Experiences of pregnancy going beyond 42 weeks?

[WhatIsPink]

Anyone who have gone over 42 weeks? I’m currently 41+4, while first child was born 41+6 and then second 41+4. Although very likely this one will come out in the next few days, but if not, wanted to hear anyone’s experience who actually went over 42 weeks, both how to discuss either the hospital and also research on the safety. Hospital is big on induction which I’m not too keen but 42 weeks is a mark which does get me a bit worried.

You mean rebutting incorrect information?

Most of the info ive presented on postdates has been informed by following the work and discussion of this guy for over a decade.

https://www.tommys.org/about-us/our-people/our-research-experts/professor-alex-heazell

The “informed” choice to risk their baby dying?

After my last baby, there’s no way I’d wait as long as I did. Induction was only possible at 42 weeks, I went into labour at 41+3. During labour, I felt a big gush and thought waters had gone. It wasn’t waters, it was blood from failing placenta. Cue panic from midwives, immediate monitoring. If the baby hadn’t come quick after that, I would have had an emergency c-section. Placenta was in bits when it came out. Just don’t take any risks

Yeah. Like the risk of baby dying also comes with induction.

You don't seem to care if babies die though. You're posting some strange posts.

On the debate going on here - obviously every woman should be able to make an informed decision about what happens to her body, whether it's wise or not.

Bodily autonomy means that no woman should be forced into doing or allowing something she doesn't want if she's mentally competent. If that means her baby dies (whatever she chooses) then she's the one who has to live with that, but anything that happens to her body must be her free and informed choice.

Much less so.

I’m sorry but no. When you have chosen to have a baby you need to accept that you will sometimes have to act in their best interest. Chasing the ideal birth to make yourself feel like a social media hero is disgusting.

I worked with a young woman who had gone to 42 weeks. This was around 10 years ago, before they started encouraging women bot to go past 41 weeks). She'd had monitoring every couple of days from 41 weeks and was told they'd induce when she hit 42 weeks exactly, which was a Monday. Baby was alive and well at the monitoring app on the Friday, on Sunday night she realised she hasn't felt the baby kicking. The baby has died, and she was forced to give birth the next day.
It changed the course of her life and devastatingly, she died from aggressive bowel cancer aged just 24 just a couple of years later. I often wonder if they'd both still be here had she been offered induction earlier.

When I had my own baby, and they told me he was measuring large (risk of shoulder distocia etc) and offered me an induction at 39 weeks- I bloody took it. As it happened, he still got stuck, but thankfully higher up so wasn't in distress when I had to have an emergency c section. I've had plenty of women smugly suggest I probably only ended up with the section because I'd had the induction- I roll my eyes. No one knows that, he already got stuck so how would that have gone any better when he was bigger? My baby made it here safely, I didnt gamble with his life. However small some say the risk is, it's still a pointless risk.

Just to shout a bit louder as there seems to be a binary argument of waiting vs induction: you can just ask for a C Section, which you have a good chance of ending up with anyway, if that’s what you would prefer. There are risks with everything and you will sign a form acknowledging that risk if you agree to surgery, but if you make a positive choice to do that you are likely to deliver safely and avoid trauma through the ‘unknown’ of the waiting for labour or induction process. I think its important to say this is a valid option!

No that's not true. The stats are probably about the same although reading recent maternity reports, I'd bet the number of babies who die after induction vs those who dies after 42 weeks is higher.

Yes.

I do care about actual babies dying. Theoretical babies, I can speak of objectively. That's why I'm probably in a better position to give unbiased information

I think it's stupid too, and I'd never do that myself.

But that's not actually the point. The point is that women have bodily autonomy. (Shocking concept, I know).

You cannot hold a woman down and force her to undergo a medical procedure she does not consent to. The foetus's rights do not outweigh the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Totally agree with this, I back all decisions I made with labour and birth but if I could do one thing differently, I'd have asked instead for an elective section when I was offered the induction (baby measuring large). So I'd have avoided the 24 hours in agony with the balloon, the 3 extra days in hospital and 18 hours of further agony on a drip with a failed epidural. It's a very valid choice for many women and I don't know a single woman who's regretted an elective.

The Swedish study into allowing pregnancy to continue until 42 weeks had to be abandoned because of the sharp upswing in deaths. These days they recommend induction at 41 weeks.

I gave birth at one of the hospitals involved in this study in the 1990s when it was a rabidly, stupidly pro-natural birth place and they almost killed me and my baby.

I had 3 mum-friends in my village who were allowed to go to to 43 weeks and all had huge babies; 11lb 2, 12lb 12, and 13lb 6! One baby had to have years of surgery from the effects.

I had my first baby at 42+2.

I actually went in for induction at 41+3. I’d already had two sweeps, which did nothing.

They tried the pessaries to start off the induction process, but it went on for about 3 or maybe 4 days I think with zero effect. I wasn’t dilated even 1cm and so they couldn’t break my waters and start the full induction.

I was then scheduled for a c-section, which was then ‘bumped’ for emergencies multiple times until finally it went ahead at 42+2.

I was in hospital being monitored while going into week 42, so I suppose that was good/safest for my baby, although the days spent on the antenatal ward werent great (a whole other thread!).

DS was still fine, amniotic fluids all good, I was healthy etc. right up until he was born by section at 42+2. But he obviously just didn’t want to come out. Longest week of my life!

It was a negotiated outcome, not a case of them deciding or me deciding. It’s a shared decision, not a battle to win or lose.

https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6131/rr-5

The risk of stillbirth is small but is it worth taking that risk when the consequence couldn't be any worse? I had my second at 41+2 and when I delivered the placenta the midwife was horrified at how calcified and black it was in places. I was lucky I went into labour spontaneously as that placenta was dying. I was booked for induction at 41+5 and would have gone for that if I didn't labour spontaneously.

If your previous 2 were straightforward vaginal births then is every chance that having the propess pessary will be enough to get things going, or they may find you are dilated enough to go straight to breaking your waters- avoiding the syntocinon drip that many associate with unnecessary interventions.

Here's hoping baby comes soon OP, best wishes with it all.

The Swedish study did not bear out your assertion.

There were 2 groups of overdue women - who were allocated at random to 2 groups when they reached 40 weeks - they were allowed to go overdue by 1 or 2 weeks. If they did not give birth spontaneously:
group 1 were induced at the start of week 42 (after 41 full weeks)
group 2 were induced at the start of week 43 (after 42 full weeks)

The study had to be abandoned on ethical grounds such was the disparity between the groups and the high neonatal death rate for group 2

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/28/post-term-pregnancy-research-cancelled-babies-die-sweden

I would imagine you are right, but there would be a much higher number of pregnancies ending with inductions across weeks 37-42 compared to pregnancies going past 42 weeks (and an even smaller sample of the latter without induction involved) so a higher number of deaths in the induction population wouldn’t mean a higher rate/risk of death overall, right? Like if 100 people had an induction and 4 babies died, but of 5 people going past 42 weeks two babies died, you wouldn’t conclude it was safer to not induce. If you are saying though that the rates of deaths for induction are higher than they would be if these women went past 42 weeks without intervention then it would be baffling why they try induction at all, and would certainly merit a change in NHS policy.

I'll show other people's criticism of the study, too. It came out while I was pregnant so I was very interested, as was Prof Alex and Brian Beatty

Well that's what some people argue. It isnt even in the hospitals favour at this point to routinely induce this many people. A lot of people think it is defensive practice because you'd be more likely to be found responsible for a baby's death if you did nothing vs if you tried something like induction and they died as a result.