What's the longest a pregnancy can safely go?

[Pruni]

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

That can happen at 38 weeks though...

it can hapen at any time sadly.

I would have thought she is getting excellent care from an independant midwife who knows her and knows her stuff. She would advise her to be induced if there were any problems.

IME inductions are disgustingly horrible and would avoid like the plague - I think failed induction is the number 1 cause of emergency caesarean & you are far more likely to require pain relief/ further interventions if you start off by being induced. So, if the baby is fine I would rather leave it be until it becomes necessary. However, I may change my mind when this one is 40+1!

Argee - inductions are dreadful - and to be avoided if at all possible.

i went 15 days over due date and was induced and it was fab..lot better than i expected. When baby was born they said his placenta had started to deteriorate so would assume 2wks plus over is a long while.

Another vote from me that inductions are indeed horrible

both of my babies were 42 weeks. I was induced with first and it was indeed horendous/traumatic experience. luckily was 12 hours away from being induced with second, when it all started naturally - sooooo much better.

I was told the bones in the skull are less moveable if the baby is late and so can be difficult to deliver naturally as it won't all squash together iyswim.

i had my dd at 43+3 and she was 7lb 1oz and a very healthy baby.

I was born at 44 weeks gestation, with no major problems, apart from my skin being very cracked and dried out. Olive oil massage seemed to sort that out, according to my mother.

My friend experienced the same as littlerach has written and delivered a stillborn boy at 42 weeks - the induction did not work and she had an emergency c section after a few days of trying to induce - he was just too big for her to deliver apparently and was perfect - she would need to be in a hospital I would have thought, at this stage as she must be getting into a 'high risk' category? Hope this all does not go the way that some of us fear
cant' you talk to her and try and get her to change her mind? Good luck

At the end of the day, this is her child, and her body.

Maybe she is of the opinion of nature will do what it wants (including losing the baby)?

Friend had a 12lb baby, 44 weeks, at home - a perfectly healthy boy. I think that some people do have naturally longer pregnancies, just as we have different length cycles.

Why on earth would pruni want to try and change her friend's mind? Quite apart from the fact that it's not in any way her place to (no offence pruni), as flame says - 40 weeks is not set in stone, by any means.

If baby appears healthy, mother is happy and midwife is supportive, why not just let nature take its course? I'm sure Pruni's friend has thouhgt carefully about all the options and her decision should be respected.

Message withdrawn

I delivered my first baby at 44+1!!! and he was fine - 10lbs!!, very very dry and fat - but fine! im sure i remember a lady on mumsnet a few months ago who got to about 42 weeks and her baby died in the womb, but its difficult to say as how can u tell if its because she went over or it was something else? im sure your friend will be fine, there must be millions of women who go way over all the time! xx

Some people have naturally long pregnancies, some naturally short. I went to 42 weeks with dd, having been induced at 40+12 with ds - had homebirth with dd which wouldn't be possible with induction, had fantastic labour, and although she was big (10lb+) both the midwives and GP said she seemed more like a preterm baby in her appearance (vernix etc) and were convinced my dates were wrong. I think where you ovulate in your cycle can make a HUGE difference.

If she had an early scan (eg 12 weeks) that can give you a clue by the relative size of the baby to the average for the dates given - both mine were small on the scan, but big babies when born.

Hope baby comes soon!

Pruni

Are they taking into account the fact that she is small into the risk factor of this pregnancy? My friend found out after the stillbirth she was too small to deliver her son naturally - her following two pregnancies were delivered by C-Section at 39 weeks. I really do hope that this all turns out good....

I added the change her mind to the comment due to witnessing what my friend went through when she lost her son due to the length her pregnancy was allowed to go to, what we went through supporting her afterwards, I would never want anyone, ever, to go through it

There were lots of what ifs, and still are

That all

I totally understand those concerns Fimac, of course, but it really is not anyone's place to try and change a woman's mind about the way she conducts her pregnancy unless that woman is completely ignorant of risk factors/potential consequences etc and walking blindly into a situation.

From what pruni has said this would not appear to be the case here. Her friend has hired an independent mw and I would imagine has an honest and open relationship with her (that is usually the case with the one-to-one care an IM can offer). And the midwife would not be doing her job properly if she did not keep pruni's friend well appraised of all the possible consequences. She would be looking at the situation as a whole, not just focusing on what the calendar says. If it has been a healthy pregnancy so far and the mother is happy to 'go to 43 weeks and then think about it' I would see no reason why she shouldn't be supported in that decision.

I don't have the exact stats but I believe that something like only 5% of babies arrive on their due date. That's an awful lot of leeway either way. My cycle certainly isn't a cut-and-dried 28 days, ds was delivered at 42 weeks, there was no issue. Dates are often incorrect, and as others have said other countries don't even use the 40-week marker at all.

Of course there are 'what ifs'. And I'm sure pruni's friend has thought about them all. Unfortunately, nothing is for sure in this world and when a subject like this comes up, there are always horror stories to tell. There are also plenty of happy endings too.

Hope your friend has the labour and birth she wants, whenever it finally happens, pruni

snafu's exactly right with the 5 per cent arriving on 'estimated due date'. Even if you have a regular 28 day cycle, you don't necessarily conceive on day 14!

Well said Snafu

Message withdrawn

No, no fighting, don't worry I think this is a really interesting thread.

Maybe I need to take my rose-coloured glasses off? I'm going to end up sounding like an old hairy hippy if I carry on. I'm just a firm believer in doing it the way the mother wants it done and trusting her to make the best - informed - decisions.

Re: propaganda. The thing is that obstetric litigation is on the increase. This is a major factor in IOL and other interventions. It's the 'better safe than sorry', defensive way of practising - which to a certain extent I understand (no-one would knowingly put their baby at risk, would they?) - and it is in part what has led to the massive rise in caesarians. It's easier and more convenient (but for whom?) to whip a baby out X date than wait and see what happens. And to me - and obviously to your friend too - that's simply not logical in this case.

Ugh, I'm probably talking out my backside here and making a fool of myself. I'm not qualified, I don't have the facts and figures. I just think that somewhere along the line we've rather lost our trust in a woman's ability to give birth with the minimum of fuss and intervention and are too keen to whip perfectly happy and healthy women/babies into hospital 'just to be on the safe side'.

Right, I'll stop now and hope Mears isn't rolling her eyes too much

Message withdrawn