s/o the December 12 moms- being "overdue"

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

I was browsing around on there thanks to the post below and I thought of a rant.

What is it with inductions at 41 weeks? It is a major pet peeve of mine when someone gets induced at 41 weeks (or before) for the SOLE REASON that they are "overdue." So you're going to elect to have a medical procedure done (that most certainly carries with it a certain amount of risk) that effects not only you, but also your LO, simply because you are impatient- either the mother, the doctor, or both?? That's crazy. And irresponsible. Now if there is a valid medical reason then I get it but that seems rare compared to the number of inductions that are done just out of convenience or impatience.

I was prepared to go to 42 weeks before I would consider induction. Sure as heck I wanted my baby out so I could meet her and so I could not be pregnant anymore, but there was NO WAY I was having an induction unless there was a true medical reason or emergency.

Another reason it bothers me- most OBs don't seem to care (read: ask) how long your menstrual cycle is or if it varies. This is valuable information because a woman who has a 24 day cycle is probably going to be "due" sooner than a woman with a 40 day cycle. Why? Because there is a good chance that the woman with the 40 day cycle ovulated "later" than the woman with the 24 day cycle and would therefore be "due" later because she has not actually been pregnant for as many days as the woman with the 24 day cycle. This would mean the woman with the 40 day cycle could easily be "due" a week later than the woman with the 24 day cycle. But they don't seem to take that into account when offering inductions to supposedly "overdue" women.

But regardless, a "due date" is not an expiration date or a "best by" date. It is nothing more than a guess. I wish more women would remember that and quit freaking out when they go "overdue"- either out of impatience or worry or both. It's perfectly within the range of normal to have a baby 2 weeks after your "due date" as long as no "red flags" are detected. Going past 41 weeks should not be of any concern in a normal, healthy pregnancy.

joie12 · December 2012

I was always surprised by this, and wonder if my group of OBs was just more relaxed about things. I went to 41w, and induction was never mentioned. They always stressed that the due date was just a projection, not a prediction, and that I should think of it as a due month, not a due date.

In retrospect, I really really like my OB.

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

joie12:
I was always surprised by this, and wonder if my group of OBs was just more relaxed about things. I went to 41w, and induction was never mentioned. They always stressed that the due date was just a projection, not a prediction, and that I should think of it as a due month, not a due date.
In retrospect, I really really like my OB.

That's awesome. There were 4 OBs in the practice I went to. Some were more relaxed about it than others. Hats off to all the OBs (and midwives) who respect that a woman's body almost always knows best in this department.

sooner1981 · December 2012

NatesLady1309:

I was browsing around on there thanks to the post below and I thought of a rant.

What is it with inductions at 41 weeks? It is a major pet peeve of mine when someone gets induced at 41 weeks (or before) for the SOLE REASON that they are "overdue." So you're going to elect to have a medical procedure done (that most certainly carries with it a certain amount of risk) that effects not only you, but also your LO, simply because you are impatient- either the mother, the doctor, or both?? That's crazy. And irresponsible. Now if there is a valid medical reason then I get it but that seems rare compared to the number of inductions that are done just out of convenience or impatience.

I was prepared to go to 42 weeks before I would consider induction. Sure as heck I wanted my baby out so I could meet her and so I could not be pregnant anymore, but there was NO WAY I was having an induction unless there was a true medical reason or emergency.

Another reason it bothers me- most OBs don't seem to care (read: ask) how long your menstrual cycle is or if it varies. This is valuable information because a woman who has a 24 day cycle is probably going to be "due" sooner than a woman with a 40 day cycle. Why? Because there is a good chance that the woman with the 40 day cycle ovulated "later" than the woman with the 24 day cycle and would therefore be "due" later because she has not actually been pregnant for as many days as the woman with the 24 day cycle. This would mean the woman with the 40 day cycle could easily be "due" a week later than the woman with the 24 day cycle. But they don't seem to take that into account when offering inductions to supposedly "overdue" women.

But regardless, a "due date" is not an expiration date or a "best by" date. It is nothing more than a guess. I wish more women would remember that and quit freaking out when they go "overdue"- either out of impatience or worry or both. It's perfectly within the range of normal to have a baby 2 weeks after your "due date" as long as no "red flags" are detected. Going past 41 weeks should not be of any concern in a normal, healthy pregnancy.

I will bite. Actually, according to most well-regarded medical literature, the risks of delivering a stillborn or a baby with potentially-fatal meconium aspiration go up some after 41 weeks, and go up greatly after 42 weeks. Also, there are virtually no benefits for the baby to going past 41 weeks. By that point, their heads are getting to be very close to the maximum size able to get out safely in a vaginal delivery, they are retaining fluids because even so-called "healthy" 41 week placentas are much less functional than healthy placentas earlier in the pregnancy. The baby is more likely to have already passed its first stool (hence the meconium worry), etc.

Most OBs will not let their patients go past 41 weeks. Some will, if the mom is dead set on delivering "without interventions," as long as the mom is willing to submit to multiple NSTs and BPPs (which I consider to be every bit as much of an "unnatural" act as a little bit of artificial oxytocin to speed things along...

Inductions at 41 weeks are not done for "vanity" purposes. They are done to ensure the safety of the mom and baby--pretty much across the board. You can get all up on your high horse about elective inductions at 37 or even 39 weeks. But to rail about inductions being performed on moms who are 41 weeks just indicates that you don't really understand how much science goes behind widespread medical recommendations like this one.

Yes, many babies are fine who go to 42 weeks. But some aren't. And I wouldn't want to be one of those moms who was so hung up on "doing it myself" that I could have had a healthy 41 week baby, but then had to plan a funeral for my would-be 42 week baby. Just. Not. Worth. It. I don't want to be dramatic. But my LO was born with meconium at 40 weeks and 3 days, and it terrified me, because I knew from my previous stories my husband had told me what that could mean for her health risks that day and even her respiratory health far into her future life. After my water broke and he saw that it wasn't clear, he immediately began to downplay the risks, which I was thankful for at the time, but secretly, I knew he was just doing that to make me feel better!) Thankfully, they were able to clear it when she was born and everything has been fine.

But there is an undeniable rise in adverse events after 41 weeks. So, I can't fault any woman or any doctor for doing the best they can to make sure that they or their patients, aren't part of that group.

Sept07b2b · December 2012

I echo what Sooner said, but I would also like to add that by the time you are at the end of your pregnancy, the gestational age of your fetus is no longer determined by your menstrual cycle. More often than not, your u/s leading up to that point have been used to determine your "real" due date based on gestational size, so it's actually fairly accurate. Many women have their due dates adjusted throughout their pregnancy based on u/s.

lancyjo · December 2012

sooner1981:

Inductions at 41 weeks are not done for "vanity" purposes. They are done to ensure the safety of the mom and baby--pretty much across the board. You can get all up on your high horse about elective inductions at 37 or even 39 weeks. But to rail about inductions being performed on moms who are 41 weeks just indicates that you don't really understand how much science goes behind widespread medical recommendations like this one.

But there is an undeniable rise in adverse events after 41 weeks. So, I can't fault any woman or any doctor for doing the best they can to make sure that they or their patients, aren't part of that group.

I agree with ALL of Sooner's post, but especially these statements.

I'm sorry, Nateslady, but this post of yours just makes you sound ignorant. Do the research before you rail.

MrMrsandBaby · December 2012

So I was on the same wavelength (in the shallow end) as Sooner...I thought there was the risk of the placenta breaking down after a certain time and induction at 41 weeks was preventive of that...

I don't get why people come on and spew out this crap, you know you are going to get flamed!

Now an induction at 40 weeks is a little silly to me unless medically necessary of course. I mean really! Aren't only like 10% of babies born on their due date?

I'm happy that the trend seems to be turning back to no elective c-section/inductions...makes the momma part of me very happy!

MrMrsandBaby · December 2012

lancyjo:
sooner1981:

Inductions at 41 weeks are not done for "vanity" purposes. They are done to ensure the safety of the mom and baby--pretty much across the board. You can get all up on your high horse about elective inductions at 37 or even 39 weeks. But to rail about inductions being performed on moms who are 41 weeks just indicates that you don't really understand how much science goes behind widespread medical recommendations like this one.

But there is an undeniable rise in adverse events after 41 weeks. So, I can't fault any woman or any doctor for doing the best they can to make sure that they or their patients, aren't part of that group.

I agree with ALL of Sooner's post, but especially these statements.

I'm sorry, Nateslady, but this post of yours just makes you sound ignorant. Do the research before you rail.

Seriously, take 10 seconds and google something once in a while.

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

Sooner, I was counting on you to throw out the whole 41 weeks thing. You never disappoint.

I want to add though that you have either overlooked or failed to care about the part where I mentioned women's menstrual cycles. Therefore, a woman who is "41 weeks, 5 days" might in reality only be 40 weeks OR EVEN LESS (it's possible) due to her day of ovulation (or maybe more accurately, her day of conception, but you get the point). So doctors are typically using an assumed 28-day cycle (I believe...?) to calculate "due dates," which certainly is not the case for many women. All they ask is the date your last period started, which certainly gives them limited information.

ETA- I was careful to say quite a number of times in the OP phrases like "unless there is a valid medical reason or an emergency." I certainly am not saying inductions should never, ever be done.

lancyjo · December 2012

NatesLady1309:

Sooner, I was counting on you to throw out the whole 41 weeks thing. You never disappoint.

I want to add though that you have either overlooked or failed to care about the part where I mentioned women's menstrual cycles. Therefore, a woman who is "41 weeks, 5 days" might in reality only be 40 weeks OR EVEN LESS (it's possible) due to her day of ovulation (or maybe more accurately, her day of conception, but you get the point). So doctors are typically using an assumed 28-day cycle (I believe...?) to calculate "due dates," which certainly is not the case for many women. All they ask is the date your last period started, which certainly gives them limited information.

ETA- I was careful to say quite a number of times in the OP phrases like "unless there is a valid medical reason or an emergency." I certainly am not saying inductions should never, ever be done.

Please see this:

Sept07b2b:
I echo what Sooner said, but I would also like to add that by the time you are at the end of your pregnancy, the gestational age of your fetus is no longer determined by your menstrual cycle. More often than not, your u/s leading up to that point have been used to determine your "real" due date based on gestational size, so it's actually fairly accurate. Many women have their due dates adjusted throughout their pregnancy based on u/s.

Oh, and I have never met an OBGYN who didn't discuss cycle length.

poobear2015 · December 2012

I'm with Sooner on this too. When I was 5 days away from my due date and hadn't progressed past 3cm, my OB scheduled me for another appt the day before my due date and said if I'm still the same, we will talk about induction for 1 day over. I didn't even bring it up - it was his idea! I was a little surprised that they didn't even want to wait a week (although I had started to swell, so maybe there was concern?) but I do know that the placenta starts to deteriorate or something and I was NOT taking any chances.

ETA: My water broke the night before that appt. I missed the appt cuz he was giving me a c/s to bring my stubborn girl into this world! No induction necessary!

Jeanine88 · December 2012

I was induced at 41 weeks. My OB said the placenta starts to deteriorate after 41 weeks and it becomes risky for the fetus. I started NSTs every two days between weeks 40-41 to ensure he was ok.

Jen0204 · December 2012

NatesLady1309:
Another reason it bothers me- most OBs don't seem to care (read: ask) how long your menstrual cycle is or if it varies. This is valuable information because a woman who has a 24 day cycle is probably going to be "due" sooner than a woman with a 40 day cycle. Why? Because there is a good chance that the woman with the 40 day cycle ovulated "later" than the woman with the 24 day cycle and would therefore be "due" later because she has not actually been pregnant for as many days as the woman with the 24 day cycle. This would mean the woman with the 40 day cycle could easily be "due" a week later than the woman with the 24 day cycle. But they don't seem to take that into account when offering inductions to supposedly "overdue" women.

If you tell your OB that your cycle is 40 days, how do they know when you ovulated? Yes, that would mean that you could have ovulated later then if you have a 24 day cycle, but maybe you ovulate early in your cycle even if it's a long cycle. Every body is different, and knowing the length of the cycle doesn't really give much information. And how many women have the same length cycle each month? Unless you temp there is no way to know definitively if you ovulated and how many women actually do that? I know I didn't. I would guess that the vast majority of the female population does not temp, so why should OB's ask about when we ovulated? Especially since odds are if you did temp and know when you ovulated you're likely to share that information on your own. And I had an u/s early on and part of the reason was that it was a dating u/s, and that was how they determined my due date. They actually adjusted the date when the did the u/s instead of using the date of my last period.

ashlin242000 · December 2012

I was induced at 41 weeks exactly because my ob does not let AMA patients go over 41 wks. Sorry but I trust my doctor and have done the research. I did not do it to get my baby out sooner and I take offense at anyone who would suggest such a thing. I did it to have a healthy baby.

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

Sept07b2b:
I echo what Sooner said, but I would also like to add that by the time you are at the end of your pregnancy, the gestational age of your fetus is no longer determined by your menstrual cycle. More often than not, your u/s leading up to that point have been used to determine your "real" due date based on gestational size, so it's actually fairly accurate. Many women have their due dates adjusted throughout their pregnancy based on u/s.

I hear you about the U/S based on size of the baby, but that's not foolproof either since it happens frequently enough that a woman will be told her baby is 10 pounds and needs to come out, and that baby will be born at 7.5 pounds.

I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.

MrMrsandBaby · December 2012

I was going to mention the ultrasound but it looks like it was covered...

Also, my OB knows more about my cycle than I do because she actually takes notes during our appointments...so really, you are just stirring the pot...get over yourself.

I'm in a mood today - I want to get out of work so I can go see my niece who was born by scheduled c-section at 39 weeks...what do you have to say about that?

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

lancyjo:

Oh, and I have never met an OBGYN who didn't discuss cycle length.

I have. The doctors in the practice I went to. I was only asked the date I started my last period.

Shmogan09 · December 2012

Oh man. This horse was repeatedly beaten for me during 3rd tri.

To each their own.

christinak22 · December 2012

NatesLady1309:
Sept07b2b:
I echo what Sooner said, but I would also like to add that by the time you are at the end of your pregnancy, the gestational age of your fetus is no longer determined by your menstrual cycle. More often than not, your u/s leading up to that point have been used to determine your "real" due date based on gestational size, so it's actually fairly accurate. Many women have their due dates adjusted throughout their pregnancy based on u/s.
I hear you about the U/S based on size of the baby, but that's not foolproof either since it happens frequently enough that a woman will be told her baby is 10 pounds and needs to come out, and that baby will be born at 7.5 pounds.

I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.

I get the U/S later in pregnancy not being used, but this is EXACTLY why they do an U/S at the beginning of pregnancy--to calculate due date. They grow so fast those first few weeks that due dates calculated based on their size early in pregnancy are really very accurate.

Jen0204 · December 2012

NatesLady1309:
Sept07b2b:
I echo what Sooner said, but I would also like to add that by the time you are at the end of your pregnancy, the gestational age of your fetus is no longer determined by your menstrual cycle. More often than not, your u/s leading up to that point have been used to determine your "real" due date based on gestational size, so it's actually fairly accurate. Many women have their due dates adjusted throughout their pregnancy based on u/s.
I hear you about the U/S based on size of the baby, but that's not foolproof either since it happens frequently enough that a woman will be told her baby is 10 pounds and needs to come out, and that baby will be born at 7.5 pounds.

I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.

A dating u/s is extremely accurate because fetuses in the very beginning grow at more or less the same rate. They don't use your anatomy scan or later u/s to determine how far along you are. Again, RESEARCH FIRST, then type.

And I would rather err on the side of caution then not. Even with my girls having to spend time in the NICU, I'm glad that my OB and MFM weighed the risks of my high BP and how the girls looked and made the decision they did because today I have two healthy, beautiful babies. If I had waited another week maybe they wouldn't have had to spend time in the NICU, or maybe there would have been serious complications with me or them. I'm fine with being over-cautious (to an extent, I fought to keep them in longer when they wanted to take them at 35 weeks and my doctors agreed, and at 36 weeks they shot me down).

Shawnee11507 · December 2012

I agree with Sooner and I don't see any problem with inductions at 41 weeks. The baby is fully developed and I would be afraid for meconium and placenta break-down.

A NST saved my baby's life at 39wks 3days. I couldn't tell there was anything wrong. I shudder to think what would've happened if I waited to even 41 weeks.

I don't understand women who want to "go natural/vaginal" come hell or high water- even if it may put the baby at risk. I'd rather be safe than sorry and I'd rather risk complications for me than baby.

ETA: Pretty sure most due dates are set by the dating ultrasound not just the last menstrual period- and my OB did ask about my cycle length.

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

ashlin242000:
I was induced at 41 weeks exactly because my ob does not let AMA patients go over 41 wks. Sorry but I trust my doctor and have done the research. I did not do it to get my baby out sooner and I take offense at anyone who would suggest such a thing. I did it to have a healthy baby.

I don't know what am "AMA" patient is (American Medical Association??), but regardless, I said many times in my post that I think it's crazy when there's no true medical reason but only out of impatience. Obviously your doctor thought there was a true medical reason.

pinkshades05 · December 2012

NatesLady1309:

Sooner, I was counting on you to throw out the whole 41 weeks thing. You never disappoint.

I want to add though that you have either overlooked or failed to care about the part where I mentioned women's menstrual cycles. Therefore, a woman who is "41 weeks, 5 days" might in reality only be 40 weeks OR EVEN LESS (it's possible) due to her day of ovulation (or maybe more accurately, her day of conception, but you get the point). So doctors are typically using an assumed 28-day cycle (I believe...?) to calculate "due dates," which certainly is not the case for many women. All they ask is the date your last period started, which certainly gives them limited information.

ETA- I was careful to say quite a number of times in the OP phrases like "unless there is a valid medical reason or an emergency." I certainly am not saying inductions should never, ever be done.

But due dates aren't always calculated by your LMP. They are also calculated by ultrasound and most women get at least one, although most get two. Plus, doctors and midwives are takes measurements of your uterus to also determine the size. My ultrasound showed that I was right on with my LMP, so I knew that our due date would be accurate.

I also agree with Sooner. I'm all for med-free and intervention-free, but I also read all of the material I could before the birth so I knew what all of the risks and complications were. Sooner is right when she says the risks go up after 41 weeks. Studies have proven that. I wouldn't bash a mom for inducing at 41 weeks. Even if her dates were "off", the baby would still be completely full term. If a mom was 38 weeks, I would be a little more concerned.

I think you need to go back and do your homework before you write your opinion. This was just silly.

lancyjo · December 2012

I don't have the time or patience for your naivete today kid. Thank God you have no say in how anyone else chooses to deliver their children.

ETA:

NatesLady1309:

I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.

I'm beyond glad that my OB wanted to be cautious with my baby's life, as well as mine. Err away doctor, err away.

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

Jen0204:

A dating u/s is extremely accurate because fetuses in the very beginning grow at more or less the same rate. They don't use your anatomy scan or later u/s to determine how far along you are. Again, RESEARCH FIRST, then type.

I am not talking about using a late ultrasound for dating purposes. I am talking about using a late ultrasound to determine the size/weight of the baby. I am saying the weight/size determination of a late ultrasound done for that purpose can often be inaccurate. Of course it is not going to be accurate to the ounce, but I am talking about it being way off sometimes.

MrMrsandBaby · December 2012

NatesLady1309:
Jen0204:

A dating u/s is extremely accurate because fetuses in the very beginning grow at more or less the same rate. They don't use your anatomy scan or later u/s to determine how far along you are. Again, RESEARCH FIRST, then type.

I am not talking about using a late ultrasound for dating purposes. I am talking about using a late ultrasound to determine the size/weight of the baby. I am saying the weight/size determination of a late ultrasound done for that purpose can often be inaccurate. Of course it is not going to be accurate to the ounce, but I am talking about it being way off sometimes.

Why even bring up the size/weight? Your original point was dates so stick to one point. The fact that you keep bringing up other variables that have nothing to do with your OP just proves that you are uneducated on this topic. If you can't stick to the original point just stop...

Seriously, just stop.

MrMrsandBaby · December 2012

lancyjo:

I don't have the time or patience for your naivete today kid. Thank God you have no say in how anyone else chooses to deliver their children.

ETA:

NatesLady1309:

I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.

I'm beyond glad that my OB wanted to be cautious with my baby's life, as well as mine. Err away doctor, err away.

AMEN Lancy, Amen!

ashlin242000 · December 2012

AMA advanced maternal age means your an old mum.

I do agree for anything other than a medical reason it should not be offered before 40 weeks. Inductions are no walk in the park either I was in labour for 37 hours. I did not want to do it but the benefits to me out weighed the risks.

NatesLady1309 · December 2012

OK, giving up even talking about this. I was hoping it could be a productive conversation about the topic (from both sides) but it seems that's too much to expect from some of you. Thanks to the majority of you who were respectful.

sp212 · December 2012

Nateslady may be young and naive, but I think she is just ignorant and uneducated.

She is giving up because no one agrees with her. Boo hoo. It can't be an argument from "both sides" because your opinion is ignorant.

Jen0204 · December 2012

NatesLady1309:
Sept07b2b:
I echo what Sooner said, but I would also like to add that by the time you are at the end of your pregnancy, the gestational age of your fetus is no longer determined by your menstrual cycle. More often than not, your u/s leading up to that point have been used to determine your "real" due date based on gestational size, so it's actually fairly accurate. Many women have their due dates adjusted throughout their pregnancy based on u/s.
I hear you about the U/S based on size of the baby, but that's not foolproof either since it happens frequently enough that a woman will be told her baby is 10 pounds and needs to come out, and that baby will be born at 7.5 pounds.

I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.

NatesLady1309:
Jen0204:

A dating u/s is extremely accurate because fetuses in the very beginning grow at more or less the same rate. They don't use your anatomy scan or later u/s to determine how far along you are. Again, RESEARCH FIRST, then type.

I am not talking about using a late ultrasound for dating purposes. I am talking about using a late ultrasound to determine the size/weight of the baby. I am saying the weight/size determination of a late ultrasound done for that purpose can often be inaccurate. Of course it is not going to be accurate to the ounce, but I am talking about it being way off sometimes.

Seriously? Do you not understand at all the points that are being made?

Jen0204 · December 2012

NatesLady1309:
OK, giving up even talking about this. I was hoping it could be a productive conversation about the topic (from both sides) but it seems that's too much to expect from some of you. Thanks to the majority of you who were respectful.

This is why you drive people nuts. You come in stating things that are completely and totally inaccurate, are proven to be wrong on many different things, and then say that it's impossible to have a productive conversation with us. No, it's impossible to have a productive conversation with someone who's only intent is to be judgmental and doesn't bother to have any of their facts straight first.

sp212 · December 2012

Jen0204:
NatesLady1309:
Sept07b2b:
I echo what Sooner said, but I would also like to add that by the time you are at the end of your pregnancy, the gestational age of your fetus is no longer determined by your menstrual cycle. More often than not, your u/s leading up to that point have been used to determine your "real" due date based on gestational size, so it's actually fairly accurate. Many women have their due dates adjusted throughout their pregnancy based on u/s.
I hear you about the U/S based on size of the baby, but that's not foolproof either since it happens frequently enough that a woman will be told her baby is 10 pounds and needs to come out, and that baby will be born at 7.5 pounds.

I think OBs can err a little too much on the side of caution in the case of inductions.

NatesLady1309:
Jen0204:

A dating u/s is extremely accurate because fetuses in the very beginning grow at more or less the same rate. They don't use your anatomy scan or later u/s to determine how far along you are. Again, RESEARCH FIRST, then type.

I am not talking about using a late ultrasound for dating purposes. I am talking about using a late ultrasound to determine the size/weight of the baby. I am saying the weight/size determination of a late ultrasound done for that purpose can often be inaccurate. Of course it is not going to be accurate to the ounce, but I am talking about it being way off sometimes.
Seriously? Do you not understand at all the points that are being made?

Probably not ::goes right over her head::

sooner1981 · December 2012

NatesLady1309:
OK, giving up even talking about this. I was hoping it could be a productive conversation about the topic (from both sides) but it seems that's too much to expect from some of you. Thanks to the majority of you who were respectful.

But NatesLady, you had to go again and pick another topic where there is no "other side." It isn't like you brought up "the evils of CIO" or something where there are no reliable scientific studies on either side, so we, as parents, just have to make decisions based on the information available. In that kind of discussion, there are two "educated" sides that come to different conclusions.

But you chose this subject, which is like trying to start a debate by saying you think moms who wait more than 6 months to flip their kids forward facing in their car seats are crazy. You can't start a debate with that topic because every rational, educated mother will disagree with you and there will be no productive conversation.

sooner1981 · December 2012

double post.

ssimon621 · December 2012

NL - It is a valid medical reason to induce at 41 weeks. The placenta begins to breakdown at that point. And if you want to use the excuse of cycle length wouldn't that mean that one woman could actually be closer to 43 weeks and not 41 which puts them in a danger window???

Also, my DD came on her due date and had lots of meconium. I was completely positive about my conception date because I had been using OPK so when my doctor suggested that I be induced at 41W1D I trusted her because I KNEW when my child was conceived and I knew that my due date was accurate. If frightens me to think what would have happened if I hadn't gone into labor on my own and waited until 42 weeks to be induced.

Yes, people may not always have a medical emergency when being induced at 41 weeks, but it doesn't mean that the baby is not healthy and ready to survive in the world. The same reason that people go past 42 weeks and still need to be induced because their bodies just aren't doing what they need to do.

Can you please point me in the direction of a medical article that discusses the risks of women being induced past 41 weeks vs. 42 weeks?

sp212 · December 2012

Jen0204:
NatesLady1309:
OK, giving up even talking about this. I was hoping it could be a productive conversation about the topic (from both sides) but it seems that's too much to expect from some of you. Thanks to the majority of you who were respectful.
This is why you drive people nuts. You come in stating things that are completely and totally inaccurate, are proven to be wrong on many different things, and then say that it's impossible to have a productive conversation with us. No, it's impossible to have a productive conversation with someone who's only intent is to be judgmental and doesn't bother to have any of their facts straight first.

Yes

She just wants someone, anyone to agree with her and tell her she is "right" not make an educated, logical argument against her. Duh.

christinak22 · December 2012

Jen0204:
NatesLady1309:
OK, giving up even talking about this. I was hoping it could be a productive conversation about the topic (from both sides) but it seems that's too much to expect from some of you. Thanks to the majority of you who were respectful.
This is why you drive people nuts. You come in stating things that are completely and totally inaccurate, are proven to be wrong on many different things, and then say that it's impossible to have a productive conversation with us. No, it's impossible to have a productive conversation with someone who's only intent is to be judgmental and doesn't bother to have any of their facts straight first.

It would have been very easy early in this conversation for NL to say, "I can see why doctors recommend inducing at 41 weeks. Thanks for the discussion," but instead, you had to stay stubborn. The stubbornness when you're proven wrong is where you make enemies, not your opinions.

I, btw, do not have anything against anyone here, but do see why people get fed up.

lancyjo · December 2012

sp212:
Jen0204:

NatesLady1309:
OK, giving up even talking about this. I was hoping it could be a productive conversation about the topic (from both sides) but it seems that's too much to expect from some of you. Thanks to the majority of you who were respectful.

This is why you drive people nuts. You come in stating things that are completely and totally inaccurate, are proven to be wrong on many different things, and then say that it's impossible to have a productive conversation with us. No, it's impossible to have a productive conversation with someone who's only intent is to be judgmental and doesn't bother to have any of their facts straight first.

She just wants someone, anyone to agree with her and tell her she is "right" not make an educated, logical argument against her. Duh.

Ah crap. NL wins again... we got sucked into her latest attempt at creating drama to play the martyr.

I think her comments in her "dtich" post above were about me. I'm just not in the mood to care today.

Shmogan09 · December 2012

sooner1981:
NatesLady1309:
OK, giving up even talking about this. I was hoping it could be a productive conversation about the topic (from both sides) but it seems that's too much to expect from some of you. Thanks to the majority of you who were respectful.

But NatesLady, you had to go again and pick another topic where there is no "other side." It isn't like you brought up "the evils of CIO" or something where there are no reliable scientific studies on either side, so we, as parents, just have to make decisions based on the information available. In that kind of discussion, there are two "educated" sides that come to different conclusions.

But you chose this subject, which is like trying to start a debate by saying you think moms who wait more than 6 months to flip their kids forward facing in their car seats are crazy. You can't start a debate with that topic because every rational, educated mother will disagree with you and there will be no productive conversation.

Exactly. If you had started this thread about elective inductions *before* 40 weeks you would have seen 2 sides. But after 41 weeks the thinking is pretty universal.

mydawn · December 2012

NatesLady1309:
ashlin242000:
I was induced at 41 weeks exactly because my ob does not let AMA patients go over 41 wks. Sorry but I trust my doctor and have done the research. I did not do it to get my baby out sooner and I take offense at anyone who would suggest such a thing. I did it to have a healthy baby.
I don't know what am "AMA" patient is (American Medical Association??), but regardless, I said many times in my post that I think it's crazy when there's no true medical reason but only out of impatience. Obviously your doctor thought there was a true medical reason.

The point everyone is making that you are missing is that there is always a true medical reason to induce at 41 weeks.

Want a personalized experience?

s/o the December 12 moms- being "overdue"

Re: s/o the December 12 moms- being &quot;overdue&quot;

Choose Another Board

Search Boards

Want a personalized experience?

s/o the December 12 moms- being &quot;overdue&quot;

Re: s/o the December 12 moms- being &amp;quot;overdue&amp;quot;

Choose Another Board

Search Boards

s/o the December 12 moms- being "overdue"

Re: s/o the December 12 moms- being "overdue"