w/o 46 weeks - how long would you be willing to wait?

papagena · July 2010

Just curious. I figure this is a more intervention free board (generally speaking) so I'm wondering what your perspective is. This assumes that all has gone well with your pg and things are looking good (baby descended, head down, etc).

I'd say 43 weeks max, with substantial monitoring for placenta/fluid, etc.

christina627 · July 2010

My MW said her son was born at 45 wks. And she knew the date of conception.

43 weeks was pushing it with mine...I don't think I could have done 44.

HRMJPC · July 2010

I'm thinking 42 weeks for me.

WinesNotWhines · July 2010

My OB won't let me go past 42 weeks, and that sounds reasonable to me. I think I'd lose my mind after that.

Unknown · July 2010

This content has been removed.

Germanwife2b · July 2010

Around 42 weeks for me. I have a friend who had a nice and quick homebirth at 42 weeks and 3 days (after being about 5 cms for 2 weeks). That sounds reasonable to me.

I do IVF for my pregnancies, so there is no doubt in my mind when conception happened :-) For that reason, 42 weeks is about my max. I might agree to a little later with extensive monitoring because I have seen some pretty sick post-term babies at my work as a nurse.

pepomntpat · July 2010

Probably the 42ish week point.

gnomely · July 2010

42 weeks. Like PPs said, I'd be too worried (and anxious!) to last much longer.

pinksweetpea2 · July 2010

I was 42 weeks and 5 days when I decided to get a u/s. My MW had been monitoring me regularly and everything looked fine, but I needed that extra conformation at that point. That night (the u/s was scheduled for the morning), my water broke at 2 am. Lily was born at exactly 43 weeks.

If everything had looked good with Lily, I probably would have kept going. I don't know for how long, but I can't imagine giving in to an induction if there was no medical reason for it.

I hope I don't have to go through this again, but if I do, I would do it again. I know now that I would have ended up with a whole slew of UNNECESSARY interventions, including a c-section, if I had gotten induced. I am really glad I stuck it out- even though it was the hardest thing I had ever done (even harder than labor).

mh2t · July 2010

My birth center won't let me go beyond 42 weeks. I think that's reasonable.

Ready2006 · July 2010

If I make it to 42, I'd start talking to OB about induction methods to take place during week 43.

triumphantreturnofplanningbug · July 2010

If I were allowed, I'd go 42-ish, and look to induction at 43.

alli2672 · July 2010

pinksweetpea2:
. I know now that I would have ended up with a whole slew of UNNECESSARY interventions, including a c-section, if I had gotten induced.

I understand that people have intuitions about things, and that's fine.

I do want to say that the randomized controlled trials in the US that look at expectant management vs. induction after 41 weeks on average show a 22% higher c-section rate with expectant management than induction of labor.

14years · July 2010

I am wimpier than the rest of you. I say at 41 weeks I would seriously consider an induction. I think I would be a major stress case after that.

Temp146997687502158 · July 2010

I'll go 42 weeks or July 30th. that's it for me though.

pinksweetpea2 · July 2010

alli2672:
pinksweetpea2:
. I know now that I would have ended up with a whole slew of UNNECESSARY interventions, including a c-section, if I had gotten induced.

I understand that people have intuitions about things, and that's fine.
I do want to say that the randomized controlled trials in the US that look at expectant management vs. induction after 41 weeks on average show a 22% higher c-section rate with expectant management than induction of labor.

I wasn't speaking about everyone- just myself and my experience. I guess I am technically a statistic, but I would rather think of myself as a human being.

Intuition has nothing to do with the above statement. It might not backed up with fancy statistics, but it is pretty much a fact. Here, you tell me:

I was "late"

Lily was "big" and posterior for most of my labor

my water was broken for more than 24 hours (the whole 40 hours to be exact)

my dilation rate was not even near standard (I was at 6 for 10 hours and then 9 for 10 hours)

The only reason I got through this labor was because my MW didn't tell me the time, didn't tell me my dilation and never once said I couldn't do it.

Do you think I would I have had the same experience in a hospital? Do you think I would have ended up with a vaginal birth?

Statistics are great (they helped a lot to ease my families fears about homebirths), but when it comes down to it, we are all individuals.

Just curious where your information comes from? Nevermind, I found it....and I also found this interesting rebuttal:

https://www.lamaze.org/Research/WhenResearchisFlawed/PosttermPregnancyCochrane/tabid/173/Default.aspx

"Practice philosophy aside, a policy of routine induction at 41 weeks produces more than a conceptual problem. Primiparous women have roughly double the risk of having an induced labor end in a c-section. A policy of routine induction at 41 weeks exposes large numbers of a vulnerable population to a greatly heightened risk of surgical delivery with all of the attendant problems of a major operation as well as all the future reproductive consequences of having a uterine scar. In addition, crowding the labor ward with women undergoing an unnecessary intervention means there may be no room for a woman who really needs care. In their paper criticizing routine 41-week induction, Menticoglou and Hall (2002) cite a case where admission was delayed for a pregnant woman requiring IV antihypertensive drugs for severe hypertension because no beds were available. Several were filled with women undergoing routine 41-week inductions. The woman died of a stroke before she could be admitted. To quote Menticoglou and Hall's conclusion: ?Routine induction at 41 weeks is ritual induction at term, unsupported by rational evidence of benefit. It is unacceptable, illogical and unsupportable interference with a normal physiologic situation.?

earthboundmisfit · July 2010

14years:
I am wimpier than the rest of you. I say at 41 weeks I would seriously consider an induction. I think I would be a major stress case after that.

I'll agree with you. I think it's perfectly fine and great if people go past 41 and even 42 weeks. And I think those babies would come out beautiful and healthy. BUT as for myself..I personally wouldn't want to go much past 41 weeks. That's my own comfort level though..

pinksweetpea2 · July 2010

earthboundmisfit:
14years:
I am wimpier than the rest of you. I say at 41 weeks I would seriously consider an induction. I think I would be a major stress case after that.
I'll agree with you. I think it's perfectly fine and great if people go past 41 and even 42 weeks. And I think those babies would come out beautiful and healthy. BUT as for myself..I personally wouldn't want to go much past 41 weeks. That's my own comfort level though..

Yes, it was stressful. However, since Lily was doing great (my MWs did daily NSTs after 42 weeks), I didn't feel comfortable going forward with a transfer and induction. For my comfort level, it was better to wait for her to come on her own.

My biggest problem with 41 week inductions is that most women do not realize that it is their choice. They think they don't have another option- that it is dangerous to go past 41 weeks, and I think that is very sad because for most Mamas it is just untrue.

Mrs.Handy · July 2010

Our practice doesn't let us go past 41 1/2 weeks. I've been impressed with their low-intervention approach so far so I trust their judgment in this. But we'll see how it goes. I really don't want to get to that point.

kjmama · July 2010

45 Weeks?!

I don't think I would be able to function at that point. I would be downing evening primrose and red rasberry leaf tea cocktails while doing double nipple stimulation and acupucture!

My daughter was 42 weeks and the practice I was with would not go further so I was induced and came literally within minutes of a c-section only because I had been in labor for 24 hours. Luckaly just as they were getting ready to wheel me out I yelled ITS TIME! SHE IS READY! I am so grateful that it ended up that way. This time I have a MW practice who will let me go I guess as long as I want provided we are both healthy.

drewiekc · July 2010

My OB will let me go to 42 weeks, with daily NST starting at 41. I'm comletely comfortable with that.

d.cubed · July 2010

I'm not "exactly" sure when our baby was conceived, thus I'd be comfortable going to 43, if everything looked good. I have a real problem with how pregnancies are "dated" if you are not absolutely certain of when you conceived, so I think that "due dates" are pretty arbitrary - within a week or so. Along with the "additional 8 days" for being a first time mom, I just figure that the baby will come when he/she comes!

I have no problems with going to 42, but I would want to do the ultrasound to make sure everything was looking good past that date (even though I don't really trust that the ultrasounds are particularly accurate - more for my peace of mind). Prior to 42, though, I wouldn't even do the ultrasound.

I had a friend who went to 45 weeks and she had a healthy baby, so it's not unheard of.

alli2672 · July 2010

pinksweetpea2:
alli2672:
pinksweetpea2:
. I know now that I would have ended up with a whole slew of UNNECESSARY interventions, including a c-section, if I had gotten induced.

I understand that people have intuitions about things, and that's fine.
I do want to say that the randomized controlled trials in the US that look at expectant management vs. induction after 41 weeks on average show a 22% higher c-section rate with expectant management than induction of labor.

I wasn't speaking about everyone- just myself and my experience. I guess I am technically a statistic, but I would rather think of myself as a human being.
Intuition has nothing to do with the above statement. It might not backed up with fancy statistics, but it is pretty much a fact. Here, you tell me:
I was "late"
Lily was "big" and posterior for most of my labor
my water was broken for more than 24 hours (the whole 40 hours to be exact)
my dilation rate was not even near standard (I was at 6 for 10 hours and then 9 for 10 hours)
The only reason I got through this labor was because my MW didn't tell me the time, didn't tell me my dilation and never once said I couldn't do it.
Do you think I would I have had the same experience in a hospital? Do you think I would have ended up with a vaginal birth?
Statistics are great (they helped a lot to ease my families fears about homebirths), but when it comes down to it, we are all individuals.
Just curious where your information comes from? Nevermind, I found it....and I also found this interesting rebuttal:
https://www.lamaze.org/Research/WhenResearchisFlawed/PosttermPregnancyCochrane/tabid/173/Default.aspx
"Practice philosophy aside, a policy of routine induction at 41 weeks produces more than a conceptual problem. Primiparous women have roughly double the risk of having an induced labor end in a c-section. A policy of routine induction at 41 weeks exposes large numbers of a vulnerable population to a greatly heightened risk of surgical delivery with all of the attendant problems of a major operation as well as all the future reproductive consequences of having a uterine scar. In addition, crowding the labor ward with women undergoing an unnecessary intervention means there may be no room for a woman who really needs care. In their paper criticizing routine 41-week induction, Menticoglou and Hall (2002) cite a case where admission was delayed for a pregnant woman requiring IV antihypertensive drugs for severe hypertension because no beds were available. Several were filled with women undergoing routine 41-week inductions. The woman died of a stroke before she could be admitted. To quote Menticoglou and Hall's conclusion: ?Routine induction at 41 weeks is ritual induction at term, unsupported by rational evidence of benefit. It is unacceptable, illogical and unsupportable interference with a normal physiologic situation.?

it came from here.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970

There haven't been studies on primiparous women, so I am not sure how you can say that there is a "greatly heightened surgical risk." It sort of makes me think that whoever wrote this is talking out their ass.

mghnmouse · July 2010

pinksweetpea2:
I was 42 weeks and 5 days when I decided to get a u/s. My MW had been monitoring me regularly and everything looked fine, but I needed that extra conformation at that point. That night (the u/s was scheduled for the morning), my water broke at 2 am. Lily was born at exactly 43 weeks.
If everything had looked good with Lily, I probably would have kept going. I don't know for how long, but I can't imagine giving in to an induction if there was no medical reason for it.
I hope I don't have to go through this again, but if I do, I would do it again. I know now that I would have ended up with a whole slew of UNNECESSARY interventions, including a c-section, if I had gotten induced. I am really glad I stuck it out- even though it was the hardest thing I had ever done (even harder than labor).

This.

Want a personalized experience?

w/o 46 weeks - how long would you be willing to wait?

Re: w/o 46 weeks - how long would you be willing to wait?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards