed me a dissertation she had written on this very subject). Obviously the hospital feel that due to my age it is risky to go beyond the due date with placenta detoriation being a possible problem. I just wondered if anybody else had been in the same boat and what they did. I am 35 weeks now and due to see my consultant next week so I would like to be as informed as I can be.

My consultant in Glasgow said that when I had ds2 (38) he was more than happy for me to go at least 10 days over - sadly high bp meant an induction at 39 weeks. As long as you're healthy and the baby is fine I would stick it out if I were you. Most hospitals will let you go 7/10 days over well they did 3yrs ago anyway. From what I can see having googled with you have gestational diabetes there is more of a risk. Tell the consultant what you what and see what they say.

Thats a hard one Wools, you should maybe get a copy of this paper from said midwife, I think professionals often respond better to something when it is written down.
I take it that you don't want or haven't been offered a c section. Don't get me wrong I'm sure its better to have a VB, but part of me might be tempted in your position to go for a section, if they say you have to be induced. If it's going to be even more painful becasue is an induction, and presumably you have to be hooked up monitor/IV?
Sure most people will disagree with me on this, but just a thought

sorry I can see by you saying "I am very keen to avoid intervention if I can", that you probably would not be keen on having a section.

i totally sympathise. i was 29 and 31 when my dds were born, but both times i went overdue- by 2 weeks and 6 days. i had 2 failed inductions that resulted in 2 c sections. i felt robbed of a natural birth. there was so much scaremongery about baby's health. i never knew how seriously to take it all. i wish i'd been strong enough to ask for a scan to check placenta function and gone overdue a little longer. but i wasn't. i gave in to my anxiety.

go with your instinct. good luck.

Hi Wells, what was the condition of the placenta after your youngest's birth a year ago?
I don't think your age is a good enugh reason for you to have an induction.
If your placenta was fine after the birth of your ds, then there is no real reason to suppose that there it will have deteriorated enough to warant inducing you.
I am 39 years old, and this has never been mentioned to me at all, and my consultant is itching to get me in for c-section, but not for this reason. Can you get a second opinion?
Also according to WHO, you are not overdue until you go over 42 weeks.
Also, 42 years old, is not too old to be having healthy babies, IMO.
Ask for extra monitoring and scans to give you more confidence.
Good luck.x

I have to say that age is less and less an excuse used by hospitals nowadays! I think it's an old myth!
If they are genuinely concerned about your placenta then they should offer a scan not an induction!
BTW - what ever happens you are totally within your right to refuse an induction.

Wonder what Mears thinks!

I think that there is no reason why your pregnancy should be induced compared to a 'younger' woman. You are obviously functioning well in that you got pregnant in the first place. Why would your placenta deteriorate faster than a younger woman's? I personally would avoid inducy=tion unless there was a clinical need - your age is not a clinical indication IMO. Stick to your guns. Get them to give you the research papers telling you why you need induced - I am not aware of them myself

I was induced 8 weeks ago at 1 days overdue and 44 years old. waited for natural but I felt that baby needed to visit the world. Induction did not appear any more painful than other two births - in fact I felt more prepared as the day went on and more in control. other children (5 & 11) were also prepared for birth

Thanks everyone, you've been great. My gut instinct was to hold out for a natural birth this time and am happy to have scans or fetal heartbeat monitoring if this would make the hospital happier. I've already had 2 pregnancies induced (the first because ds was 2 weeks late - age funny enough not an issue even though was 39 at the time, although it was a different hospital)and although I can't be totally sure this has made the labour and delivery more difficult, I would like the opportunity to see if a natural birth would be better.

Incidentally my mother was 41 when she had me and 43 when she had my sister, and had both totally naturally so I hope this bodes well.

I was induced 14 days overdue at the age of 43y9m. Nobody suggested that I should be induced before then and I never asked to be. Took 2 lots of gel, 4 hours apart. Nothing happened until a few hours later. Gentle, gradual early labour. Baby born 1hr after 'proper' pains. Quite intense last 20mins. I can't see why you would need to be induced on basis of age.

Oh and just to say - Out of 9 deliveries, 2 have been induced (14days o/d) and the other 7 were all spontaneous past 40weeks(between 2 and 11days o/d).

Thanks Juuule, that is very interesting.

Just thought I'd add that the 2 inductions were 1st baby at 27 and as said before the last. So again not age related.

Nine deliveries, Juuule? Wow. I'm clearly a lightweight with my one ds!

Hmmm...mine started with one ds