# home birth before 37wks?



## Ju_bubbs

I'm just wondering what happens if you have planned a home birth and go into labour before 37 wks? Can you still demand that you ARE going to birth at home?

obviously if it was a few weeks before 37 wks I'd be happy to go to hospital etc, but my concern is that based on the 2 times I had sex around conception, my scan EDD is at least a week out, so if I went into labour at 36 wks, I would actually be 37 weeks, if not a little bit more! so I 'd be very pissed off if I had to go to hopital knowing that I was actually full term, just not on paper :(

I'm only kinda worrying about it a bit, coz so far my labours have got progressively earlier and quicker, the last one being 3 weeks early and lasting 17 minutes from first contraction to DS being born! I litrally would not make it to hospital if this one is any quicker!


----------



## Blob

:lol: well i would plan for your HB then anyway?? My MW pretty much said the same to me, that she doesnt think i'll make it to hospital (mine was longer than yours though :rofl:) 
I would talk to your MW though...


----------



## Ju_bubbs

I've told her that I'm sure my dates are wrong, all she said was 'scan dates are very accurate so I dont think they are wrong' She had no answer when I said, 'so are you saying that I conceived 2 weeks after I last had sex!? Wow, baby jesus the 2nd!' :rofl:


----------



## Blob

:lol: See my friends mum said that if your babies DD is less than a weeks from what you thought then they go with yours but if its over they will go with theirs?? Maybe she was just a mean MW...have all your scans said the same?


----------



## Ju_bubbs

yes, most radnomly I ahd an early one at 6wks, which said the same date! I did expect it to measure smaller than it should be, coz all my babies have been small, and I smoked til about 7-8 weeks!


----------



## Blob

Well there is sod all they can do TBH since your :baby: is going to come fast i would just plan for it :hugs:


----------



## lozzy21

If you go into labour before 37 weeks and can make it to hospital, id go to hospital.

My friend had her baby at 36 week's and she needed to spend a week in special care because she had problems with her feeding and breathing.


----------



## Rmar

No advice about if you go into labour before 37 weeks but you may want to do a bit of research on accuracy of ultrasounds. It isn't really possible to conceive 2 weeks after having sex...but that would be pretty cool, lol.

Most studies put the accuracy of ultrasounds off by up 7-14 days at 12 weeks going by confirmed ovulation dates (previous ultrasounds, ect.) and is just about as common as it is to tell a woman she is going to have a 10 pound baby and actually ends up with a 7 pound baby. As much as we like to think ultrasounds are completely accurate, they aren't perfect and aren't the be all and end all of everything.

It is possible that you could go into labour at 36 weeks and it actually be 37 weeks.

I would hate for any midwife to put really harsh restrictions on when you can go into labour and I am more of a loose restriction kind of person. It would be a bit OTT to say no to a homebirth for a woman going into labour at 36+6 but I would be wary if she were to go into labour at 35+6.

With a labour of 17 minutes, good luck! I would call early on even if it doesn't amount to anything, lol.


----------



## AP

lozzy21 said:


> If you go into labour before 37 weeks and can make it to hospital, id go to hospital.
> 
> My friend had her baby at 36 week's and she needed to spend a week in special care because she had problems with her feeding and breathing.

Agreed - its not worth any risk


----------



## Ju_bubbs

sb22 said:


> lozzy21 said:
> 
> 
> If you go into labour before 37 weeks and can make it to hospital, id go to hospital.
> 
> My friend had her baby at 36 week's and she needed to spend a week in special care because she had problems with her feeding and breathing.
> 
> Agreed - its not worth any riskClick to expand...

I'm not saying its worth the risk.. I'm saying that if I do go into labour at 36 weeks, I KNOW I'll actually be 37 at the very least.. but because my midwife thinks that scan dates are 300% accurate, she wont see it this way!


----------



## lozzy21

Ju_bubbs said:


> sb22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lozzy21 said:
> 
> 
> If you go into labour before 37 weeks and can make it to hospital, id go to hospital.
> 
> My friend had her baby at 36 week's and she needed to spend a week in special care because she had problems with her feeding and breathing.
> 
> Agreed - its not worth any riskClick to expand...
> 
> I'm not saying its worth the risk.. I'm saying that if I do go into labour at 36 weeks, I KNOW I'll actually be 37 at the very least.. but because my midwife thinks that scan dates are 300% accurate, she wont see it this way!Click to expand...

Id would see how your measuring at your 20 week scan. If your measuing on line with your first scan id go in but if your measuring ahead id say put


----------



## AP

True, as scans go on they are more and more accurate so as lozzy said i would go with that 20 week scan.


----------



## Rmar

I would like to politely disagree about the accuracy of dating scans. I know there are many varies of opinion about it so I am only posting this to give extra information to the original poster and not to debate. Take both sides and make your decision. It is still your decision.

Taken from this article and scrolled down to the section on dating scans:



> Ultrasound for Dating the Pregnancy
> 
> Ultrasound can be used to date a pregnancy. This is very useful if you are unsure of your dates, have extremely irregular or extra-long cycles, or have a surprise pregnancy while not monitoring your cycles. However, as with other uses, ultrasound for dating can also be a mixed blessing.
> 
> To determine the gestational age of the baby, ultrasound techs measure various parts of the baby and compare it to a fetal growth chart. Early in pregnancy they measure the "crown-rump length" (top of baby's head to the end of its bottom). Later in pregnancy, they measure the length of a leg bone (femur length) and from one side of the baby's head to the other (biparietal diameter, or BPD). For fetal weight estimates, they add a measurement of the baby's abdominal circumference. These are the most common formulas used, but sometimes other measurements are done too.
> 
> When babies are first conceived, their growth is fairly uniform in the first few weeks, so gestational age dating in the first trimester is fairly accurate. As babies continue to grow, however, biological variability takes over, and babies begin to grow at different rates. This means that gestational age dating is less accurate as the pregnancy continues. In the second trimester, it is fairly accurate, but by the third trimester it is quite inaccurate.
> 
> Most ultrasound resources state that ultrasound for determining gestational age in the first trimester is accurate to within about a week. Measurements in the second trimester are supposed to be accurate to within about two weeks. By the third trimester, the accuracy rate has dropped significantly and can be off by as much as three weeks.
> 
> Therefore, if your cycle is very irregular and you need to get the most accurate dating possible, it is best to have an ultrasound as soon as possible after you know you are pregnant. In this case, the possible risks of exposure to ultrasound in the first trimester are probably outweighed by the pressing need to have an accurate due date.
> 
> Some women, though, don't realize that they are pregnant for a while and may not still be in the first trimester. Even though the ultrasound dating will be less accurate, it is still worthwhile to have it done in the second trimester so that the woman is not induced prematurely for "post-dates" pregnancy. Research is clear that ultrasound is very useful at reducing the number of "post-term inductions" in this instance. (For references, see the website at https://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/texts/gcps/gcps0046.html.)
> 
> However, if you are sure about your dates, ultrasound dating is not very useful. On occasion, women sure of their pregnancy dates through fertility charting etc. have been forced to move up their due dates because of ultrasound results. Often this results in babies being induced or delivered prematurely, which potentially has major health consequences.
> 
> Therefore, be very leery of a doctor moving up your due dates based on ultrasound, especially an ultrasound done later in pregnancy. Remember that the sizes used to calculate maturity and due dates are based on averages, so if your baby tends to run slightly larger than average (as some large women's babies do) then the baby's estimated age may be off.
> 
> Also, the measurements used to calculate the baby's age are not always easy to do, and small miscalculations can introduce significant errors into the dating process. For example, one resource points out that a baby's head is not perfectly spherical but more of an ellipsoid, and so the measurements from one place to another are going to differ slightly. Even this slight difference in measurement can cause significant differences in datings at times. In addition, Dr. Marjorie Greenfield at www.drspock.com cautions:
> 
> Due dates by ultrasound are not that exact. Remember that we are measuring a flat image of a three dimensional fetus, and then estimating how far along the pregnancy is by the millimeters of the leg bone or of a line drawn across the head. There is a lot of room for being a few millimeters high or low on all of these measurements, not to mention that babies of the same gestational age can be slightly different sizes.
> 
> Ultrasounds in the last trimester to predict a baby's age/due date are particularly inaccurate. Unless there are really extenuating medical circumstances, do NOT let a doctor move up your due date based on a third-trimester ultrasound. There have been big moms who have had their babies delivered prematurely because an ultrasound scan inaccurately estimated the baby's age and the doctor moved up the baby's due date. Prematurity can cause big problems, so this is not a decision to make lightly. Unless there are very unusual circumstances, ultrasounds in the last trimester should not be used to change due dates.

Again, another look at a study is here . A small quote:



> In a leaflet issued by The Midwives Information and Resource Service (MIDIRS) and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, pregnant women are informed that the expected day of delivery determined on the basis of an ultrasound scan "is more accurate than using a calendar and the date of your last period"1. The information is supported by reference to the Cochrane review Routine ultrasound in early pregnancy2.
> 
> Two questions arise, however:
> 
> * 1.
> 
> Is the statement based on the best available evidence?
> * 2.
> 
> Is the statement correct?
> 
> First we note that the text in the Cochrane review does not claim that it has been proved that ultrasound dating is more accurate, but uses more cautious wording: "Assumed benefits of routine ultrasonography in early pregnancy have been: 1. better gestational age assessment; 2These assumptions appear to have been justified by analysis of data from the controlled studies. The reduced incidence of induction of labour for apparent post-term pregnancy in the routinely scanned groups presumably results from better gestational 'dating'" (our italics). The cautious wording was probably chosen because the expected day of delivery was not an outcome measure in any of the studies. Thus the precision cannot be estimated directly.

Look at the link for the links to the further resources.

Anecdotely(sp?), I know of lots of stories of people who have had a dating scan that puts them at conceiving when they had a positive pregnancy test, so 2 weeks off the actual conception date.

You have the right to inform yourself and to question responses. Do look at the other side of scans being accurate. I'm sure people have done research on that, too. No research (or dating technique for that matter) can be 100% correct and views will differ.


----------



## Rmar

Just wanted to add, most studies focus on uneccessary induction and such for being post date but can work both ways, I'm sure.


----------



## Ju_bubbs

Thanks Rmar, very interesting articles! ANd yes I'm very inclined to also think taht dating scans are not as accurate as some people think, as mentioned in the latter article, BOTH my scans say I conceived only a couple of days before having my VERY positive pregnancy test!


----------



## Blob

I have to say my scan has put me at a totally different date each time i've been in. If you KNOW when then although you cant argue with them its good to know. 

Also if your labours are that fast i'm sorry but its much safer for you to be at home than trying to get to hospital... :shrug: Obv if it was too early then you want to get in but if you know your dates and are that confident about them... nobody is going to knowingly put their baby at risk


----------



## RainbowDrop_x

I agree I would wait intill you're 20 week scan. 

On every scan I had (including private) my DD was the same. I know some people may say scan's aren't always accurate but I fail to see how 4 different people can come up with the same date :shrug:. I had DD the day before my DD so I'm pretty confident in the scanning method. If you're THAT sure though then maybe discuss it with you're MW. Although like I said I would wait intill you're 20 week scan before making any decisions


----------



## Mellage

Having different people scanning just means they all use the same formula to work out the dates, a 10lb baby is going to have different sized bones to a 6lb baby even though they are the same age. If you know your dates stick with them.


----------



## Ju_bubbs

I have had 2 scans that both matched the same EDD... but all that proves to me is that baby is growing consistantly, all babies are born at very different sizes so I dont see how measuring it can tell you 'how old' it is! when I had my scan at 6weeks, I was looking around the forum at other ladies measurments who were also dated at 6 weeks, and I couldn't believe the amount they varied! There are also ladies who's beans measured the same as my 6 week scan, but had been dated completely differently! Same for my 12 week scan.

But, thank you for all your opinions ladies,a ll taken on board!

It's also just occured to me that wether I decide to go to hospital or not will depend on other things too really! Considering my 17 minute labour. My only hospital, depending ontime of day and traffic conditions is anywhere up to an hour and a half away, I only got there JUST on time with my last baby as it was 3am,no trafic, clear weather, and my mum drove all the way up the dual carriage way at about 100mph, through speed cameras, traffic lights.. the lot!

I had an appointment at this hopsital when my daughter broke her arm a few weeks ago at 9.30am I left home at 8.10 after dropping my other children to breakfast club at school, and got to hospital at 9.20! 

Then obviously if its raining/snowing its also going to make the journey longer, and my mum has to get here to pick me up first since she lives 10 minutes away.. that could be half my labour :haha: and my childrens father has to get here from 20 minutes away to look after the children before I can go anywhere!

Sorry, now I'm rambling and worrying myself more, I bet after all this I'll go overdue anyway :rofl:


----------



## mumof1+1

Ju_bubbs - I too am having this very same debate.

I was late having my 'dating scan'. They have me down from that as 13+6 but i was thinking more like 15+5. My anomaly scan at 19w showed a 19w fetus but as you say, this only shows the baby is growing consistently not how old it actually is, the 19w on the anomaly scan is actually taken from the EDD given at the 'dating scan'. This is what I was told yesterday when i saw the consultant as I too am booked for a HB and if i labour within the next 10 days as far as they are concerned I'm not full term. I went to the consultant yesterday after a long discussion with 2 midwives, one at my 28w appt and one at my 34wk appt, simply coz (inconsistent evidence i know but still...) with my daughter i always measured slightly smaller, with this one at 28w i measured 30, at 34 measure 36, yesterday with consultant measured 38, i was 35+3.

Now, under normal circumstances they'd say you'd measure smaller as baby lowers into the pelvis, yes? Well at 34 measuring 36 baby was free, yesterday at 35+3 measuring 38 the baby was 3/5, their answer...a long baby??? But surely that would have been picked up on my anomaly scan??? I personally feel i have been fobbed off and more so when i said to her 'my concern is i want a HB and if i labour within 10 days you'll not grant me that coz i wont be full term' she had the cheek to laugh at me....Well, i didnt find it funny really.

So now, i feel the only thing i can do is pray i do actually last the 10 days needed for them to consider me full term.

We'll see if there has been any change on Friday as I'm back with the midwife then.

It seems to me its their way or the highway with some of them by the sounds of it.

Good luck with the rest or your pregnancy xx


----------



## Ju_bubbs

Thanks mumof1.. hope you last out the next 10 days!


----------



## mumof1+1

Me too hun xx


----------



## Rmar

Ju_bubbs said:


> I bet after all this I'll go overdue anyway :rofl:

:haha: And with a mommoth 2 day labour, as well. :rofl:

I hope it all goes well with you.


----------



## Ju_bubbs

Rmar said:


> Ju_bubbs said:
> 
> 
> I bet after all this I'll go overdue anyway :rofl:
> 
> :haha: And with a mommoth 2 day labour, as well. :rofl:
> 
> I hope it all goes well with you.Click to expand...

Dont say that!! :rofl:


----------



## kiwimama

sb22 said:


> True, as scans go on they are more and more accurate so as lozzy said i would go with that 20 week scan.

I thought the opposite was true? As baby gets larger, genetics start to play a part, ie - in how tall they are etc... ?


----------



## Ju_bubbs

kiwimama said:


> sb22 said:
> 
> 
> True, as scans go on they are more and more accurate so as lozzy said i would go with that 20 week scan.
> 
> I thought the opposite was true? As baby gets larger, genetics start to play a part, ie - in how tall they are etc... ?Click to expand...

I thought ths too, I've lways been told even if your 20 week scan showed different dates to your 12 week scan, they dont alter your dates as dating gets less accurate.


----------



## winegums

they stopped changing my edd after third tri due to as someone up there said, genetics can play a part the baby can get taller if the parents are tall etc... but this doesnt change how 'old' it is just how 'big' it is thats why it becomes so innaccurate.

as for the first scan thing? im very confused why the sonographer dated the baby as 2 weeks from before you conceived, you said you spoke to the midwife but did you talk to the sonographer about it? they are highly HIGHLY trained, i looked into becoming one and it was far too hard for me!

also dont forget sperm can live inside you waiting to fuse with the egg for many days

if it was me i wouldnt really want my baby at home at 36 weeks even if i was sure it was 37 as you just cant be 100% sure with these things! if it turned out the baby WAS 36 weeks its lung may not be ready and may need to be taken straight to NICU


----------



## Ju_bubbs

Unless I Had positive tests BEFORE I got pregnant.. i can be 100% sure :lol: but yes, I get what you mean! No I didn't discuss it with the sonographer, as it wasn't until I got home and worked out the dates she gave me that I realised they couldn't possibly be right.. she just seemed to want to rush me out the room tbh! Maybe I'll bring it up at my 20 wk scan and see what they say about it then :)


----------



## winegums

what you had a positive pregnancy test before they said the baby was conceived? thats nuts lol they shouldnt have ignored that they should have discussed it!!

but the thing is they see how developed the baby is... if the baby is 15 weeks but they say it is 14 weeks then you MAY be write but the baby may be only developed as a 14 week old if that makes sense? all babies develop at different rates, even after they are born so even if its born at '36' weeks (and you know its 37) it may only be as developed as 36weeks and still may need care........ if that makes sense sorry i explain things funny but i hope you get what i mean! just trying to say im not saying your wrong they may be wrong with age but right with development


----------



## Ju_bubbs

Thats a very good point.. hadn't thought of it like that!

I didn't quite have a +ve before I conceived, but if their dates are right I had a very strong one 2-3 days after I concevied, so fairly sure that if I'd tested earlier I would have had atlest faint line :haha:


----------



## winegums

hehe just hope you get to 38 weeks then it will be good enough for them as itll be 37 according to them :p


----------



## lozzy21

Yer i agree with the how developed baby is. My friend went into labour at what they thought was 38 weeks, after baby was born she only weighed and had the same development as a 36 week baby so needed extra help.


----------

