Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 14th, 2016, 05:31 AM   11
Jessicahide
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by smileyfaces View Post
Going past 40 weeks isn't a risk? 40 weeks is just a guide. In a lot of European countries your due date is actually considered as being 41 weeks. Close to 50% of babies are born after their due date, its really not unusual at all.

I assume you are induced at 37 weeks for medical reasons? That is a different situation entirely. I wouldn't refuse an induction if it was medically necessary either. I will be refusing induction this time round though if it is purely for being "overdue".

I am induced for medical reasons, and no her words were in her opinion after what she has seen leaving women past 40 weeks is dangerous, sorry if that is not what you want to hear, but it was a neonatal nurses opinion.

Stats might say different, but she is working hands on there and knows what she sees.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 14th, 2016, 06:12 AM   12
smileyfaces
Mum (Mom)
BnB Elite
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North West, UK
Posts: 18,376
If leaving women till 40 weeks was in any way dangerous then everyone would be pushed for an induction before their due date to ensure they were delivered for 40 weeks. Absolute rubbish, sorry.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 14th, 2016, 06:14 AM   13
Jessicahide
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by smileyfaces View Post
If leaving women till 40 weeks was in any way dangerous then everyone would be pushed for an induction before their due date to ensure they were delivered for 40 weeks. Absolute rubbish, sorry.
That's fine, i was quoting what someone who deals with this situation everyday told me.........



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 14th, 2016, 12:26 PM   14
jtr2803
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: South East UK
Posts: 1,848
This is one of those things where someone who experienced a problem will obviously advise everyone to not do what they did.

A very big HOWEVER to me here though is that she had a failed induction?! You can't just interfere like that and then go hands off without some serious medical oversight on a continuous basis. There is not a single medical facility I know who will start an induction and then just point blank stop it because it doesn't progress. At that point they come out by c section and I'm very much wondering what they did to try and induce, there is every possibility that the intervention led to further issues - infection etc.

With any statistics, someone has to be the 1 in 1,000 that does go wrong, but that's still 999 that don't. I'm pretty happy with those odds so I'll be declining induction until close to 43 weeks.

Induction rate in the UK is 25% at the moment and 70% of those are for 'post date', wow, that's a crazy number of babies outstaying their welcome.... When there are that many not proceeding naturally, I can't help but wonder if that's just another variation of normal?



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 14th, 2016, 12:47 PM   15
Jessicahide
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtr2803 View Post
This is one of those things where someone who experienced a problem will obviously advise everyone to not do what they did.

A very big HOWEVER to me here though is that she had a failed induction?! You can't just interfere like that and then go hands off without some serious medical oversight on a continuous basis. There is not a single medical facility I know who will start an induction and then just point blank stop it because it doesn't progress. At that point they come out by c section and I'm very much wondering what they did to try and induce, there is every possibility that the intervention led to further issues - infection etc.

With any statistics, someone has to be the 1 in 1,000 that does go wrong, but that's still 999 that don't. I'm pretty happy with those odds so I'll be declining induction until close to 43 weeks.

Induction rate in the UK is 25% at the moment and 70% of those are for 'post date', wow, that's a crazy number of babies outstaying their welcome.... When there are that many not proceeding naturally, I can't help but wonder if that's just another variation of normal?

If you are referring to the nurse i spoke with, she ended up with a c- section after he baby became distressed... The problem i have with the stats are they are showing still births, not when things go wrong. The nurse i spoke to deals on a daily basis with babies that she feels have been left too long who swallow meconium, become lodged and suffer lack of oxygen, suffer fractured skulls, broken arms ( from forceps) and have become distressed during birth. Loss of life before birth is not something she has to deal with working in neonatal.... In the past two years i have personal friends who have suffered losing their children, one after birth, he was born at 42 weeks and they didnt realise he was transverse, and another at 41 weeks who was stillborn, they said it was just "one of those things"

The reason they induce after a baby "overstays" is because its dangerous for mum and baby, the reason they don't induce when everyone turns 40 weeks is because most women will go into labour naturally ( and much cheaper may i add) before 41 weeks, that really doesn't change what the lady spoke to me about and her very serious concerns for the "laxidasicle" attitude she thought hospitals had....



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 14th, 2016, 12:59 PM   16
jtr2803
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: South East UK
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessicahide View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtr2803 View Post
This is one of those things where someone who experienced a problem will obviously advise everyone to not do what they did.

A very big HOWEVER to me here though is that she had a failed induction?! You can't just interfere like that and then go hands off without some serious medical oversight on a continuous basis. There is not a single medical facility I know who will start an induction and then just point blank stop it because it doesn't progress. At that point they come out by c section and I'm very much wondering what they did to try and induce, there is every possibility that the intervention led to further issues - infection etc.

With any statistics, someone has to be the 1 in 1,000 that does go wrong, but that's still 999 that don't. I'm pretty happy with those odds so I'll be declining induction until close to 43 weeks.

Induction rate in the UK is 25% at the moment and 70% of those are for 'post date', wow, that's a crazy number of babies outstaying their welcome.... When there are that many not proceeding naturally, I can't help but wonder if that's just another variation of normal?

If you are referring to the nurse i spoke with, she ended up with a c- section after he baby became distressed... The problem i have with the stats are they are showing still births, not when things go wrong. The nurse i spoke to deals on a daily basis with babies that she feels have been left too long who swallow meconium, become lodged and suffer lack of oxygen, suffer fractured skulls, broken arms ( from forceps) and have become distressed during birth. Loss of life before birth is not something she has to deal with working in neonatal.... In the past two years i have personal friends who have suffered losing their children, one after birth, he was born at 42 weeks and they didnt realise he was transverse, and another at 41 weeks who was stillborn, they said it was just "one of those things"

The reason they induce after a baby "overstays" is because its dangerous for mum and baby, the reason they don't induce when everyone turns 40 weeks is because most women will go into labour naturally ( and much cheaper may i add) before 41 weeks, that really doesn't change what the lady spoke to me about and her very serious concerns for the "laxidasicle" attitude she thought hospitals had....
I completely take your point on the fact that the statistics only look at still birth rates rather than other problems. In my experience, and from looking through other birth boards most hospitals are actually coercing ladies in to induction well before 42 weeks, so far, the people I know who are refusing induction have had to really fight their case. I am not sure where you live country/area wise?

Anyone who goes over their individual areas induction guidelines should be offered a least bi-weekly CTGs and also a weekly scan to confirm amniotic pool depth. Whilst things can go wrong at any time, these should help to assess a number of possible issues. I am very sorry for your friends who have experienced losses, it doesn't really matter at what gestation they happen, it's obviously devastating.

Babies in bad positions can happen at any time, my brother became transverse during labour at just over 40 weeks and had to be an EMCS. I on the other hand was breech at 37 weeks and no one realised and I was a natural delivery. I'm just saying that these things happen inside pregnancies that clearly do fit the 'norm' as it were. I don't think we could ever insinuate that those problems stem just from post date labours.

There is also a lot of evidence that many of the procedures and practices in operation today are not truly helpful. Babies can often become distressed during induction, I am sure there is evidence especially surrounding epidurals and the lead on to instrumental deliveries but I don't have anything to hand to link to. I just think our bodies are amazing, most of the time they know what they need to do and we are losing in touch with that as time goes on and birth becomes more medicalised and dare I say, regulated.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 14th, 2016, 13:27 PM   17
Jessicahide
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtr2803 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessicahide View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtr2803 View Post
This is one of those things where someone who experienced a problem will obviously advise everyone to not do what they did.

A very big HOWEVER to me here though is that she had a failed induction?! You can't just interfere like that and then go hands off without some serious medical oversight on a continuous basis. There is not a single medical facility I know who will start an induction and then just point blank stop it because it doesn't progress. At that point they come out by c section and I'm very much wondering what they did to try and induce, there is every possibility that the intervention led to further issues - infection etc.

With any statistics, someone has to be the 1 in 1,000 that does go wrong, but that's still 999 that don't. I'm pretty happy with those odds so I'll be declining induction until close to 43 weeks.

Induction rate in the UK is 25% at the moment and 70% of those are for 'post date', wow, that's a crazy number of babies outstaying their welcome.... When there are that many not proceeding naturally, I can't help but wonder if that's just another variation of normal?

If you are referring to the nurse i spoke with, she ended up with a c- section after he baby became distressed... The problem i have with the stats are they are showing still births, not when things go wrong. The nurse i spoke to deals on a daily basis with babies that she feels have been left too long who swallow meconium, become lodged and suffer lack of oxygen, suffer fractured skulls, broken arms ( from forceps) and have become distressed during birth. Loss of life before birth is not something she has to deal with working in neonatal.... In the past two years i have personal friends who have suffered losing their children, one after birth, he was born at 42 weeks and they didnt realise he was transverse, and another at 41 weeks who was stillborn, they said it was just "one of those things"

The reason they induce after a baby "overstays" is because its dangerous for mum and baby, the reason they don't induce when everyone turns 40 weeks is because most women will go into labour naturally ( and much cheaper may i add) before 41 weeks, that really doesn't change what the lady spoke to me about and her very serious concerns for the "laxidasicle" attitude she thought hospitals had....
I completely take your point on the fact that the statistics only look at still birth rates rather than other problems. In my experience, and from looking through other birth boards most hospitals are actually coercing ladies in to induction well before 42 weeks, so far, the people I know who are refusing induction have had to really fight their case. I am not sure where you live country/area wise?

Anyone who goes over their individual areas induction guidelines should be offered a least bi-weekly CTGs and also a weekly scan to confirm amniotic pool depth. Whilst things can go wrong at any time, these should help to assess a number of possible issues. I am very sorry for your friends who have experienced losses, it doesn't really matter at what gestation they happen, it's obviously devastating.

Babies in bad positions can happen at any time, my brother became transverse during labour at just over 40 weeks and had to be an EMCS. I on the other hand was breech at 37 weeks and no one realised and I was a natural delivery. I'm just saying that these things happen inside pregnancies that clearly do fit the 'norm' as it were. I don't think we could ever insinuate that those problems stem just from post date labours.

There is also a lot of evidence that many of the procedures and practices in operation today are not truly helpful. Babies can often become distressed during induction, I am sure there is evidence especially surrounding epidurals and the lead on to instrumental deliveries but I don't have anything to hand to link to. I just think our bodies are amazing, most of the time they know what they need to do and we are losing in touch with that as time goes on and birth becomes more medicalised and dare I say, regulated.

I 100% agree that we intervene too much and it causes problems, there is a massive increased risk when you have an epidural, we are far too medicalised when it comes to birth, none of those things override the need for induction. I live in bedford, i have had given birth in leeds, london and here... The maternity wards i have frequented have turned women away who are in labour, and refused to induce women who are booked in ( been this person myself!) so i am not sure what hospitals you are talking about... Induction is expensive and usually results in more drugs and intervention like you said... But they are a very very necessary thing... I have been induced 4 times now ( 5th will be this year) I have had very hair raising experiences and amazingly positive ones, but i can tell you after delivering a stillborn baby at 37 weeks i wouldn't be so blase about the risks to my baby by going overdue!



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 14th, 2016, 13:36 PM   18
jtr2803
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: South East UK
Posts: 1,848
I don't think it's fair to say 'blasÚ about the risks', I choose to do a lot of research on these subjects and I consider it all when I make my choices. I think that's all we can do and it's ultimately personal choice, I just think anyone who needs to make that choice needs to be presented with ALL available evidence both for and against induction before they decide. Induction is always presented as part of pregnancy these days and most people don't even realise that they can decline or at least attempt to postpone.

My baby centre birth board is full of ladies being told they need to be induced, for a variety of reasons, but are then being left on wards for up to 5 days because they don't have the resources to carry out the process. That makes things worse in my eyes, these ladies are knackered and emotionally and mentally drained before they even have a contraction. If these post date inductions were so medically necessary should they be left that long? Not trying to debate that by the way, it's a musing. So yes, I agree that this is an issue but my point was that ladies are still being TOLD they need to be induced, my previous post was meaning that anyone who doesn't want to be induced is having to really fight the system.

I think we will agree to disagree on this subject we both have the right to do what we feel is best for us and that's something I am grateful for.

I would also like to say how sorry I am for your loss.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 15th, 2016, 03:44 AM   19
maryanne1987
Pregnant (Expecting)
BnB Addict
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,809
It really does depend on what study you look at, as different studies quote different figures. Honestly I personally wouldnt refuse, as I wouldnt want to take any chances no matter how small. My son was so ill after being allowed to go the full two weeks over as my placenta wasn't working as it should anymore and he's been left disabled and will likely need care his whole life. But you must do what's best for you and your baby in your situation, as long as your happy that's all that matters. I did how ever refuse a 37 week induction last pregnancy as the only reason it was being performed was they were concerned she was large for dates but I have no faith in growth scans and wanted to wait till 38 weeks. Luckily I went into labour naturally the night before I was due to be induced.

Whoever said they don't start induction and then if it fails it ends in a section, well that's not entirely true. In our hospital procedure is pesery induction. If after three pesseries active labour isn't established you are then sent home for 48 hours only to have to return them for another attempt. If that fails then they will try other options such as breaking waters or a hormone drip all before resorting to a section. I know as I experienced it with my son. Took me to exactly 14 days overdue. Can't say it was a pleasant experience. I have to be induced this time and I'm not looking forward to it but due to multiple medical conditions its what's safest for baby. Although I'm nervous I know the end result will be totally worth it.



 
Status: Offline
 
Old Aug 15th, 2016, 04:02 AM   20
jtr2803
Pregnant (Expecting)
Chat Happy BnB Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: South East UK
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryanne1987 View Post
It really does depend on what study you look at, as different studies quite different figures. Honestly I personally wouldnt refuse, as I wouldnt want to take any chances no matter how small. My son was so ill after being allowed to go the full two weeks over as my placenta wasn't working as it should anymore and he's been left disabled and will likely need care his whole life. But you must do what's best for you and your baby in your situation, as long as your happy that's all that matters. I did how ever refuse a 37 week induction last pregnancy as the only reason it was being performed was they were concerned she was large for dates but I have no faith in growth scans and wanted to wait till 38 weeks. Luckily I went into labour naturally the night before I was due to be induced.

Whoever said they don't start induction and then if it fails it ends in a section, well that's not entirely true. In our hospital procedure is pesery induction. If after three pesseries active labour isn't established you are them sent home for 48 hours only to have to return them for another attempt. If that fails then they will try other options such as breaking waters or a hormone drip all before resorting to a section. I know as I experienced it with my son. Took me to exactly 14 days overdue. Can't say it was a pleasant experience. I have to be induced this time and I'm not looking forward to it but due to multiple medical conditions its what's safest for baby. Although I'm nervous I know the end result will be totally worth it.
Ive just gone back to evidence based birth and the three most recent modern medicine studies that were completed suggest a rate of 0.7 to 1.17 up to 42 weeks, so quite a minimal difference in actually numerical terms.

It was me who said about failed induction, probably yet another procedure that seems to vary wildly between areas then as here, induction is started at 41+10 and the process, once started, is followed right through. You can go home after the first process here to labour but if it doesn't work then it's active management until delivery.



 
Status: Offline
 
Reply



Bookmarks

Tags
induction , refusing

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



SEO by vBSEO