Things for prospective mothers to think about(Contains scientific info on stillbirth)

CK2010

SanFran07 wrote: »

Grindelwald I don't know anything about your history but epidurals are rarely medically necessary. They have their place but the majority of women have epidurals for comfort (a better experience) even through they are advised of the pros/cons for Mum and baby. I'm just making the point that there seems to be a double standard here....

I wouldnt really call it a double standard. if doctors were telling people they shouldnt have an epidural and they were still insisting on it then it would be. but the fact is, asking for an epidural that is on offer is not the same as refusing to listen to doctors when they tell you you should do something for the safety of your child.

btw, im only referring to people who blatantly refuse from the get go to have any medical intervention and continue to refuse even when it is made clear that it is the best course of action; the people who do this for the sole purpose of being able to say they had a natural birth.
im not referring to those who dont want medical intervention because they feel its unnecessary.

SanFran07

Hi CK,

I have only come across the scenario of a mother refusing necessary medical care once and the mother had mental health issues. If a Mum trusts her caregiver and understands the reasons why circumstances have changed I don't believe any mother would knowingly put her baby at risk. But its one of those things that everybody seems to know somebody that did/would.

cynder

CK2010 wrote: »

i think thats a little unfair tbh. .

Probably was.

CK2010

SanFran07 wrote: »

Hi CK,

I have only come across the scenario of a mother refusing necessary medical care once and the mother had mental health issues. If a Mum trusts her caregiver and understands the reasons why circumstances have changed I don't believe any mother would knowingly put her baby at risk. But its one of those things that everybody seems to know somebody that did/would.

i only have two people in my circle of friends that have given birth so i wouldnt know about many birthing experiences. but i was just commenting based on that particular situation, not how common it is or anything.

however as we have seen on this thread alone, not every mother does trust her caregiver, and some do have to make that call, and i just hope that some mothers dont make it based on their desire for the 'perfect' birth rather than whats best for their baby.

Squiggler

grindelwald wrote: »

I was to to have an epidural after 20+ hours of labour i didnt want one, only after they broke my waters was i told i needed one. I eventually agreed. 4 hours later my abby was born 9lb 1oz and no forceps or vacuum ( a good few internal stitches) and im not a big lady. There is more rick to the mother having an epidural than there is to the unborn baby, if epidural is given and baby gets distressed an emergency c-section can be performed very quickly. The epidural it has more pros than cons and your monitored ( and baby is monitored) every second it is in. unlike going home and waiting for spontaneous labour (that might not happen until after the baby has died inside of you).

Are you maybe confusing epidural and chemical induction? Epidural is purely pain relief, and serves no other purpose. Why did they say you needed one? And how do you know that the epidural doesn't pose a risk to the baby?

My husband and I had no objection to the baby and me being monitored, but when the monitoring results (which indicated that the dates were way off and I was not anywhere near 42 weeks) were ignored by someone who had never met or examined me and had barely glanced at any of my records, we didn't feel that we would be receiving care from someone who could be considered credible or reliable.

We would have had a dating scan, but the scan was scheduled by the hospital for week 27, much too late to be any use for dating purposes.

We were not declining interventions for my sake, ffs, I could have saved myself weeks of lost sleep and stress, not to mention a hell of a lot of pain, if I'd gone in to them and told them to just put me to sleep and cut the baby out, and taken whatever drugs they'd give me afterwards to keep the pain at bay, forget breastfeeding! The effects of interventions on babies are not fully known yet, but from what research I have done it appears that babies whos mothers did have to be induced, opted for epidural, or had c-sections performed under general anesthetic are more sickly, as babies, children and adults, than those carried and born during a more natural pregnancy and birth, even to the same parents. We wanted to give our baby the best start we could, and I would have willingly suffered through anything.

I could never forgive myself if I thought that I had done something that would permanently affect the health and wellbeing of my child and damage its quality of life. Remember the miracle interventions of the past, thalidomide and anti-d spring to mind, that were "perfectly safe" until it turned out that they weren't?

Intervention has its place, and sometimes it will be necessary, but it should not be deemed necessary because a consultant has a holiday coming up, because there are some beds available in the labour ward, or you're just taking too long to be convenient to the hospital :rolleyes:

cynder

Squiggler wrote: »

Are you maybe confusing epidural and chemical induction? Epidural is purely pain relief, and serves no other purpose. Why did they say you needed one? And how do you know that the epidural doesn't pose a risk to the baby?

My husband and I had no objection to the baby and me being monitored, but when the monitoring results (which indicated that the dates were way off and I was not anywhere near 42 weeks) were ignored by someone who had never met or examined me and had barely glanced at any of my records, we didn't feel that we would be receiving care from someone who could be considered credible or reliable.

We would have had a dating scan, but the scan was scheduled by the hospital for week 27, much too late to be any use for dating purposes.

We were not declining interventions for my sake, ffs, I could have saved myself weeks of lost sleep and stress, not to mention a hell of a lot of pain, if I'd gone in to them and told them to just put me to sleep and cut the baby out, and taken whatever drugs they'd give me afterwards to keep the pain at bay, forget breastfeeding! The effects of interventions on babies are not fully known yet, but from what research I have done it appears that babies whos mothers did have to be induced, opted for epidural, or had c-sections performed under general anesthetic are more sickly, as babies, children and adults, than those carried and born during a more natural pregnancy and birth, even to the same parents. We wanted to give our baby the best start we could, and I would have willingly suffered through anything.

I could never forgive myself if I thought that I had done something that would permanently affect the health and wellbeing of my child and damage its quality of life. Remember the miracle interventions of the past, thalidomide and anti-d spring to mind, that were "perfectly safe" until it turned out that they weren't?

Intervention has its place, and sometimes it will be necessary, but it should not be deemed necessary because a consultant has a holiday coming up, because there are some beds available in the labour ward, or you're just taking too long to be convenient to the hospital :rolleyes:

I was put on a drip to speed up labour because i was dilating very slow 1 cm every 7-8 hours after 26 hours i was told to have the epidural as i was already exhausted at this point, i hadn't slept in 30+ hours and was also having contraction upon contraction, no break in between as soon as one was halfway the other one began.

I also had morning sickness 24/7 from the 4th week of pregnancy and every day up to the birth and during the birth, i was hospitalised 3 times. I didn't even take iron tablets during pregnancy which they gave out about, but turned out i didn't need them my iron was fine.


There are more and more precautions taken these days regarding what is safe and what isnt during pregnancy. Natures way of dating a pregnancy is the loss of periods which are very accurate, only a hand full of people continue to have theirs which is why they get the dating scans first.

where did you get your stats that children/adults and babies born by c-section, induction and epidural are more sickly? life expectancy is increasing not decreasing. you cant blame a mom for her kid having c.f diabetes, cancer, asthma, mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, anemia, tonsillitis, coughs and colds because she had some sort of intervention, these things happen.

there are also too many variables like does mom smoke or does someone in the house smoke? does mom drink? has mom taken drugs? did mom breast feed? is there a genetic disorder? you cant blame a sickly child/adult plainly on intervention.

Ayla

grindelwald wrote: »

How far along were you when you did your pregnancy test? missed 1, 2, or 3 or more periods?

That would give you a good idea when you were likely to have conceived and when baby would be due giving that average gestation for a human is 40 weeks. I know when i ovulate as I'm in that much pain i cant walk so all my dates have been spot on, suppose im one of the lucky ones..... Most people take the test 1 week after missed period.

Well, hate to be the wet dish rag here, but if it was always this easy we wouldn't be having this discussion. *You* may have clearly defined periods, but many women don't...before I was on the pill I was hard pressed to remember from one month to the next when my periods started and how long I bled. I was never regular, so my EDD by last-missed-period was always a bit of an estimate.

Take that in conjunction with a late scan (I only had one scan for each preg, and neither of them was before week 24) and determining when I was "full term" was anybody's guess.

In my case, if they had pushed on with booking an induction I would (based on the above ambiguety) have insisted on a scan to determine the actual status of my baby...if there was *any* indication at all that the fetus was suffering I would have immediately agreed to any intervention under the sun. But if everything was still progressing naturally & normally it would be easily understood that the dates were off & we'd monitor until necessary.

cynder

Squiggler wrote: »

Intervention has its place, and sometimes it will be necessary, but it should not be deemed necessary because a consultant has a holiday coming up, because there are some beds available in the labour ward, or you're just taking too long to be convenient to the hospital :rolleyes:

but it should not be deemed necessary because a consultant has a holiday coming up, because there are some beds available in the labour ward
Agree!

however
or you're just taking too long to be convenient to the hospital

on that point if your over 40 weeks + 10 there is a risk to baby the hospital are concerned for babies safety (not there convenience) they are there 24/7 365 days a year there always kept busy, they dont know how busy they are going to be from one week to the next as spontaneous labour is just that. if they have a lot of inductions one day I'm sure they will book another day so as to give full care and attention to the mother and baby.


with my 3rd guy i paced the corridor for 2 hours before a labour unit was free, it was really busy, however when he was born i was put in the lower ward, the next day the lower ward was closed becasue there were only a few beds taken and we were all moved up stairs (i was moved to the same bed where i had my first baby).

A neighbours of my husband was dying of cancer and his wife was induced early it was between 3 and 5 weeks early so he could see the baby before he died and the baby was delivered safely and he died a couple of days later, if inducement was that dangerous they would never have risked it.

Squiggler

I have a 34 day cycle, and ovulate late in my cycle. The hospital based my edd (and the subsequent pressure) on a 28 day cycle and early (week after period) ovulation.

Average gestation is 40 weeks, but where do those 40 weeks start? Some women deliver fully matured babies at"37" weeks and others at "43" (these figures are in brackets because they might as well be pulled out of the sky unless the woman knows exactly when she conceived, and the doctors have listened to her when she told them. And the word AVERAGE is important here too.

Again, this comes back to the fact that making decisions based on statistics is may be simple, but is not necessarily going to result in the best decision being made in each case. What it really comes down to is laziness.

Squiggler

grindelwald wrote: »

or you're just taking too long to be convenient to the hospital

on that point if your over 40 weeks + 10 there is a risk to baby the hospital are concerned for babies safety (not there convenience) they are there 24/7 365 days a year there always kept busy, they dont know how busy they are going to be from one week to the next as spontaneous labour is just that. if they have a lot of inductions one day I'm sure they will book another day so as to give full care and attention to the mother and baby.

I wasn't talking about post dates induction, I was referring to the active management of labour policies of most maternity hospitals in Ireland, where it is common practice to push for speeding things up if you are in labour for 12 hours or more - as apparently happened to you, that drip was chemical induction, which makes the contractions more frequent, severe and painful (though not necessarily more effective) and usually results in the need for an epidural to deal with the unnatural pain levels.

See my post above with regard to "post dates"...

Ayla

grindelwald wrote: »

if they have a lot of inductions one day I'm sure they will book another day so as to give full care and attention to the mother and baby.

Actually, I suppose this depends on the hospital you're attenting, but part of the reason they were talking about inducing me was because my hospital only "does" inductions on Tuesdays. This meant I was 41 weeks on a Friday, but they wouldn't let me go to 42 weeks the next Friday (because then waiting to the following Tuesday would have me at 42 + 3).

Again, let me be clear, if there was any indication under the sun that they were 100% sure of my dates, or if there was any sign that my child needed out, then they could do whatever there & then. But to do a preemptive (and maybe premature) intervention when I could have maybe only "really" been 38-40 weeks...

SanFran07

grindelwald wrote: »

on that point if your over 40 weeks + 10 there is a risk to baby the hospital are concerned for babies safety (not there convenience)

The National Maternity Hospital's induction guideline is 14 days - and they also have the lowest caesarean rate in the country.

CK2010

grindelwald wrote: »

I was put on a drip to speed up labour because i was dilating very slow 1 cm every 7-8 hours after 26 hours i was told to have the epidural as i was already exhausted at this point, i hadn't slept in 30+ hours and was also having contraction upon contraction, no break in between as soon as one was halfway the other one began.

I also had morning sickness 24/7 from the 4th week of pregnancy and every day up to the birth and during the birth, i was hospitalised 3 times. I didn't even take iron tablets during pregnancy which they gave out about, but turned out i didn't need them my iron was fine.

you may as well have been talking about my pregnancy and labour!
apart from the fact that i didnt have drip or anything. just the natural contractions to 'drop' the baby were excruciating so i needed epidural to help with pain to avoid further exhaustion. the pain was literally exhausting.

the morning sickness and iron too. although i took the iron, even though monthly blood test indicated they did nothing! :rolleyes: my levels were constantly ridiculously low, i cant remember the term for it but the level was at 2 constantly. someone else might now what it is, i dont really know about these things!

i did have my waters broken though. so i guess that would be a form of intervention?

metrovelvet

grindelwald wrote: »

I was put on a drip to speed up labour because i was dilating very slow 1 cm every 7-8 hours after 26 hours i was told to have the epidural as i was already exhausted at this point, i hadn't slept in 30+ hours and was also having contraction upon contraction, no break in between as soon as one was halfway the other one began.

I also had morning sickness 24/7 from the 4th week of pregnancy and every day up to the birth and during the birth, i was hospitalised 3 times. I didn't even take iron tablets during pregnancy which they gave out about, but turned out i didn't need them my iron was fine.


There are more and more precautions taken these days regarding what is safe and what isnt during pregnancy. Natures way of dating a pregnancy is the loss of periods which are very accurate, only a hand full of people continue to have theirs which is why they get the dating scans first.

where did you get your stats that children/adults and babies born by c-section, induction and epidural are more sickly? life expectancy is increasing not decreasing. you cant blame a mom for her kid having c.f diabetes, cancer, asthma, mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus, anemia, tonsillitis, coughs and colds because she had some sort of intervention, these things happen.

there are also too many variables like does mom smoke or does someone in the house smoke? does mom drink? has mom taken drugs? did mom breast feed? is there a genetic disorder? you cant blame a sickly child/adult plainly on intervention.

The whole due date guestimate is based on the 28 day regular monthly cycle.

If you stray from that, you are not going to have an accurate due date.

I had two different dates from two hospitals as my pregnancy bridged two countries.

But anyone who had any experience with babies, including the radiologists and the nurses said I know where looked ready or pregnant enough to go into labour. But they stuck to their dates anyway.

Hannibal Smith

SanFran07 wrote: »

Just to play devils advocate (and this isn't directed at you Hannibal).

Whenever the value of a Mother's birth 'experience' comes up in a discussion these comments are usually directed at women who choose to have a natural birth or homebirth and it's implied that they have put the 'experience' ahead of their baby's wellbeing. They are risking their baby's life just to get a particular 'experience'. These Mothers choose to avoid non medically indicated interventions whether at home or hospital that could potentially negatively effect their baby's wellbeing but the mothers wellbeing and experience also.

So lets apply the same logic to a Mother who wants an epidural.

Isn't the mother who chooses an epidural also choosing a particular birth experience and an experience that puts their needs ahead of their baby's? It could be argued that a mother choosing to have an epidural is choosing to ignore well documented risks of epidural anestheisa and putting their baby at risk just to get a particular experience....

If you bothered to read the very next line of my post SanFran, you would have seen what I said about mothers who chose a positive birth experience. I never said, intimated or implied that they didn't want a positive outcome, I was expressing my attitude towards childbirth and towards the opening post. Please don't try and cause argument where there is none.

angelfire9

I think the bottom line here is this:

Every pregnancy is different (every woman who has been pregnant more than once will vouch for that)

Every mother or mother to be has different opinions on inductions and other medical interventions

At the end of the day I think we all agree that a healthy baby and a good labour experience is what we all want/wish for
The two should not be mutually exclusive it should be possible in this day and age to virtually guarantee both (with exceptions for congenital and hereditary illness)

Unfortunately it appears from reading this thread that the "good labour experience" is a rarity but healthy babies appear in the majority of cases

It is up to the individual mother to be IMHO to decide for herself whether waiting for spontaneous labour is worth the added risk to baby if the pregnancy is over 42 weeks

Nothwithstanding the fact that different women have different cycles it seems apparent that earlier dating scans need to be done in maternity hospitals all over Ireland to reduce the confusion over due dates in particular

For myself I didn't have a particularly wonderful experience in either of my labours
I was induced with the first at 40+3 and had a horrible labour & birth but a fabulous baby that is now all grown up (9 going on 90)
With the second my due date per my GP was the 19th of December, per the hospital it was the 21st of December and I went into full labour on the 20th and she was born that morning
With Aisling it should be added that she was born on a Monday morning but I had been in labour (cervix dilated) since the previous Thursday and the hospital made no attempt to induce me or bring me in for monitoring as my waters had not broken and I hadn't reached my EDD

Every hospital is different, every birth is different, all any of us can hope for is that we are happy with our own outcome whatever it may be

SanFran07

Hi Hannibal, as I said my post was not directed at you. Your post just got me thinking about this double standard there is around having a particular birth experience. As someone else pointed out 'damned if we do and damned if we don't (whether its an elective caesarean, homebirth or induction with all the bells and whistles - someone will have an opinion based on their own experiences and feelings around birth. Wasn't trying to start an argument - honestly.

cynder

Squiggler wrote: »

I have a 34 day cycle, and ovulate late in my cycle. The hospital based my edd (and the subsequent pressure) on a 28 day cycle and early (week after period) ovulation.

Average gestation is 40 weeks, but where do those 40 weeks start? Some women deliver fully matured babies at"37" weeks and others at "43" (these figures are in brackets because they might as well be pulled out of the sky unless the woman knows exactly when she conceived, and the doctors have listened to her when she told them. And the word AVERAGE is important here too.

Again, this comes back to the fact that making decisions based on statistics is may be simple, but is not necessarily going to result in the best decision being made in each case. What it really comes down to is laziness.

Again is it not better to be safe than sorry, there is less risk of a still birth at 38 weeks compared to 42 weeks. The mother has no idea when she is due, the professionals have an idea going by the average term of a babys gestation (size of baby, size of babys femur or dating scan if done before 12 weeks) and going by the average gestation period.

Babies are normally conceived at between day 12-16 of a 28 day cycle for a 34 day cycle one would assume it would be between 18 -22 days after one period which is still only 1 week later than a 28 day cycle, 1 week isn't much of a difference.

would it not be better to be induced at the average 40+10 than wait an extra week and give birth to a still born baby! the baby is already full grown and and fully matured at 37 weeks. Even my guy who was 5 weeks early was let home at 26 hours because he was perfect ( i do know that a few born at that stage might need a little extra help).

I dont know where you get the idea that they are lazy.

SanFran07

Grindelwald - Don't you think the medical profession has very good reasons for not inducing every Mother at 37 weeks...especially if it's better to be safe than sorry?

Thought this was interesting and some US States are planning on making inductions before 40 weeks illegal

Induction at 41 weeks?

In Canada, the Society of Obstetricians recommends "counselling women" who reach 41 weeks of the "higher risks of expectant management". Two Canadian obstetricians from the University of Manitoba have written a swingeing article published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology criticising this policy1

From an analysis of data from five countries, published before "induction at 41 weeks" was recommended, the authors conclude that the risk of stillbirth between 41 and 42 weeks is 0.1 per cent. They conclude that, in Canada, 1000 inductions would have to be done at 41 weeks to prevent one stillbirth in the following week.

They criticise the meta-analysis on the Cochrane Database, which concluded that "routine induction after [our emphasis] 41 weeks reduces perinatal death", and found seven deaths among 3002 women randomised to expectant management compared with one out of 3071 women who were induced.

However, as they point out, two of the seven deaths occurred in the 1960s, before modern fetal testing was available. When they looked at causes of each death in the non-induced group, they found that only two happened in women who had the kind of fetal testing available now, before 43 weeks, from a cause possibly related to the length of the pregnancy - compared with one death in the induced group.

They conclude: "The higher risk that routine induction at 41 weeks aims to reduce is dubious, if it exists at all."

Most women who have not given birth by 41 weeks will have gone into labour by 42 weeks. One study showed that 19 per cent had not had their babies by 41 weeks, but only 3.5 per cent were still pregnant at 42 weeks.

Following the Canadian policy, in a hospital with 4000 births a year, about 1000 inductions would be done solely because the mother had reached 41 weeks. The authors point out that the extra attention given to those being unnecessarily induced could reduce the care available for inductions carried out for urgent medical reasons. They cite the case of a woman with severe hypertension whose induction was delayed because the labour floor was filled with 41-week inductions. The mother died of intracranial haemorrhage.

They also point out that, in the Canadian randomised trial of induction, one of the women induced with prostaglandins had a precipitate labour, severe fetal heart problems and a forceps delivery. The baby is quadriplegic. This complication was not reported in the trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine2. None of the babies in the non-induced group had such a complication.

cynder

metrovelvet wrote: »

The whole due date guestimate is based on the 28 day regular monthly cycle.

If you stray from that, you are not going to have an accurate due date.

I had two different dates from two hospitals as my pregnancy bridged two countries.

But anyone who had any experience with babies, including the radiologists and the nurses said I know where looked ready or pregnant enough to go into labour. But they stuck to their dates anyway.

I was also told i was having an average size baby (approx 7lb) she turned out to be 9lb 1 oz and 5 cm longer than average, on my 2nd pregnancy i was also told that i my dates were correct (gp, clinic ,scan) but when i went into labour they questioned how far gone i was (i looked full term) and when he was born he was plastered in vernix and they said yep the dates were correct (as i knew they were because i knew when he was conceived) you cant judge a pregnancy just on how big or small the bump is, vernix is a good clue however in some full term births it can be present.

Nothing is 100% there is room for maneuver but the risk of still birth increases after 42 weeks ( a risk i would never take) it is better to be safe than sorry, of course its the mothers choice and if she thinks that it wont happen to her and that she is doing the right thing by waiting for spontaneous labour then that is up to her.

If i hadn't of accepted the drip i could have been in labour for up to 4 days, and the risk of a still birth would have increased ( back in the dark ages most babies were lost due to long labours and a lot of mothers were lost too) if i had not agreed to the epidural the chances are that i would not have had the energy to push her out (took an hour even when i got some energy back).

cynder

SanFran07 wrote: »

Grindelwald - Don't you think the medical profession has very good reasons for not inducing every Mother at 37 weeks...especially if it's better to be safe than sorry?

i thought they induce after 40+10 weeks! after all 40 is term not 37 even though many do go into spontaus labour at 37 weeks and the baby is fully formed and matured very little need help at 37 weeks unless they have other issues, im a 37 week baby!

and if it was that risky they wount induce a baby so the father could see it before he died! they would be done for negligence!

Ayla

Nothing is 100% there is room for maneuver but the risk of still birth increases after 42 weeks ( a risk i would never take) it is better to be safe than sorry

Can anyone, at any point in this entire thread point out a single incident of anyone advocating leaving a preg past 42 weeks? Because I can't.

"Normal" gestation period is 38-42 weeks according to any health professional out there. Of course there is higher risk to mother & baby after 42 weeks, but I don't think anyone here has supported leaving a preg past 42 weeks.

Any supporters of "natural" childbirth rebel against the idea that full term is 40 weeks, and any day past it is "overdue." It is not. Over 42 weeks is overdue, not over 40 weeks.

And grindlewad, as you mentioned in one of your last posts, if "one week doesn't make that much of a difference" in determining dates based on ovulation cycles, then perhaps there should be some grace against inducing someone who's only a few days past 40 weeks.

Squiggler

Ayla wrote: »

Can anyone, at any point in this entire thread point out a single incident of anyone advocating leaving a preg past 42 weeks? Because I can't.

Nope, it seems clear that everyone here is aware of the risks involved in allowing a pregnancy to continue post-dates, although not all seem to be as well informed about the risks and effects of dragging a baby into the world too soon.

The point I was trying to make in my posts about the inaccuracy of applying averages to individuals, and which Grindlewald has illustrated in her post above (and which was evidenced by the condition of the placenta and the physical appearance of our stillborn baby, who was not post-dates, but perfect) was that I wasn't even 40 weeks pregnant when I started coming under intense pressure to agree to an induction (-6 days for cycle length and then -at least 9 more days for ovulation). This pressure was enough to sucessfully disrupt established labour on 3 occasions over the space of 5 days.

Next pregnancy I will ensure that I know exactly when I conceived and that my cycle length is correctly recorded, my one regret is that I put as much trust as I did in the ability of so-called professionals to determine a reasonably accurate EDD.

cynder

Ayla wrote: »

Can anyone, at any point in this entire thread point out a single incident of anyone advocating leaving a preg past 42 weeks? Because I can't.

"Normal" gestation period is 38-42 weeks according to any health professional out there. Of course there is higher risk to mother & baby after 42 weeks, but I don't think anyone here has supported leaving a preg past 42 weeks.

Any supporters of "natural" childbirth rebel against the idea that full term is 40 weeks, and any day past it is "overdue." It is not. Over 42 weeks is overdue, not over 40 weeks.

And grindlewad, as you mentioned in one of your last posts, if "one week doesn't make that much of a difference" in determining dates based on ovulation cycles, then perhaps there should be some grace against inducing someone who's only a few days past 40 weeks.

Waiting for spontaneous labour post 42 weeks has been mentioned on other threads. even though not on this tread. Question is do people class post 42 weeks as medically necessary to have an induction ?

some dont!

Doesn't make much difference if your under ( unless under 24 weeks) but does make a difference if your over what if your actually 43 weeks an not 42 there would be a greater risk to baby being still born. It depends at what stage of pregnancy one is at to how that week would effect live birth outcomes.

Ayla

grindelwald wrote: »

Waiting for spontaneous labour post 42 weeks has been mentioned on other threads. even though not on this tread.

We're not in another thread, and I wouldn't imagine it fair to bring the opinions of other posters (who may not be participating in this thread) here where they can't defend themselves.

Question is do people class post 42 weeks as medically necessary to have an induction induction? some dont!

Personally, if I had gone post 42 weeks I would have done anything necessary to deliver my baby safely. My point throughout this whole thread is that it's wrong to apply so much pressure to deliver just after 40 weeks when the dates are based on averages & late scans.

cynder

Squiggler wrote: »

Nope, it seems clear that everyone here is aware of the risks involved in allowing a pregnancy to continue post-dates, although not all seem to be as well informed about the risks and effects of dragging a baby into the world too soon.

The point I was trying to make in my posts about the inaccuracy of applying averages to individuals, and which Grindlewald has illustrated in her post above (and which was evidenced by the condition of the placenta and the physical appearance of our stillborn baby, who was not post-dates, but perfect) was that I wasn't even 40 weeks pregnant when I started coming under intense pressure to agree to an induction (-6 days for cycle length and then -at least 9 more days for ovulation). This pressure was enough to sucessfully disrupt established labour on 3 occasions over the space of 5 days.

Next pregnancy I will ensure that I know exactly when I conceived and that my cycle length is correctly recorded, my one regret is that I put as much trust as I did in the ability of so-called professionals to determine a reasonably accurate EDD.

Are you willing ot go past 42 weeks again or would you opt for an induction before 42 weeks?

What are the risks of dragging the baby in the world to soon taking into account 37 weeks is classed as term?

*also taking into account that inductions before 37 weeks are due to other things like mother having cancer, baby not thriving and would do better on the outside of the womb.

cynder

Ayla wrote: »

We're not in another thread, and I wouldn't imagine it fair to bring the opinions of other posters (who may not be participating in this thread) here where they can't defend themselves.



Personally, if I had gone post 42 weeks I would have done anything necessary to deliver my baby safely. My point throughout this whole thread is that it's wrong to apply so much pressure to deliver just after 40 weeks when the dates are based on averages & late scans.

Jeez i dont want people to defend themselves (they have the right to do whatever they see fit), its a discussion on induction to prevent stillbirths.

and what one would call pressure, the other would call encouragement, another would call concern and another would call bullying. if your adamant that you want spontaneous labour to begin and want things done natural, one could be risking their baby's life (knowingly or unknowingly) there are plenty that dont listen to medical advice.

My sister in law opted for a home birth 1st child and things went wrong she was in full blown labour reached 9 cm and labour stopped (no stress or pressure from midwife) it just stopped for no reason whatsoever she went down to 5cm dilated, they waited 3 hours and baby got distressed she was rushed into hospital and had an emergency c-section, she swallowed his poop and spent 2 weeks in intensive care. she never had another child and never will since she has been diagnosed with a terminal illness in which she has 1 year to live, her son will be 10 this year. These things happen one has to be prepared for not having a perfect birth, i for one believe its better to be prepared then think pregnancy is a breeze and nothing will go wrong, as a poster said before perfect labours are few and far between, but a live healthy baby is the best outcome.

Squiggler

grindelwald wrote: »

Are you willing ot go past 42 weeks again or would you opt for an induction before 42 weeks?

Are you even reading my posts? I wasn't past 42 weeks, the hospital (who had NO part to play in my care during the pregnancy) decided I was based on their averages, took me out of the care of my midwife (who had seen me every 4 weeks from the beginning of my pregnancy) and started trying to force me to agree to interventions that even they agreed were NOT medically indicated as necessary.

Would I agree to have my baby induced at 38 weeks? Only if there was definite medical need for it. If I had been 42 weeks and there was absolutely nothing happening in terms of labour starting then I probably would have agreed to an induction, although reluctantly.

Ayla

These things happen one has to be prepared for not having a perfect birth, i for one believe its better to be prepared then think pregnancy is a breeze and nothing will go wrong, as a poster said before perfect labours are few and far between, but a live healthy baby is the best outcome.

Now, I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone on *this* thread ever made the assertion that "pregnancy is a breeze and nothing will go wrong." Everyone knows that pregnancy is a natural and physiological event, and as such has all the tendencies for ease & complications as anything else in life.

No one's advocating going past 42 weeks (assuming it's actually agreed when 42 weeks is).

If I may be so bold as to attempt a summary - all the "natural birthers" are asking for is a bit of personalization to accurately determine the EDD, then proper management & use of technology to assess the growing fetus as that date approaches. The common method of working on estimates & averages leaves a number of women & babies with an uncertain EDD, on which too much emphasis & importance is placed in ultimately pushing for an induction.

And the argument all along is basically why wait if you can deliver a healthy baby early? Well, there are advantages of waiting those last couple of weeks - that's why nature evolved us to gestate for 40 weeks, and why hospitals don't routinely induce all mothers at 38 weeks.

cynder

Squiggler wrote: »

Are you even reading my posts? I wasn't past 42 weeks, the hospital (who had NO part to play in my care during the pregnancy) decided I was based on their averages, took me out of the care of my midwife (who had seen me every 4 weeks from the beginning of my pregnancy) and started trying to force me to agree to interventions that even they agreed were NOT medically indicated as necessary.

Would I agree to have my baby induced at 38 weeks? Only if there was definite medical need for it. If I had been 42 weeks and there was absolutely nothing happening in terms of labour starting then I probably would have agreed to an induction, although reluctantly.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71598828&postcount=6

Quote:

How is everything going ladies? You still hanging in there mrsberries?

Had to make an appearance in the NMH this morning (42+1 by estimate based on 28 day cycle), my midwife had requested that they would assess with a view to allowing us to continue with the homebirth scenario under monitoring. Original noises coming from them were that they would be taking over my care from today and scheduling an immediate Induction.

But... all test results were excellent and when I pointed out that my cycle is 33-34 days, not 28 they not only agreed to amend my date and allow me to continue waiting for labour to commence naturally for 4 more days, but they also released me back into the care of my homebirth midwife. So now we have until Tuesday morning

Really hoping I start feeling some of those awful labour pains soon.



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71601208&postcount=9
Quote:
Squiggler - wow, that's great that your medical team is so flexible & I really hope you get the birthing experience you're going for! Sure wish more GP/consultants would be willing to let nature do her thing