Being induced due to maternal age?

[Grumpos]

Am 26 weeks today and only last week a midwife noticed I am 37 years old and therefore should be under consultant care. I am classified low risk and until now had no issues identified, my appointment was made with consultant purely due to being over 34.
I’ve seen the Dr today, very lovely lady and had a full scan, explained perfectly and reassured there are no causes for concern but again due to age I’ll have a couple of extra growth scans and see Dr back in her clinic in July to discuss further (I asked to be discharged if no problems identified bc I want a Home birth).
Consultant not massively open to the home birth idea I could tell but that doesn’t surprise me, however one thing she did say was that they like to induce at 39 weeks for older mums.
Again, this is purely for age. I do not want to be induced for no reason other than being a slightly older mum. I want to be able to birth naturally and use the pool and be at home if possible - if not at home then at least free to move around the delivery room and not consigned to the bed for possible days until the induction kicks in. Of course if an induction was needed after the 40/41 week mark or for any health reason I’d be fine with it. But age alone?
I’m waffling on but basically my question is - has anyone been in same situation? Low risk but consultant led for age and either accepted or denied an induction?
I have a lot of time to think about it but I need experiences from women as well as the academic evidence (which actually looks pretty unfounded) to know how I really feel about it.
Sorry for long post, any experiences welcome!!!

I’m 38 and have a higher bmi so have 2 risk factors but am not under consultant care. I just need to see a consultant once at 20 weeks but other than that midwife led.
Being induced has not been mentioned. (Although ds came at 37+4 so I’m fully expecting dc2 to be early too)

I've never heard of this in my area. in fact I've heard multiple MW in my hospital say that 37 is "normal", "young" etc. Where I am they offer induction at full term (40w) if you are 40 yo or over. No way they would offer induction at 37 just on basis of age. I don't know of any scientific evidence to back that up? Surely induction brings more risks to the table potentially (I say that as someone who was) and statistically it definitely increases the likelihood of more medical interventions including EMCS.

We were induced at 41/42 w only because baby didn't come. we were offered induction at term because of ivf (nothing to do with age even though we're in the age bracket being discussed), but because there were no risks per se in our pregnancy, they said no need to induce at term if we didn't want to, so we didn't.

no one can force you to have an induction regardless, they may make recommendations but ultimately it's your choice!

Sounds a bit over cautious - I had my second at 40, my consultant said she'd like to deliver around 40 weeks if I was agreeable, she did say she had mums of 45 and she'd be quite insistent that they delivered by 40 weeks as the chance of spontaneous stillborn is much higher but at 40 my risks were much lower.
I had to have a section in the end due to baby not engaging, as with my first (had her at 36)

Are you in the U.K? I had mine at 35 and 39, both times were under midwife care. I had my second in a midwife led unit too. I could have gone to a midwife led unit for the first but didn’t only because I went to the default hospital where I live.

And obviously neither were induced.

Sycamore you're right but only from age 40+, OP is 37.

That's why most trusts want to induce 40+ mothers so they give birth sooner rather than later.

If we started inducing all 37+ year olds from 40 weeks I suspect our country wide intervention rate would skyrocket, which has risks in itself.

I've been reading up on this because induction is on the table for me if he hasn't come of his own accord his EDD, but I'm 41. I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests induction should be recommended for an otherwise healthy and "normal" 37 year old. It sounds as though your consultant/trust is being unusually risk averse, personally I'd ask about the research that they're basing their recommendation on (if it is a recommendation and not just an option?).

PS just realised that your trust goes consultant led at 34+, that's really young/unusual!

Thanks everyone, very very useful comments and I appreciate everyone sharing!
I’m not against induction when needed of course and I’d still try to make the birth process as relaxed and “natural” as possible but I would like to avoid if not deemed very necessary!
My hospital and care so far has been great, consultant was actually lovely and agreed age is not by itself a risk factor which requires a lot of intervention, just some extra scans. Seems my local trust have different protocol, I’m in the North East of England BTW. Usually our services are cut to the hilt so i am completely surprised the age limit for consultant is so low!
@sycamore - thank you for the in-depth reply, that’s exactly the sort of reading I did when I came home and that’s what I saw, the recent studies relating to still birth, this is what the consultant alluded to. I will continue to research - I do love an academic paper! (I don’t get out much )
I certainly won’t be pushed into anything I’m not happy with but I’ll hold my cards to my chest until next growth scans are done then have a good chat with midwife.

Here are two pretty good links on the risks over 35. They seem to me (as a non-expert) to support the case that being over 35 does increase risks to mother and baby, although they’re still low in absolute terms, but don’t seem to support a blanket policy of induction at 39 weeks (neither do they indicate that this would be wrong).

evidencebasedbirth.com/advanced-maternal-age/

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418963/

Warning - whilst the first link is measured and reassuring in tone, it does talk about stillbirth numbers.

It’s probably due to this very recent study: journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002425

X post. There also a plain language summary on the nhs website which is well worth reading.

www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/older-mothers-may-benefit-being-induced-their-due-date/
Link to the summary - the paper doesn't support induction for first time mothers aged 37 with no other risk factors. This is indeed relatively recent but doesn't really affect the existing guidance.

The current NICE guidelines are based on the RCOG scientific impact paper 34 already linked to above, which also doesn't support induction for low risk FTMs aged 37.

I had my babies at age 35 and 37. Induction was never mentioned. I had the first at 35+5 and the second at 40+4. Went into labour naturally both times.

I am 37 and not under a Consultant due to my age; I think it is over 40 here.

I had this when I was pregnant. I was 42 and the whole pregnancy all they talked about was inducing me before the due date. They said it's their policy to not let women in the 40s go close to their due date because of problems that can arise in older mums. I had no high bp and had a normal healthy pregnancy apart from early morning sickness which is normal. Anyway in the end I got further and further along and I actually went to an appointment with my consultant on my due date (so I was 40 weeks)
He said I seemed ok and I was doing well and he was happy to leave me so that the birth would happen naturally. In the end I gave birth at 40+4.
I just thought it was weird that the whole time from virtually 5 weeks pregnant all they talked about was inducing early.

I'm 35, I am consultant led but that is due to previous EMCS, no one has mentioned a thing about my age. I would certainly not be accepting an induction based on age alone, especially if things haven't kicked of on their own. You cannot be forced to have one, they can only advise and you have to give your consent before they can do anything to you.