# Overdue- how long would you be willing to wait?



## ace28

Hi everyone,

So I'm not actually overdue by a long shot lol but I just have this feeling I will be. I can't shake it- I feel like this kid is going to be the exact opposite of an early bird!

Since I feel so strongly about it, I've gone ahead and talked with my midwife about how late I would be allowed to go, what steps would be taken, etc. I was thinking up to 42 weeks would be okay by me...

but turns out, she is very hands-off... she doesn't do cervix checks, doesn't offer sweeps until 42 weeks, and would even be willing to let me go up until 43 weeks!!! :saywhat: At 43 weeks, she doesn't necessarily recommend induction, she just orders an ultrasound to be done to see how things are progressing. 

Honestly though, I feel like 43 weeks is *too* late. Yes, in Ye Olden Days there were plenty of women who were left to go to 44 weeks, unmedicated, and did fine, buuuuut I'm honestly a little bit concerned about the prospect of pushing a 43-weeker out of my chuff al natural! Is this just the "western medicine" mindset getting to me? Or is 43 weeks toooooo late? What do you think?

PS- OBVIOUSLY, I'm not *hoping* to go to 43 weeks. If I had to guess, I'd say he'll be here between 41 and 42 weeks... but still. Better to figure this all out now!


----------



## MindUtopia

I definitely plan to go to 43 weeks (with monitoring if necessary) assuming there is nothing I am worried about. I absolutely don't want to be induced unless it's absolutely without a doubt necessary. I personally think I might be someone who goes early (my mom had me at 38 weeks and I just feel I'll be the same). I haven't thought yet about what I would do if I did get to 43 weeks and nothing was happening! Hopefully I won't have to worry about it! You have to do what's comfortable for you though. But how awesome is your midwife. I only hope I have one who is that supportive.


----------



## ace28

MindUtopia said:


> I definitely plan to go to 43 weeks (with monitoring if necessary) assuming there is nothing I am worried about. I absolutely don't want to be induced unless it's absolutely without a doubt necessary. I personally think I might be someone who goes early (my mom had me at 38 weeks and I just feel I'll be the same). I haven't thought yet about what I would do if I did get to 43 weeks and nothing was happening! Hopefully I won't have to worry about it! You have to do what's comfortable for you though. But how awesome is your midwife. I only hope I have one who is that supportive.

See, I like that she's supportive of the natural birth process, but after 42 weeks makes me nervous. I almost wish she was MORE hands on, and that she did do sweeps at 41 weeks or so- just a little sooner I guess. And again, I'm not sure if that type of thinking by me is a relic of being brought up in a hands-on, hospital/prointervention society or if it's a relevant concern.

I did do some reading on post term babies (42 weeks or later) and it said that while most are fine, 20-30% can develop post term syndrome and be undernourished by their placenta. Plus, I'm worried about baby just getting too BIG to push out! So idk... :shrug:


----------



## onemorebabe

I was 5 days over due with my first and 10 days over due with my second.. Had both of them naturally with no induction, however I was scheduled for my midwife to break my water (they can do that if you are atleast 1 cm dialated) but I went into labor at 4 in the morning and was scheduled for that at 6 am...lol


----------



## Cjackord

I don't know what I'm comfortable with... I'll probably have a scan at 41 to check on him and take it from there. I'm certain of my dates so that makes going so long seem scarier to me... But if I had to give an absolute "yikes" date, probably anything over 43.


----------



## ace28

Cjackord said:


> I don't know what I'm comfortable with... I'll probably have a scan at 41 to check on him and take it from there. I'm certain of my dates so that makes going so long seem scarier to me... But if I had to give an absolute "yikes" date, probably anything over 43.

Yeah I'm completely 100% certain of my dates too- we were charting and temping and we only inseminated once! So going long does seem scarier.


----------



## try4girl2

My MW is very hands off to but she said if I ask she would check me at 41 and if I begged she would do a sweep but if I didn't ask she would just do a NST and an ultrasound and then go for there. At 42 weeks they talk about inducing and would do a sweep then set up the induction.


----------



## Larkspur

Friend of mine who used the same midwife as me went 18 days overdue with no problems - five hour drug-free labour at home. She didn't have a single scan the entire pregnancy and her little girl is just perfect.


----------



## pinkandfluffy

I really do not want to go through induction again unless medically necessary.

I will go for as long as is safe to, with regular monitoring etc.

I'm struggling with SPD, and have a toddler, and am working 25hrs a week until I can't manage it, but I am desperate to avoid induction however much this pregnancy is testing me lol x x


----------



## Irish Eyes

I really wish I'd have gone to 43 weeks, anything to avoid the induction I had. 

I was deserate for a homebirth but was induced at 42 weeks. next time I will happily wait until 43 weeks if needed

Edited - just to add, I had 3 sweeps before being induced, I really felt I'd done everything possible. However now I know that 42 weeks isn't the end of the "safe" zone!


----------



## bassdesire

I wouldn't go longer than 43 myself. Our hb mw would allow 42 weeks.


----------



## ZoeZo

I'm currently 9 days over due by USS EDD, but only 3 days by LMP EDD, I am 100% sure of my dates and willing to argue until I blue in the face that my LMP date is more accurate, the fact nothing has happened yet is evidence for this!

My MW said 'we don't go by LMP date anymore' even though it is in my notes in black and white! If they had their way I would've had a first sweep at 1 day over LMP then another tomorrow (40+7 then 40+10) and I'd be expected to be in hospital Sunday (40+12) to have gels to start me off :(

I WANT to wait longer! Although waking up every day thinking 'is today the day' is getting wearing - but I think that is because I'm now worried in the back of my mind that I'm 9 days over, which I know I'm not, and it's modern medicine which scare you by saying 'you mustn't be over 2 weeks late) even at my '40' (39 IMO) appointment the midwife said 'you don't want to have a still born' how digusting of her to use that scare tactic!

There is no evidence to show that a placenta starts to stop working after 14 days 'over', generally we do not grow babies that are too big for us to birth, and some babies just gestate naturally for longer than 40 weeks!

Rant over! xx


----------



## flipflopfan

43 weeks is my cut off, I went to 41 weeks with my daughter. I would say 42 is my cut off, but dates can be wrong and some babies just need more time than others. If the baby is still in there at 43 weeks, I'd have my midwife give me some herbs to help things along (I would never try castor oil, heard too many horror stories and a membrane sweep seems too aggressive and intrusive).


----------



## chattyB

I would go to 43 weeks - my son arrived at 42+4 after I agreed to induction. They popped in a prostin pessary and he arrived 3 hours later. I'm pretty sure I would've laboured on my own within a day had I not been induced.


----------



## amjon

I'll probably be pushing for something by 37 or 38 weeks, but I lost my daughter at 27, so I'll be really nervous. (Plus I may develop GD as I'm IR. Hopefully the Metformin should help with that.)


----------



## bunda

As far as I can tell, the only danger of going too far beyond your due date is when the placenta stops working properly - however a quick ultrasound can show whether this is happening (they measure the blood flor going to and from the placenta).

Some hospitals will allow you to go quiet far beyond full term but may want you to have regular ultrasounds to check the placenta is still working (maybe even daily). I'd suggest discussing this with the midwife (the 'stillborn' remark was uncalled for and out of order - if they are that scared, it can be monitored and she would know this!)


----------



## patch2006uk

I went 18 days over by LMP and 15 days over by scan dates. LO had passed his meconium (they broke my waters, but they really couldn't be called waters. It was just poo) and his heart was struggling. They tried to induce, but his heartrate disappeared from the monitors and they couldn't find it again. I had an EMCS.

I'd never allow myself to go that far overdue again. Up to 42 weeks I'd be comfortable with, but not a day longer. My placenta was fine, but LO clearly wasn't.


----------



## amjon

bunda said:


> As far as I can tell, the only danger of going too far beyond your due date is when the placenta stops working properly - however a quick ultrasound can show whether this is happening (they measure the blood flor going to and from the placenta).
> 
> Some hospitals will allow you to go quiet far beyond full term but may want you to have regular ultrasounds to check the placenta is still working (maybe even daily). I'd suggest discussing this with the midwife (the 'stillborn' remark was uncalled for and out of order - if they are that scared, it can be monitored and she would know this!)

Are you referring to mine???? I honestly HAD a stillborn at 27 weeks and will be nervous because of it. I don't see how anyone could find that offensive (or even unexpected). MY baby WAS monitored (had a NST 4 days before she died), so no I don't know that they can be "monitored").


----------



## xxxjacxxx

Oh no she wasn't referring to you, it was in response to Zoezo's post about her midwife using the 'stillborn' scare tactic :hugs:


----------



## amjon

xxxjacxxx said:


> Oh no she wasn't referring to you, it was in response to Zoezo's post about her midwife using the 'stillborn' scare tactic :hugs:

Ok, thanks. :)


----------



## hapi2bhealthy

So apart from the placenta not working, what are the other risks? What was the story with bubba passing his meconium?? I am in no way overdue, in fact I'm not even 24 weeks yet, but I really don't want to be induced or use pain meds at all, and my fear is induction = more pain = birth plan out the window...my hospital is very very good with pretty much leaving mum and bubs to grow and labour peacefully, so not sure of induction techniques favoured but is there one that is know to NOT be as painful? My baby's health and life is far more important than my birth plan...


----------



## fifi-folle

I was a classic case of cascade of interventions. I was induced at 42wks, had the gel, then ARM, then syntocinon drip, then had diamorphine, then an epidural, ended up with an EMCS after being allowed 30 mins pushing due to meconium and increase in fetal heart rate. This was a far cry from my desired natural water birth using hypnobirthing. 
I feel there is a case for induction in some cases (pre-eclampsia etc) but not for not coming out in the medical profs timescales!
This FB group has lots of links: https://www.facebook.com/TenMonthMamas


----------



## hapi2bhealthy

fifi-folle said:


> I was a classic case of cascade of interventions. I was induced at 42wks, had the gel, then ARM, then syntocinon drip, then had diamorphine, then an epidural, ended up with an EMCS after being allowed 30 mins pushing due to meconium and increase in fetal heart rate. This was a far cry from my desired natural water birth using hypnobirthing.
> I feel there is a case for induction in some cases (pre-eclampsia etc) but not for not coming out in the medical profs timescales!
> This FB group has lots of links: https://www.facebook.com/TenMonthMamas

Urgh this is my fear, as I too want a water hypnobirth :( I know I wont be pressured due to docs timelines, but I fear pressure about other factors and wonder what the serious risks are...? Can baby die if gone over a certain time? I know women "used to do it all the time" but there also used to be a much higher infant/maternal death rate...soooo that argument doesn't work much for me.


----------



## fifi-folle

The risk is placenta stopping working and low levels of amniotic fluid. These can both be monitored by ultrasound, although measuring of fluid levels can be somewhat erratic. My friend had a scan at 42+wks and it was fine, mistakenly she was scanned again 30 mins later and was told the levels were low! She went on to have a home water birth at 42+3 but she had to be very strong not to give in to induction (she had had a horrible 3 day induction with her first son). 
The statistics indicate that the risks are low though. However doctors err on the side of caution (and imo like to control birth) so prefer to have baby out rather than take a wait and see approach. This is why I am going to avoid going in to hospital to have this baby, I feel a HBAC is safer for me due to medical professionals obsession with monitoring and controlling everything! (Obviously if there are any concerns I will go in though!)


----------



## hapi2bhealthy

Here's a link to a review of the literature out there so far on induction, for those that want to read what science and studies have actually proven so far and hear more than just anecdotes:

*https://www.kentmidwiferypractice.co.uk/induction-review/*

It states that for _LOW RISK_, there is no evidence thus far of the placenta having a 'shelf life'; thus, if you have had a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy your placenta will continue to function as it should until baby is ready to be born.
If you are _HIGH RISK_, this is not necessarily true, although fetal death and distress is often due to OTHER factors, rather than placental 'die off'.

There has been reported reductions in overall fetal death and complications _WITH_ inductions in _SOME _studies, however these studies have been criticised on their internal validity: poor sampling, poor data taking etc. So cannot be taken as true evidence, considering the validity of the experiment.

There IS clear evidence that inductions often cause a cascade of interventions, *DO* cause more painful birth, and each method has various risk factors of their own:some more than others.

Overall, there is NO conclusive evidence EITHER WAY. Basically, ya damned if ya do, damned if ya don't....

My hospital allows us to go to a full 15 days overdue before an induction. I think that by then, I would be ready to be induced and have formed an alternative birth plan, because there is no evidence to tell me that my baby WILL be safe if I don't induce. 

OK, now to be sure that from week 40 onwards I eat curries every meal, drink rasperry leaf tea, have accupuncture, sex, and dance around to make sure I don't NEED to be!!:dohh:


----------



## fides

in my state, home births are legal 37-42 weeks. if you go past 42 weeks, you have to see an OB who monitors the pregnancy and decides whether you can continue at that point. 

sooooo hoping this one doesn't come late like my first so that i don't have to cross that point - our son came a few hours shy of the 42 week mark, and i'm pretty sure the OB would have said i needed an induction the next day.


----------



## amjon

hapi2bhealthy said:


> So apart from the placenta not working, what are the other risks? What was the story with bubba passing his meconium?? I am in no way overdue, in fact I'm not even 24 weeks yet, but I really don't want to be induced or use pain meds at all, and my fear is induction = more pain = birth plan out the window...my hospital is very very good with pretty much leaving mum and bubs to grow and labour peacefully, so not sure of induction techniques favoured but is there one that is know to NOT be as painful? My baby's health and life is far more important than my birth plan...

I was induced with just about everything they can apply down there. I had Cervadil first (did nothing), then Cytotec (got to a fingertip), and then the sea weed rods (L (something)). I had NO idea I was in active labor. I thought I was just having the "cramps" they told me the Cytotec could cause. I told the nurse it was a 5 for pain (delivered about 20 minutes after that). I had an OB tell me that Cytotec labor is supposed to be more painful than Pitocin (which I didn't get until after delivery).


----------



## ace28

Just wanted to come back here with updates.

I've done a lot of literature reading and review (thanks Hapi for that link as well) and it seems from what I have read that the risk increases SLIGHTLY at 42 weeks and SIGNIFICANTLY at 43 weeks. 

Armed with this information, I talked to my midwife about it and we decided that at 42 weeks, I will have a biophysical profile done. As long as baby is fine, we can wait until 43 weeks, at which point I WILL insist on induction. If baby isn't fine, then obviously that's a different story and I'll head straight to the hospital for induction.

A coworker of mine is due TODAY and she just went in for her dr appt and her dr scheduled her for induction in one week. And I'm like... why? Her cervix is effacing and dilating, so even though she's not in labor yet her body is clearly working up to it. Her baby isn't in any distress. This is her first child, so there's not even an established timeline of when the baby might come from previous births. She told me the doctor just said he would "prefer not to wait' and, because she's just done being pregnant, she agreed.

Not gonna lie, this kind of attitude pisses me off. You can get pregnant and wait the 40 weeks, but you can't go so much as one week and one day over so that your baby can come when SHE is ready, because you and the doc are both impatient? Really? I get being tired and sore but baby's health is more important.

I know these are fighting words to some and I'm okay with that. It would be different if it were for a medical reason but since you're not even over term technically until 42 weeks and statistics show no increase whatsoever in risk of waiting from 40-42 weeks- WHY put yourself and your baby at risk with unnecessary interventions?

/end rant.


----------



## fifi-folle

rant away, it annoys me how all the discussion is about the risks of going past 42 weeks but no discussion of the risks of interventions! Such as the risks posed by a c-section, grr.


----------



## ace28

fifi-folle said:


> rant away, it annoys me how all the discussion is about the risks of going past 42 weeks but no discussion of the risks of interventions! Such as the risks posed by a c-section, grr.

agreed. csection is presented as such a routine choice to women instead of as the major surgery that it is. Also, women are ridiculously underinformed about exactly what interventions they'll be undergoing when it comes to induction and the risks of each- just overheard my coworker talking about "something they can stick up there that does something to yoru cervix- I think." :dohh: Pretty sure she's talking about cervidril and 100% sure she has no idea of any of the risks involved- and her doctor isn't going to tell her, he'll just tell her it's "necessary." Gah. :dohh:


----------



## BunnyN

I get how you feel, I'm not even pregnant, but I saw my mum go through this with my little sister, some people seemed to think she was TRYING to endanger the baby by waiting as long as possible, she wasn't being overly paranoid about risks or a silly female who didn't understand she just wished to wait until there was a *reason *not to, thankfully labour came the night before her induction (a long walk did it for her ;)) She was almost 2 weeks over by then but they would have induced at a week over if she'd given them the chance.


----------



## fifi-folle

That's so sad. There are implications for both mother and baby but they don't bother to find out :( In my case I knew the risks of induction and delayed as long as I could but the combination of tiredness from 5 weeks of contractions and a DH who was starting to get concerned made me take the risk. However now DH has even been telling his colleague the risks of induction :D


----------



## LolaAnn

This conversation is so refreshing! I'd be willing to wait for 43 weeks with monitoring, possibly even longer. I doubt it will come to that as my son came a day before his due date so I'm hoping the same for this baby although it would mean a Christmas baby!


----------



## BunnyN

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for induction and C sections WHEN there is a good reason, they save lives after all, it's just that they seem to be given without much thought sometimes. In my mum's case I think they were mildly concerned because she was 38 and had slightly high blood pressure or something like that but there wasn't any serious concern, if there was I'm sure she would have been happy to do whatever. Personally I think I would be getting concerned by 43 weeks but I'd be happy to go over 42 if everything was fine.


----------



## ace28

BunnyN said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for induction and C sections WHEN there is a good reason, they save lives after all, it's just that they seem to be given without much thought sometimes. In my mum's case I think they were mildly concerned because she was 38 and had slightly high blood pressure or something like that but there wasn't any serious concern, if there was I'm sure she would have been happy to do whatever. Personally I think I would be getting concerned by 43 weeks but I'd be happy to go over 42 if everything was fine.

this is exactly how i feel.


----------



## hapi2bhealthy

so glad I found this thread and thanks to the PP who posted what their literature results were!!

Thankfully I am allowed to go 15 days overdue before there is a very serious induction discussion but I will agree to it by then. Not that it's going to happen! (Trying to think positively here hehe)


----------



## Vicyi

With my DS i had written in my birth plan that i would ONLY go to 41weeks and then i wanted to switch to a hospital birth. Although i would still want to wait as long as possible without induction i just didnt feel i could go that far at home. My MWs never actually gave me a set out but seems ok with my choice.


----------



## ZoeZo

Well it was hard, as everyone scared me that baby would be in serious danger after I hit that magic 42 weeks (which was nearly 43 weeks by ultra sound!)

She came spontaneously at 17 days over my LMP (42+3) and 23 days over USS EDD (43+2!) I wasn't silly, researched and had us checked over when we hit 42 weeks MY date - I'm sorry but I think my bodies cycle date is more accurate than a measurement on a screen on a particular day which is 'average'... 

I had a ctg, fluid level scan and cord doppler done, then another ctg, movement was all good and normal and my instinct just knew she was ok (I didn't know she was a girl at the time!) I know there is no clear evidence that the placenta starts to degrade at 42 weeks, and that studies are based on a report from 1958! (Sure I put this in my previous post, sorry!) lol
Babies pass meconium in the womb when their digestive systems mature as they reach full term, once you are in labour they stop practicing breathing (or something) so it is very rare to inhale or ingest it on birth, it does happen, but rare.

I was so worried by the scare mongering and pressure from MIL I agreed I'd have at least a sweep, then be booked in for induction if didn't work - I hardly slept the night before it, then I was woken up early hours by uncomfortable braxton hicks, they'd never woken me up before - so I was going to stay at home, but still went in for the scheduled ctg monitoring I WAS contracting normally! They were getting stronger and I agreed to be checked - 2-3cm effacing and head so low she couldn't do a sweep!

The rest was a cascade of intervention as she was 'late' but bascially in short, one shot of pethadine, iv fluids (I was nutritionally drained) full story here :https://babyandbump.momtastic.com/p...1142599-over-week-ago-yellow-turned-pink.html ARM, synto, forced pushing on my back, constant monitoring, time limit when the Doc decided I needed kiwi vantose to help (although she was 'just' there but I was exhausted by then) which then resulted in 4th degree tear, immediate cord cutting (she injected anaesthetic to give me an episiotomy which I declined) blood transfusion.

But she came out vaginally and chose her own birthday, latched on fine (once I got to hold her 3 hours after her birth :( ) and I swear if I'd be let to labour naturally and no forced/rushed pushing I wouldn't have torn (but this is their policy for 'overdue' babies) oh and she was perfect, no signs of overdue and placenta healthy, she was just a 42 weeker..
x

Helpful articles:
https://midwifethinking.com/2010/10/09/the-curse-of-meconium-stained-liquor/
https://midwifethinking.com/2010/08/20/in-defence-of-the-amniotic-sac/
https://midwifethinking.com/2011/07/17/induction-a-step-by-step-guide/


----------



## ace28

ZoeZo said:


> Well it was hard, as everyone scared me that baby would be in serious danger after I hit that magic 42 weeks (which was nearly 43 weeks by ultra sound!)
> 
> She came spontaneously at 17 days over my LMP (42+3) and 23 days over USS EDD (43+2!) I wasn't silly, researched and had us checked over when we hit 42 weeks MY date - I'm sorry but I think my bodies cycle date is more accurate than a measurement on a screen on a particular day which is 'average'...
> 
> I had a ctg, fluid level scan and cord doppler done, then another ctg, movement was all good and normal and my instinct just knew she was ok (I didn't know she was a girl at the time!) I know there is no clear evidence that the placenta starts to degrade at 42 weeks, and that studies are based on a report from 1958! (Sure I put this in my previous post, sorry!) lol
> Babies pass meconium in the womb when their digestive systems mature as they reach full term, once you are in labour they stop practicing breathing (or something) so it is very rare to inhale or ingest it on birth, it does happen, but rare.
> 
> I was so worried by the scare mongering and pressure from MIL I agreed I'd have at least a sweep, then be booked in for induction if didn't work - I hardly slept the night before it, then I was woken up early hours by uncomfortable braxton hicks, they'd never woken me up before - so I was going to stay at home, but still went in for the scheduled ctg monitoring I WAS contracting normally! They were getting stronger and I agreed to be checked - 2-3cm effacing and head so low she couldn't do a sweep!
> 
> The rest was a cascade of intervention as she was 'late' but bascially in short, one shot of pethadine, iv fluids (I was nutritionally drained) full story here :https://babyandbump.momtastic.com/p...1142599-over-week-ago-yellow-turned-pink.html ARM, synto, forced pushing on my back, constant monitoring, time limit when the Doc decided I needed kiwi vantose to help (although she was 'just' there but I was exhausted by then) which then resulted in 4th degree tear, immediate cord cutting (she injected anaesthetic to give me an episiotomy which I declined) blood transfusion.
> 
> But she came out vaginally and chose her own birthday, latched on fine (once I got to hold her 3 hours after her birth :( ) and I swear if I'd be let to labour naturally and no forced/rushed pushing I wouldn't have torn (but this is their policy for 'overdue' babies) oh and she was perfect, no signs of overdue and placenta healthy, she was just a 42 weeker..
> x
> 
> Helpful articles:
> https://midwifethinking.com/2010/10/09/the-curse-of-meconium-stained-liquor/
> https://midwifethinking.com/2010/08/20/in-defence-of-the-amniotic-sac/
> https://midwifethinking.com/2011/07/17/induction-a-step-by-step-guide/

congratulations on your healthy baby! good for you for sticking your guns with the dates and the monitoring and the going "overdue". Even though you had some interventions in the end you did everything you could for that baby girl and she's happy and healthy and here. congrats again!


----------



## flubdub

I would definitely wait until 43 weeks, no problem. Yes I'd be fed up by that time lol but the baby knows when he/she is ready. Scans only give you a rough estimate of when the baby is due. I totally expect the dates to be out by a few weeks either side and so 43 weeks to me would be fine. Under no circumstances do I ever want to be induced UNLESS there is something wrong with the baby. Anything other than that - no chance. 
If you DO get to 42 weeks, ask for a scan. They will tell you if the baby is fine in there and you can decide then what you want to do. Good luck.


----------



## oh_so_blessed

My midwives don't like to let anyone go over 41 weeks due to higher probability of complications. I'm a bit concerned about the placenta failing, or the baby aspirating meconium, so I'm not going to go all the way to 42. I'd be comfortable going to 41w4d max. I'm sure of my conception date, btw. I think it's more fuzzy for people who aren't.


----------



## oh_so_blessed

patch2006uk said:


> I went 18 days over by LMP and 15 days over by scan dates. LO had passed his meconium (they broke my waters, but they really couldn't be called waters. It was just poo) and his heart was struggling. They tried to induce, but his heartrate disappeared from the monitors and they couldn't find it again. I had an EMCS.
> 
> I'd never allow myself to go that far overdue again. Up to 42 weeks I'd be comfortable with, but not a day longer. My placenta was fine, but LO clearly wasn't.

Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## oh_so_blessed

BunnyN said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for induction and C sections WHEN there is a good reason, they save lives after all, it's just that they seem to be given without much thought sometimes. In my mum's case I think they were mildly concerned because she was 38 and had slightly high blood pressure or something like that but there wasn't any serious concern, if there was I'm sure she would have been happy to do whatever. Personally I think I would be getting concerned by 43 weeks but I'd be happy to go over 42 if everything was fine.

I don't think giving an induction at 42 weeks is thoughtless.

Although the risks are still "low", compared to births that happen before 42 weeks they are not. If someone wishes to be induced because they're not willing to up the risks to baby then that should not be frowned upon. And, I think the medical professionals indicating their preference for this is good medicine --> patients should know about increased risks for them, and they can make decisions accordingly. 

Also there is the concern with dating. Some people's dates are off, in one direction or another. Would you really risk baby if you weren't sure of your dates? Imagine saying you wanted to wait 'til 43 weeks, knowing the risks of that, and that actually being 44 weeks, which has much more risk. Better safe than sorry. 

No, inductions are not without risk, but they are done in a controlled environment and although not ideal it's probably a better move than waiting for baby to be 43-44 weeks. 

jmo.

--- fwiw, I'm hoping for a natural childbirth myself. My midwives have been very supportive of my taking a hypnobirthing class and my birthplan having indicated not to offer pain meds. I'm also hoping for the birth pool at the hospital. So I'm not some med junkie wishing to have all the interventions, just for background. ---


----------



## 17thy

As long as it takes for him to come on his own.


----------



## BunnyN

> I don't think giving an induction at 42 weeks is thoughtless.
> 
> Although the risks are still "low", compared to births that happen before 42 weeks they are not. If someone wishes to be induced because they're not willing to up the risks to baby then that should not be frowned upon. And, I think the medical professionals indicating their preference for this is good medicine --> patients should know about increased risks for them, and they can make decisions accordingly.
> 
> Also there is the concern with dating. Some people's dates are off, in one direction or another. Would you really risk baby if you weren't sure of your dates? Imagine saying you wanted to wait 'til 43 weeks, knowing the risks of that, and that actually being 44 weeks, which has much more risk. Better safe than sorry.
> 
> No, inductions are not without risk, but they are done in a controlled environment and although not ideal it's probably a better move than waiting for baby to be 43-44 weeks.
> 
> jmo.
> 
> --- fwiw, I'm hoping for a natural childbirth myself. My midwives have been very supportive of my taking a hypnobirthing class and my birthplan having indicated not to offer pain meds. I'm also hoping for the birth pool at the hospital. So I'm not some med junkie wishing to have all the interventions, just for background. ---

I'm not saying that giving an induction at 42 weeks is thoughtless but I've known people who were induced at 38-41 weeks, sometimes of course there is good reason but someone just being fed up of being pregnant doesn't seem like a good reason to be induced before 42 weeks to me. And in the case of slightly increased risk it has to be balanced against the risks of induction. Sometimes it may still be the right option but doctors have to admit to the risks on both sides, most of the mothers I know have been told there are any risks so are unable to make an informed decision.


----------



## oh_so_blessed

BunnyN said:


> I don't think giving an induction at 42 weeks is thoughtless.
> 
> Although the risks are still "low", compared to births that happen before 42 weeks they are not. If someone wishes to be induced because they're not willing to up the risks to baby then that should not be frowned upon. And, I think the medical professionals indicating their preference for this is good medicine --> patients should know about increased risks for them, and they can make decisions accordingly.
> 
> Also there is the concern with dating. Some people's dates are off, in one direction or another. Would you really risk baby if you weren't sure of your dates? Imagine saying you wanted to wait 'til 43 weeks, knowing the risks of that, and that actually being 44 weeks, which has much more risk. Better safe than sorry.
> 
> No, inductions are not without risk, but they are done in a controlled environment and although not ideal it's probably a better move than waiting for baby to be 43-44 weeks.
> 
> jmo.
> 
> --- fwiw, I'm hoping for a natural childbirth myself. My midwives have been very supportive of my taking a hypnobirthing class and my birthplan having indicated not to offer pain meds. I'm also hoping for the birth pool at the hospital. So I'm not some med junkie wishing to have all the interventions, just for background. ---
> 
> I'm not saying that giving an induction at 42 weeks is thoughtless but I've known people who were induced at 38-41 weeks, sometimes of course there is good reason but someone just being fed up of being pregnant doesn't seem like a good reason to be induced before 42 weeks to me. And in the case of slightly increased risk it has to be balanced against the risks of induction. Sometimes it may still be the right option but doctors have to admit to the risks on both sides, most of the mothers I know have been told there are any risks so are unable to make an informed decision.Click to expand...

I will probably be induced between my 41-42 week if baby is late. I will not let them do it at 41 on the dot, but I will also not wait until 42. Aside from ending up with a cesarean or otherwise unpleasant labor, are there other risks of induction? Particularly for baby? I'd rather have a cesarean or unpleasant experience than put the baby at risk. 

Cheers,


----------



## Sommerfugl

I'm 41+5 today (41+6 by their dates) and I'm off to see a consultant today about my not wanting to be induced and continuing my plan for a home birth. I am dreading it.

I'm pretty sure that at this stage I will wait until at least 43 weeks. It's nice to know I'm not the only one, it's easy to be made to feel like I'm some thoughtless selfish thing that's endangering my baby for not going ahead with the standard 'induce at 40+12' policy. 
I was told by one midwife yesterday that "the placenta _does_ stop working after 42 weeks" I wanted to reply with a more accurate statement, but I just smiled and nodded, or tried to at least.


----------



## aliss

I'd rather go 60 weeks then go through that again... I mean, all joking aside, I'd wait as long as humanly possible with daily monitoring. Pitocin induction traumatized me.


----------



## fifi-folle

Baby isn't "late" until after 42 weeks. Normal pregnancy is between 37 and 42 weeks. Induction does carry risks for baby other than increased interventions/c-section/maternal pain; it can cause foetal distress, uterine rupture, haemorrhage amongst others. Whilst midwives and doctors tell you the risks of prolonged pregnancy they do not make clear the risks of agreeing to induction, this means women cannot make an informed choice. 
Here are a couple of articles https://midwifethinking.com/2010/09/16/induction-of-labour-balancing-risks/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595289/


----------



## oh_so_blessed

fifi-folle said:


> Baby isn't "late" until after 42 weeks. Normal pregnancy is between 37 and 42 weeks. Induction does carry risks for baby other than increased interventions/c-section/maternal pain; it can cause foetal distress, uterine rupture, haemorrhage amongst others. Whilst midwives and doctors tell you the risks of prolonged pregnancy they do not make clear the risks of agreeing to induction, this means women cannot make an informed choice.
> Here are a couple of articles https://midwifethinking.com/2010/09/16/induction-of-labour-balancing-risks/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595289/

I looked at the link on NIH, it mentioned nothing about uterine rupture to be sure. I am going to skip the "midwifethinking" link as it doesn't sound very reputable. Inductions are done quite routinely, and, although they are not ideal and certainly need to be lessened, I think by 42 weeks other complications begin to come into play that make it more appealing. There are certainly good and bad experiences from both sides: traumatizing induced labors/ problem-free induced labors as well as complications for baby at over 42 weeks / complication-free. I just think anyone who is reading heavily only one side and making a decision based on scare tactics is doing themselves a disservice. It is possible that everything will be fine for some women who will go to 43+ weeks, we've seen it before, and also dates are not always accurate. But other women will birth babies who suffer (we've had at least one post in this thread). It's up to the mother, but it's extremely important to know the possible problems with each. :thumbup:


----------



## fifi-folle

Having been through induction, EMCS and post partum infection where I was given no information on the risks of induction I will always try to put the other side across as most women I know have no idea that things can go wrong. 
I appreciate there are instances where induction is necessary but the routine management of the duration of pregnancy leads to a high rate of intervention which may not be appropriate. I could post a whole page of links from journal articles to blogs (which are referenced to scholarly articles). My experience has affected my trust in the medical profession, this obviously colours my opinion.


----------



## BunnyN

I think everyone here is in agreement really. No one is trying to argue that it is wrong to decide to induce at 42 weeks or even earlier if there is a good reason. Personally I would be nervous about going much over 42 weeks but in some places it is standard to induce at 41 weeks without any extra reason or earlier upon the mothers request or for minor precautionary reasons and no risks are not explained to the mother. I do find the mentality that induction is normal, without risks, and always the best option disturbing. If a doctor and mother carefully weigh the risks of both sides and make an informed decision to have an induction that is a perfectly responsible and good decision. Clearly there are many risks to induction, there are also risks to going over term. I know a baby who was affected because of being overdue and the placenta had started to degrade, thankfully it was minor and she made a full recovery. These days most risks of being overdue can be carefully monitored with scans and tests. Mothers who know both sides and don't want to be induced at 41 weeks should not be made to feel like they are deciding to endanger their babies. My biggest concerns about induction are actually the risks to the baby, especially if it is not well controlled, which is not uncommon. Still it's early days for me and I'm hoping my LO will come on time :).


----------



## ace28

oh_so_blessed said:


> My midwives don't like to let anyone go over 41 weeks due to higher probability of complications. I'm a bit concerned about the placenta failing, or the baby aspirating meconium, so I'm not going to go all the way to 42. I'd be comfortable going to 41w4d max. I'm sure of my conception date, btw. I think it's more fuzzy for people who aren't.

I just wanted to take a second to respond to this. There have been several studies that show that, statistically, the risks of being postterm increase slightly at 42 weeks and moderately at 43 weeks. Before these time points (ie, up until 42 weeks), there is no more statistical risk of complications than if the baby were born at 40 weeks. 

That being said, I'll admit that going to 42 weeks makes me nervous, a bit. I'm also quite sure of my dates and so if I do end up going to 42 weeks, that 42 weeks is ACTUALLY 42 weeks, and not, say, 41 weeks or 40 weeks like some women's could be. I told my midwife I absolutely refuse to go past 42 weeks without a biophysical profile to show that the placenta is still working and the baby is still healthy- and no matter what, I won't go past 43 weeks. Period. But that average birth time for first time moms at my midwife practice is 41w3d I believe, so we'll see how this goes!


----------



## oh_so_blessed

ace28 said:


> oh_so_blessed said:
> 
> 
> My midwives don't like to let anyone go over 41 weeks due to higher probability of complications. I'm a bit concerned about the placenta failing, or the baby aspirating meconium, so I'm not going to go all the way to 42. I'd be comfortable going to 41w4d max. I'm sure of my conception date, btw. I think it's more fuzzy for people who aren't.
> 
> I just wanted to take a second to respond to this. There have been several studies that show that, statistically, the risks of being postterm increase slightly at 42 weeks and moderately at 43 weeks. Before these time points (ie, up until 42 weeks), there is no more statistical risk of complications than if the baby were born at 40 weeks.
> 
> That being said, I'll admit that going to 42 weeks makes me nervous, a bit. I'm also quite sure of my dates and so if I do end up going to 42 weeks, that 42 weeks is ACTUALLY 42 weeks, and not, say, 41 weeks or 40 weeks like some women's could be. I told my midwife I absolutely refuse to go past 42 weeks without a biophysical profile to show that the placenta is still working and the baby is still healthy- and no matter what, I won't go past 43 weeks. Period. But that average birth time for first time moms at my midwife practice is 41w3d I believe, so we'll see how this goes!Click to expand...

That's interesting with the average date. I hope hope hope I go early. But, if I don't, then at least I know they'll be pushing for induction at 41 weeks. I can then push back if I feel I want the extra few days or so. I am happy I'm not having to argue the other way, it's easier to say no, let's monitor a few days, than to make them do something earlier than they want. :)


----------



## ace28

oh_so_blessed said:


> I am happy I'm not having to argue the other way, it's easier to say no, let's monitor a few days, than to make them do something earlier than they want. :)

Yeah and believe it or not that's actually the problem I've run into with my practice... they don't even do SWEEPS until 42 weeks and are perfectly happy letting their clients go on and on in pregnancy, as long as the BPP comes back normal at 42 weeks.

I would rather have the BPP and sweep done at 41 weeks, but they won't since it's "intrusive" and they try to be as hands-off as possible. They can't, however, stop me from jumping ship if I ever get uncomfortable or worried and just want to be induced. And I've let them know in no uncertain terms that I will not be going past 43 weeks (really would prefer not to go past 42). :haha:


----------



## fifi-folle

Wow! I'd love that! I'm already worrying about what will happen if I don't go before 42 wks as I'll have to see a consultant at that point who will try to push me into an ELCS as they don't induce you if you've had a previous section.


----------



## ace28

So I wanted to come back here and update this thread with some perspective, seeing as how I'm now 8 (almost 9!) days overdue. It's hard, this waiting thing!!! My commitment to this home birth and wanting to let my body do it naturally are really the only things keeping me going right now. 

Knowing that if had I chosen a different route and gone with traditional OB care, I would probably have been induced by now is both simultaneously tempting and overwhelming filled with a thank-god-we-didn't feeling. Of course it's tempting to just say eff it, get this baby out... but it's really nice to know that I'm not being FORCED into it, that I can give my body the time it needs to go into labor on its own and give this baby however much time he needs in there without worrying about my medical provider pressuring me into an induction.

On the flip side of the coin though, it's worrying to go overdue. In a "normal" OB-centered clinical setting, I would at the very least have an induction date booked by now. I would know that there was some relief in sight. This kind of open-ended waiting, of "we'll see when he comes" is maddening! Also, we are firmly sticking to the not-past-43-weeks mark no matter what since all the research shows an increased risk at that point- so then there's the "what if" worry of what if he DOESN'T come by then, and we have to end up in the hospital with a strange doctor we don't know and an induction we didn't want, instead of the nice lovely home birth we've got planned?


----------



## BunnyN

Just read your update. How are things going? Hope you LO shows himself soon :)


----------



## PepsiChic

I was reading this thread as I foudn it very interesting. I was 40+6 with LO, Im not sure how far Id allow to go overdue, Id probably request monitoring at the 41 week mark and go to 42 weeks providing everything is ok. 

I am highly curious though as to how the OP ace28 is since her last update 5 days ago and if she got her natural lbour/delivery or if the waiting game is still going! I do hope everything has gone/will go as smoothly as possible for you! x


----------

