42 weeks

liliq

Did anyone else hear about the 42 weeks campaign launched today by AIMS Ireland?
I think it sounds really good, there are some things I wouldn't have really known, like 40 weeks being average gestation, while up to 42 weeks is normal (hence the campaign name I guess!) and so you're not really overdue until you're 42 weeks. Seems odd how the pressure to induce or start intervening happens at 40 weeks rather than waiting til 42.
There's more info at www.42weeks.ie

What do you all think?

Ms2011

Plus you're also consider 2 weeks pregnant by the time you conceive so it'a really only 38 weeks that you are pregnant before you're considered overdue!!

pwurple

I went to 42 weeks, 14 days past due date, and was never pressured to have any intervention. No sweep, no oxytocin, nothing. They scanned once a week, said there was plenty of fluid and that was that. I asked at the time was there going to be intervention, and they said not unless required. They prefer to let things take the natural course. This was CUMH in 2011.

The only pressure was from family and friends asking if I had gone yet.

Maybe there are some hospitals / ob/gyn who are pushy, but mine weren't anyway.

liliq

pwurple wrote: »

I went to 42 weeks, 14 days past due date, and was never pressured to have any intervention. No sweep, no oxytocin, nothing. They scanned once a week, said there was plenty of fluid and that was that. I asked at the time was there going to be intervention, and they said not unless required. They prefer to let things take the natural course. This was CUMH in 2011.

The only pressure was from family and friends asking if I had gone yet.

Maybe there are some hospitals / ob/gyn who are pushy, but mine weren't anyway.

It's great to know there are ob/gyn who are more relaxed about normal pregnancy! In saying that, in a lot of forums Im on, CUMH does come across as being ahead of the curve in this country.
I'm glad you had a positive experience! That's what this campaign is about or aiming for at least, I think

Big Bag of Chips

Personally I know of a couple of bad endings when a woman was left until 42 weeks. Both in the same hospital.

When I was having my first my consultant, in the Coombe, told me that he wouldn't let me to over 10 days. So that, in my head anyway, is the safe cut off point.

I know of one woman, 40, first baby who had a healthy happy kicking baby the night before she was to go in to be induced at 42 weeks. She had had an apt in the hospital that day, was sent home to come in the following morning to be induced, and by the morning the baby had died.

For me I'd prefer intervention at 10 days over, because I would hate to push it and risk the alternative.

It's in my head "we won't let you go more than 10 days over"... And that was a "normal" pregnancy, so I would feel uneasy being left more than 10 days.

pwurple

That's awful... but lack of info.

What had happened to cause the death do you know?

nesf

pwurple wrote: »

That's awful... but lack of info.

What had happened to cause the death do you know?

I've read that there's a increased chance of stillbirth from 42 weeks on, I don't know why, from what I remember it's not a large increase and there's some division over it (whether it's a risk to some specific subset of pregnancies or all pregnancies etc).

I think the 10 days cut-off and similar come from this increased risk. In fairness I can understand where the doctors are coming from with this one if such a risk is actually there.

Big Bag of Chips

pwurple wrote: »

That's awful... but lack of info.

What had happened to cause the death do you know?

I've never spoken to the mother specifically about the cause of death, but I've heard the reason given was "suffocation".

Again, I've not heard that directly. I don't know if that was the official/medical term used. But the belief is had she not been left to go so far over, then the outcome would have been entirely different.

I think if I was to have another, and it would be in that hospital, I would be pleading with the doctor to not let me go over 10 days.

I do think a woman should have the right to allow things happen naturally if that is what she wants. I also think a woman's fears should be listened to, and if she has genuine concerns she should be allowed to go 'early'*

*earlier than 42 weeks.

Edit: I'd like to think that is what the 42 weeks initiative is about.. giving women SOME say, or at least having the confidence to speak up and ask the questions or voice concerns. We have to trust the doctors, as they are the experts! And in general I do. I would think it silly for me to tell a doctor his job. But I feel very strongly that whether I'm induced at 10 days or 14 days makes no difference to the hospital or the consultant, but could potentially make a massive difference to me and my family.

Who knows, had my first consultant never said those words ("We won't let you go anymore than 10 days over") I mightn't have the same fear.

missis aggie

I had planned home birth and my midwife was insured to be at birth any time between 38-42 weeks. After week 42 I would have to go to give birth in hospital. These are HSE guidelines. I did my research and I would happly went over 42 weeks ( monitored by hospital ) rather then to be induced. Some hospitals have 10 days policy other 12 or 14 but no one can force you to be induced. No one should pressure women with "dead baby talk" but simply give you information so anyone can make educated choice.

liliq

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

I've never spoken to the mother specifically about the cause of death, but I've heard the reason given was "suffocation".

Again, I've not heard that directly. I don't know if that was the official/medical term used. But the belief is had she not been left to go so far over, then the outcome would have been entirely different.

I think if I was to have another, and it would be in that hospital, I would be pleading with the doctor to not let me go over 10 days.

I do think a woman should have the right to allow things happen naturally if that is what she wants. I also think a woman's fears should be listened to, and if she has genuine concerns she should be allowed to go 'early'*

*earlier than 42 weeks.

Edit: I'd like to think that is what the 42 weeks initiative is about.. giving women SOME say, or at least having the confidence to speak up and ask the questions or voice concerns. We have to trust the doctors, as they are the experts! And in general I do. I would think it silly for me to tell a doctor his job. But I feel very strongly that whether I'm induced at 10 days or 14 days makes no difference to the hospital or the consultant, but could potentially make a massive difference to me and my family.

Who knows, had my first consultant never said those words ("We won't let you go anymore than 10 days over") I mightn't have the same fear.

I see what you're saying...
My personal issue with the later out services here is the 'we won't let you, you have to,' statements. Women often don't have any autonomy in their own pregnancy and birthing experience.
My mum had a still birth at 38 weeks, a friend of move had one at 39, and another one at just over 40. It's heartbreaking for anyone to go through that experience, I can't imagine the pain of it. It's not, however, something that's exclusive to overdue babies, and the significant increase of risk over 42 weeks is statistical significance which often doesn't translate into significance in practice.
There's an article, ill try and find the link, in which ob/gym actually (horrifically, callously) 'play the dead baby card'- using it as a tool to coerce mothers into 'consenting' to induction. The 'experts' are unfortunately not always right. The inconsistencies in care between the hospitals here (some 'allowing' mothers to go 10 days, others 14 days; the difference between management of labour, how long after waters breaking is synticon used; how long a mum is allowed to labour, not being allowed labour in birthing pools), and there are huge differences between the maternity care here and in other countries. Holles street still use active management of labour methods (breaking waters, increased monitoring etc), which was considered revolutionary and world leading in the 60's, but has since been debunked and shown to be unhelpful in labour... It all shows that the maternity system here doesn't always use best practices.
After a traumatic birth, a mother is expected to be grateful because she has a healthy baby. The psychological impact on the mum is dismissed, the long term effects of a traumatic birth on a child aren't even mentioned or considered.
Supposedly Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be pregnant, but it's not by any means the best country to have a normal birth in or one where you are respected in your choices, whatever they may be.

Cheerilee

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Personally I know of a couple of bad endings when a woman was left until 42 weeks. Both in the same hospital.

When I was having my first my consultant, in the Coombe, told me that he wouldn't let me to over 10 days. So that, in my head anyway, is the safe cut off point.

I know of one woman, 40, first baby who had a healthy happy kicking baby the night before she was to go in to be induced at 42 weeks. She had had an apt in the hospital that day, was sent home to come in the following morning to be induced, and by the morning the baby had died.

For me I'd prefer intervention at 10 days over, because I would hate to push it and risk the alternative.

It's in my head "we won't let you go more than 10 days over"... And that was a "normal" pregnancy, so I would feel uneasy being left more than 10 days.

Exactly the same I know of three women who lost their healthy babies in the 42nd week , all same hospital , on my first I went +13 and was in no hurry to have the baby I was completely naive and assumed that nothing could go wrong and was wondering why the consultants were eager to induce me fast forward 12 years later and after hearing of the still births of three separate babies in the 42nd week I would never ever want to go into the 42nd week and would never deliver in the hospital that allowed them to go +14
yes it should be a personal choice but no way would i allow the risk

Lola92

I think that another aspect of being 'overdue' at 40+ weeks Is that pregnancy edd is calculated presuming that ever single woman has a regular perfect 28 day menstrual cycle, which is not the case for most women.

nesf

liliq wrote: »

It's not, however, something that's exclusive to overdue babies, and the significant increase of risk over 42 weeks is statistical significance which often doesn't translate into significance in practice.

Explain what you mean.