Has anyone refused induction & gone past 43 weeks???

(33 Posts)

I'm 40+11 & have an induction booked for Tuesday. I've had two unsuccessful sweeps & another booked in for tomorrow.
The lovely MW I saw yesterday said that I can cancel my induction & see how everything goes. She says that 42 weeks is fine & that some people just have a longer gestation.
I was induced at 40+12 with DD.
I'm not at all uncomfortable or desperate for the pregnancy to be over. The baby is still VERY active & I had a scan at 41 weeks & everything is just fine in there!
Has anyone waited & gone into spontaneous labour later than 43 weeks??

Rainbowbabyhope Mon 21-Jan-13 12:47:26

sunny you may be right but from what i understand you can't get more thorough monitoring in the UK than what they do for expectant management when you go overdue.

Flisspaps Mon 21-Jan-13 12:50:08

Sunny - staying in for a week or 6 hours post birth is irrelevant here though.

5madthings Mon 21-Jan-13 12:50:22

I went to 18 or 21 days over with ds3, depending on which dates were used, mine is the hospitals.

Once you get to term plus 14 most hospitals will want you booked in for induction.

You can have expectant management which is what I opted for.

There is a fob page and website/forum called tenmonthmamas that has lots of info on it.

Fingers crossed you don't get that far.

I would have no concerns waiting till term plus 14days before inducing and then it would depend, with ds3he was very active and scans etc showed he was fine.

With dd (no5) I had concerns, lits if stress and was I'll, her movements weren't as good etc so I opted for a induction. With hindsight I would say that the issues were more MW being stressed due to other issues and an anterior placenta that meant I couldn't feel her as well.

My lab our was fine but I needed syntocinon drip, I think had I waited another few days and managed to get her to turn (she was back to back) that wouldn't gave been necessary.

Flisspaps Mon 21-Jan-13 12:50:52

As in, on this thread. You stay in after the baby is born. It's nothing to do with monitoring in pregnancy.

sunnyday123 Mon 21-Jan-13 12:59:39

Of course it's not the same but maternity care varies lots throughout the country and many hospitals simply are not up to scratch. im just saying that just because one midwife says she's following procedure may not be the best care and advice.

With both my pregnancies I had thyroid problems and my treatment for the seconds was consultant led, loads of appointments and monitoring etc whereas nothing with my first. When I questioned why the extra attention the consultant replied its because I am hypothyroid and I "slipped through the net" the first time. I was denied an epidural both times due to over staffing and never got scanned once when I had intense itching during my first pregnancy until I went to A&E. again not relevant here but what's I'm stressing is that in many areas maternity care is rubbish. With my second I had one midwife to four women! Not even legal I'm sure but man hospitals are over stretched like this.

Maternity units vary and obviously you know how good your local hospitals are, how over stretched they may or may not be, other mothers views etc. therres no way I'd trust my local hospital with overdue monitoring but you may have complete confidence in yours in which case I'm sure you'll be fine smile

BartletForTeamGB Wed 23-Jan-13 10:40:00

Gosh, no, not a chance.

There is no way to predict placental failure. All a scan shows is how the baby and placenta are at that point in time.

"As for the risk of still birth, can I just say that the evidence that this advice is based on is very weak, and flawed."

This is nonsense. The evidence is fairly robust. I suggest reading proper scientific evidence.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21501456

It comes down to whether you consider the risk of stillbirth to outweigh the risk of being induced. Personally, having had a stillborn baby (not post-dates) the 'birth experience' is far less important than having a healthy living baby.

steppemum Wed 23-Jan-13 10:51:59

I was induced at 40 + 14 with my first.

he really did not want to appear, and I went through all the increasing induction options until he was born. at 40 + 16

At that point he was 10 lbs and 1 oz and he had the biggest head on a baby I have ever seen (seriously, when I tried to put baby hats on him he went straight into 3-6 months

I was determined to wait and be natural etc. In the end I wished I had been induced earlier, as he obviously wasn't coming any time soon.

Was ill with dd1 and induced at 38 weeks, she looked as if she was only 36 weeks, totally covered in the white stuff, my dates were rock solid, but doc was convinced she was 2 weeks younger (like to know how she could have been conceived while dh was away hmm )

dd2 was induced at 40 + 10, but she got moving after a sweep, and was born quickly. She was 10lbs 7 oz

so I really do think that some women gestate for longer, and babies are fine and healthy, but now I can't see the point in waiting if they are going to need help and are so big!!

duchesse Wed 23-Jan-13 11:04:43

My sister has 44 week pregnancies. First one was a perfectly well and healthy 44 weeker. Next two were induced at 42 weeks as she was living in France: they came out covered in vernix. Some women simply do gestate for longer I think.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now