Overdue- how long would you be willing to wait?

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[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]

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]

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!

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]

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).

 

[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