# High risk because of age?



## pansorie

I turned 36 on the 10th, so I was 35 when I conceived. So far my pregnancy has been normal and uneventful. I have had no bleeding since my last cycle. No implantation bleeding, spotting, I didn't even bleed when my OB poked around my cervix. I have had no out of the norm cramping, no pain, nothing to cause me to panic other than my own anxiety. 

My doctor insists I am a high risk pregnancy due to my age alone. Because of it she also insisted I have a few extra tests. The way it was presented was you have choice, but not really. NT scan and bloodwork all came back amazing and normal, my Level II is scheduled in Jan. I am going to go ahead with the Level II, but I am really starting to feel it is unnecessary. 

Are we automatically high risk just because we are 35+? When I think high risk I think of women who have had serious gestational problems, miscarriages, low counts, etc. I have been blessed in that I have never even had a MC that I am aware of, and this pregnancy has been as smooth as my first when I was 20 years old (other than the morning sickness which is waaaay worse this time around). 

What are everyone else's thoughts?


----------



## tulip1975

It sounds like there is no indication that you are high risk. I'm 39, and my doctor ordered two blood tests: the Harmony test at 10 weeks and AFP test at 16 weeks, but has never treated me like he's worried. I didn't even have a 12-week NT scan. My 20-week anatomy scan was probably on a Level II machine, but I wouldn't say no to it, because it was pretty cool to see the baby as well as possible and just check to make sure that everything measured normally. 

Some doctors are just overly paranoid - fear of being sued, I suppose.


----------



## Leikela

It is said in the medical community that if you are over 35, you are automatically high risk. It is just silly, if you ask me. I was 35 when I conceived my daughter and 36 when she was born. I also had a smooth pregnancy with no issues. No bleeding, no bloating and went into labor right on schedule. I think it is assumed that the older you are, the less healthy you are, hence at risk for more issues but as long as you take care of yourself, exercise and eat right, you are at no more of a risk as a 20 something. You will be fine. :)


----------



## timeforababy

I had assumed that being >35 would put me at high risk but so far no one has said anything. My GP treated me as normal and the midwife said I was low risk as I was healthy, exercised, didn't smoke/drink and BMI < 30.

This is also my first. 

So I guess it depends on your dr.


----------



## pansorie

Leikela said:


> It is said in the medical community that if you are over 35, you are automatically high risk. It is just silly, if you ask me. I was 35 when I conceived my daughter and 36 when she was born. I also had a smooth pregnancy with no issues. No bleeding, no bloating and went into labor right on schedule. I think it is assumed that the older you are, the less healthy you are, hence at risk for more issues but as long as you take care of yourself, exercise and eat right, you are at no more of a risk as a 20 something. You will be fine. :)

There is a girl at my job who is 10 years younger than me and 1 week ahead. She is a not doing well at all. She fainted at work, has had issues with bleeding, was recommended to go on bed rest at 8 WEEKS. Whenever she comes up to me and talks about what's going on I feel bad in a way.

Like I feel, shouldn't that be me? I've been working 10 hour days, M-F, and other than needing a serious amount of sleep on the weekends, I really feel no different. In fact, ever since I hit the 2nd trimester, I have been feeling extra great. 

Basically, I don't feel high risk at all, even being a pregnant senior citizen at 36.


----------



## Larkspur

I had two pretty uneventful pregnancies and births at ages 36 and 38 (both beautiful, healthy, full-term natural deliveries), but the long and the short of it is that yes, being over 35 does raise your risk factors. 

That's not to say that it's impossible or even hard to have a straightforward and healthy pregnancy over the age of 35, but personally, unless the docs were making crazy demands like "You have to have a C-section or induction at 38 weeks because of your age", I would accept any extra tests etc as normal and reasonable exercises of caution. 

None of my doctors or midwives were alarmist during my pregnancies (one obstetrician even remarked, when I made a joke about being "ancient" that under 40 was still considered a 'young'un' these days) but when my daughter was measuring behind from 20 weeks, I had extra scans scheduled every 2-4 weeks, and weekly tests from 38 weeks. A bit of a hassle for sure, but I would faaaaaaaar rather be safe than cavalier when it comes to the health of my babies.


----------



## pansorie

Larkspur said:


> I had two pretty uneventful pregnancies and births at ages 36 and 38 (both beautiful, healthy, full-term natural deliveries), but the long and the short of it is that yes, being over 35 does raise your risk factors.
> 
> That's not to say that it's impossible or even hard to have a straightforward and healthy pregnancy over the age of 35, but personally, unless the docs were making crazy demands like "You have to have a C-section or induction at 38 weeks because of your age", I would accept any extra tests etc as normal and reasonable exercises of caution.
> 
> None of my doctors or midwives were alarmist during my pregnancies (one obstetrician even remarked, when I made a joke about being "ancient" that under 40 was still considered a 'young'un' these days) but when my daughter was measuring behind from 20 weeks, I had extra scans scheduled every 2-4 weeks, and weekly tests from 38 weeks. A bit of a hassle for sure, but I would faaaaaaaar rather be safe than cavalier when it comes to the health of my babies.

I know you are right, and this is true from all of the literature I have read, but a part of me can't help but wonder if the risks of having a baby over 35 is overblown. And I know I am probably talking too early and being overly confident... I am only 13 weeks. But I am just getting around to the idea that this pregnancy for me has not been bad at all (other than morning sickness). I think the NT scan and the labwork may have overly assured me. 

I am nowhere near as worried about the Level II as I was worried about the NT scan, but maybe I should be more cautious in my thinking. 

I think for the most part my doctor's requests have been reasonable. She told me the last time we spoke that by the end of the pregnancy I will have a good idea of how she doctors. She has requested I do the NT scan, Level II, and the Quad I believe it is called? Hopefully these will be all the tests we need.


----------



## tulip1975

Pansorie - I agree that the over 35 thing is overblown. Higher risk doesn't mean the same thing as high risk.


----------



## Leikela

The only risk that over 35 ladies have is having old eggs which increases the risk of chromosone abnormalities because the genes inside an old egg can be "sticky". However, once you pass all those initial "tests" and your risk is considered low, you don't offer any more risk than a 20 year old. With my first pregnancy, I was told my risk was that of a 23 year old and I was 36 at the time. I think the over 35 thing is definitely overblown but hey, it gets us more tests covered by insurance and more ultrasounds. I'll take it! LOL :)


----------



## Larkspur

Leikela said:


> The only risk that over 35 ladies have is having old eggs which increases the risk of chromosone abnormalities because the genes inside an old egg can be "sticky". However, once you pass all those initial "tests" and your risk is considered low, you don't offer any more risk than a 20 year old.

I don't want to be Debbie Downer but I don't think that's true. Over 35 pregnancies also have a higher risk of miscarriage, premature birth, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes and c-section. 

Now, that increased risk maybe secondary to health issues that tend to increase with age, eg being overweight, I don't know. What I do know is that public health systems arent in the habit of throwing away money on "overblown" risks. They usually work the opposite way, providing the minimum level of care that is acceptable compared to risk. If it is being funded, you can be sure there is a solid medical reason for it.

Again, I don't believe in being over-anxious, as the normal result from a 35+ pregnancy is a healthy, normal baby. But it's really not worth being complacent either. You can find a happy medium.


----------



## Leikela

I think we all know that being older carries some risk but not to the point that the medical community makes it seem. All the medical material states the risk increases after age 35 but in a small margin as compared to someone younger. That is all.


----------



## tag74

I was 39 when I had my baby and my doctor's office did not treat me any different than when I was 25 years old with my first.

We have been hearing over 35 is high risk for decades. This is just outdated statistics.

Decades ago our mothers and friends smoked and carelessly took care of themselves. Took ibuprofen and other medications and drugs they shouldn't have been putting into their pregnant bodies. My mother did this as did many others! This also created many health problems for those in their 30s, 40s and 50s. 

As we have entered into a new millennium, we are more aware of health risks, weight issues etc. and more and more we are taking control of our bodies. 

High risk really only applies to those with genetic/family history, unhealthy moms who haven't taken care of themselves.

You are high risk regardless of your age if you aren't healthy and/or if you sadly have genetics that have affected your female organs or fertility.

Enjoy each and every day of this pregnancy. The upside for being treated "high risk"&#8230;extra special attention others won't get. :winkwink:


----------



## Luvspnk31

I'm 37 and my mw hasn't treated me any different just because of my age. Although, my paperwork does say " elderly multigravida" , but that's medical terminology. Makes me laugh though, lol. As far as testing, I refused all testing based on preference. They have to ask, and some drs like to make it sound like it's not a choice. It is. You can ALWAYS refuse. If you don't want something, just tell them no. Your reasons are your own. My opinion is, that if a dr is trying to bully you into, or make u feel bad for not doing something, then you might want to consider a different dr. I ended up switching around 14 wks because the dr was trying to say I needed a c-section. My last baby was bigger, but I had 3 average sized babies before him. It was very clear she had already made up her mind about the situation even that early. So, I switched. There's sound medical advise, and bullying. I don't really go in for the alarmist mentality, so I found a mw who treats me with respect and like a intelligent person.


----------



## 40isnotold

I'm high risk because I'm 40 and pregnant for the first time and because I'm having twins. I love the idea of more doctor appointments because I like knowing everything is ok with both babies. I see a regular obgyn, as well as a high risk specialist once a month, then when I hit 20 weeks, I'll go up to twice a month with the high risk doctor and stay at once a month with the obgyn.


----------



## Diana3

I got the same spiel from my perinatologist! I'm 42 and pregnant with my first baby. I had one miscarriage a couple of years ago but it was very early on and I was told it just happens sometimes. I am overall healthy, in good shape and look/feel much younger than my age. I had Panorama test and blood work and all came back normal and great results but the perinatologist still scared the hell out of me with statistics about my age and that false negatives from prenatal screening tests like Panorama do happen, and pushed me to do an amnio. I did the amnio and the results came back normal. I got a big scare after the amnio because my fluid was leaking for a few days after. Thankfully, it stopped. The 20-week anatomy scan was also normal. I have several friends over 35 and into their early 40s who had perfectly healthy babies and also know a few under 35 who had complications. I don't think age alone is automatically a high risk, if you are healthy, take good care of yourself, eat well and move. My great-grandmother had her last surprise baby at 48 and that baby is still alive in her 90s and doing well.


----------



## rmsh1

I'm interested to see how different things are for me this time around. I was 34 when I had my first, and am now pregnant with my second and I will be 36 next month. Will see if I get extra attention


----------



## pansorie

rmsh1 said:


> I'm interested to see how different things are for me this time around. I was 34 when I had my first, and am now pregnant with my second and I will be 36 next month. Will see if I get extra attention

In all honesty, other than all the extra chromosome tests, I don't feel like they treat me any different. In fact, I have called a few times with worry and the nurse's response is always something all the lines of everything sounds normal, you have no history of mc, etc etc. I am really starting to think they blew up the high risk thing to convince me to do the genetic testing.


----------

