Confused: due date moved up so am I further along, then??

[Qbear'smama]

Just wondering about this and hoping someone would know (Mae, I'm looking at you! ) I was originally given a due date of Dec 15th. Then, based on the anatomy scan, where the baby measured large (skull, bones and belly) by about two weeks, the MW decided to split the difference and change my EDD to Dec 7th. I tested positive the Saturday before Easter, about 5 days before my period, so MW figures I may have ovulated earlier than originally assumed (LMP was March 11) which would make sense in terms of difference in size and dates...

My question is, I consider myself 25 weeks on Thursday, but if my date has changed, does that mean that I should consider myself further along, like I lost a week? I know in the end it makes no difference, baby will come when he comes, but I just see other ppl in my DDC with a similar date and they're further along, so just wondering if I should be thinking I'm coming up on 26 weeks rather than 25. Hope this makes sense, I may just be crazy...

[paquerette]

I would be very leary of accepting a change in due date to something earlier. When does the pressure to induce start with this practice? You're setting yourself up for that happening that much earlier. Did you have any u/s in the first trimester? The earlier u/s are more accurate for dating than any later info. It doesn't make sense to change in light of that.

[Qbear'smama]

I'm actually not worried about early induction, knowing my MW's position on that and she made it clear that, knowing the situation, she would not be looking at induction based on an arbitrary date. I just had the one US in the 18th or 19th week, I believe it was. Like I said, maybe "the date" doesn't matter one way or the other?

[MegBoz]

Originally Posted by paquerette

I would be very leary of accepting a change in due date to something earlier. When does the pressure to induce start with this practice? You're setting yourself up for that happening that much earlier. Did you have any u/s in the first trimester? The earlier u/s are more accurate for dating than any later info. It doesn't make sense to change in light of that.

ITA.

the MW you spoke with may still have her hands tied by some hospital protocols. (Not sure if you're in the USA or not.)

I had a hospital birth with very NCB-friendly CNMs, but there are still some restrictions.
1. When I hit 41W, I had to go for twice-weekly NST + AFI.
2. Their policy is to routinely induce at 42W (Although one MW told me, in so many words, she doesn't agree.) Of course I could have refused, but I KNOW one in the practice would have hassled me.
3. I couldn't labor in the tub post-42W (not sure if they would have ignored that rule, but it was on the form I signed to consent to using the tub.)

I know some hospitals want to test the blood sugar of big babies and I think I've heard of that with post-dates babies too. (not sure on that though.)

Basically, most medical practitioners think going post-dates (which officially is +42W, NOT plus 41W as some say!) is dangerous & risky - and they may therefore treat you as such. Maybe they'd push more for continuous EFM in labor? etc. etc.

I'd find out as much as I can about how post-dates pregnancy is handled with your practice. Obviously it would be much better not to have your date moved at all, then you're much more likely to not have to worry about it!

All that being said, there is some research that the risk of stillbirth goes up after 42W, but YOU want to be able to make that decision FOR YOURSELF if you want to consider induction, not deal with rules, policies, & pressure. & I CERTAINLY wouldn't want to come to the hospital in spontaneous labor at 41.5W & have them think I'm 42.5W & therefore treat me as "high risk" (again, no tub, cEFM, etc.)

[homemademom]

I would consider myself a week ahead. I had an 10 week ultrasound that dated me a week earlier than I thought, but I kept my original edd because I thought it (the scan) was wrong. Then, I had an anatomy scan that measured the brain, belly and femur and it also put me ahead by 9 days. So, I've decided I really must have ovulated early and I'm considering myself a week ahead. Of course, I would only do that if I had a supportive MW, like you do.

[~Demeter~]

U/S in the second trimester is very inaccurate at figuring a due date... it can be off by quite a bit (blanking on the numbers here). I would not accept a change in due date for this reason alone... babies differ in size all the time, it's possible you're growing a bigger baby than 'average'. I always measured ahead but based on my own dates and the like I was not 'ahead' I also cook them longer so I really wouldn't want a due date change like that.

[MaerynPearl]

I would not.

Just because... later ultrasound way less reliable (at this point, a 2 week gap could simply be the ultrasounds problem... even 3 would not be unheard of at 25 weeks)

The problem does not only exist when going post-dates but also when dealing with preterm!

Assuming you are a week less far along than what you may possibly be means if your baby were born pre-term (goodness forbid, I would not wish this on anyone and I hope it is not a scenario that plays out), they may have that extra week of development and have a lot better chance to survive (when it comes to premies, one week can make the biggest difference!)

Assuming you are a week further along than what you may possibly be means that you could be delivering a baby who you think is more developed than they really are.

When it comes to dating, it is better to err later than earlier.

[kalamos23]

Ok, I went through the dates - so if you tested positive April 3, then let's just guess that is 10dpo. Counting back this would make the 24th your ovulation date, which would be CD13 from your LMP which sounds about right. If I plug that into a due date calculator using the 24th as your O date (which could actually be the 25th, if you tested positive at 9dpo, but 10dpo is more likely on more tests, so I went with that) that would put your due date at Dec. 16 or 17. It is highly improbable to have conceived on your period (like on CD1, you ovulated) which is basically what the u/s machine is saying. I would stick to the later dates and assume you have a very healthy big baby in there.

That being said, if you are tall, or the dad is tall or you have tall people in the family, it is going to really throw off the anatomy u/s. DH and I are both tall (6'3" and 5'10") and he's got heavy, dense bones. At DD's big u/s, they were saying she measured something like 2-3 weeks ahead, but I was charting and was positive of when we conceived. It was just because she had long femurs and dense bones, so the weight/height issue confused the due date calculator on the u/s machine. She still is a big girl at age 2, about an inch off the charts in height and weight.

Even if you or the dad aren't tall, if you have tall people in tghe family, it could be passed down, my mom and dad are of average height (5'5" and 5'11") and my sis and I are 5'10" and 5'11" and my bro is 6'3" at just turned 15. We have tall grandmas and uncles though.

Anyway, I hope that helped, I would stick with the later date for sure.

[Qbear'smama]

Thanks, everyone! I appreciate the thoughtful input. MegBoz, I'm in Canada and will be giving birth at a freestanding birthing centre, so no hospital protocols or OBs in the picture (unless I transfer due to a complication) so the MW is quite autonomous in the decision about induction. Kalamos, DD is in a very high height/weight percentile for her age so even though DH and I are not huge (I'm 5'6" and he's 6'), DH is like your DH, densely packed. The way the MW explained it to me was that up to a certain age, babies are all pretty much standard size which is why anatomy scans are reliable up to a point, then genetics kicks in and size differs because of that. I think the US was done prior to that point (18-19 weeks), which is why she does not discount the size differential that was reported. At any rate, she noted in the file that the date is revised to the 7th but as for what week I am, I guess I would stick to thinking I'm 25 this week rather than 26. I see your point, Mae. But it's nice to think of having babe in arms by Dec. 7th than the 15th! I'll just assume baby boy may be a biggie like his dad, who was 10lbs+ at birth...

[~Demeter~]

The inaccuracy of ultrasound
First trimester: 7 days
14 – 20 weeks: 10 days
21 – 30 weeks: 14 days
31 – 42 weeks: 21 days

10 days is still quite a lot... and that's either way. I wouldn't trust the u/s at all.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...te.html?cat=25

[Lady Lilya]

Originally Posted by kalamos23

Ok, I went through the dates - so if you tested positive April 3, then let's just guess that is 10dpo. Counting back this would make the 24th your ovulation date, which would be CD13 from your LMP which sounds about right. If I plug that into a due date calculator using the 24th as your O date (which could actually be the 25th, if you tested positive at 9dpo, but 10dpo is more likely on more tests, so I went with that) that would put your due date at Dec. 16 or 17. It is highly improbable to have conceived on your period (like on CD1, you ovulated) which is basically what the u/s machine is saying. I would stick to the later dates and assume you have a very healthy big baby in there....

Yeah, I did the same calculations. It is unreasonable to assume you got pregnant on day 1 of your cycle, when something like the 13th or 14th is much more likely. So i count 40 weeks at around Dec 17, not earlier in Dec.

[Ola_]

I would not move it either. As others already said at this point the ultrasound date estimates can be off by around 2 weeks. Earlier ones are more accurate but as the baby grows individual differences come up - they are comparing the measurements for your baby against the "average" measurements.

I'm in Ontario and while I love that MWs are covered by the health insurance here, it does put some extra restrictions due to the regulations that are in place. For example (if I recall correctly) after 42 weeks they need to consult with an OB and potentially transfer care, etc. I'm glad that your setup seems better!

[Qbear'smama]

Originally it was calculated as the 17th but given my short cycles we figured the 15th which is where I was last time I saw the MW before we talked date changes. I will ask her at next appt whether it's better to leave it the 15th and what the legal parameters are on going overdue (as I said, no OB involvement unless there is reason for medical intervention but there have to be some regulations on this, she's not TOTALLY autonomous...) since, as ppl have noted, don't want to open myself up to having to defend the decision NOT to induce (to whomever) if it comes to that. I'm going to look up the rules for MWs for Quebec right now...Thanks again! I think of due dates as arbitrary "around this time" but yeah, I imagine it can get sticky if things go past. Food for thought.

[Ola_]

According to http://www.osfq.org/loi_regle.php going over 42 weeks requires a mandatory consultation with an OB. I had to use Google translate though because I don't speak French, so you may want to check that yourself.

[Qbear'smama]

I'm on the site now. Thanks, Ola!!

[lawmama1984]

I also would keep the later date for many of the reasons PP have mentioned. FTR, I got my BFP 4/4 (Easter!) at 10dpo and am due the 17th At my u/s, which was a couple weeks later than yours (I have prego brain, but I think I was 22 or 23 weeks?), the tech tried to tell me my DD was 12/9. I've never gone into labor on my own (induced at 38w5d with DS), so I have no idea if I tend to go post date, "on time," or what. That's personally why I wouldn't accept a change of dates. I'm in the US with a HB MW and I think she said around 42 weeks, we have to start up with the NSTs and all that and really get things moving. Since you said you don't have to worry about all that, you may not be as worried about a change in DD like I would be. Anyway, that's rambly but I'm delirious from no nap yet today

[JessieBird]

Originally Posted by Ola_

According to http://www.osfq.org/loi_regle.php going over 42 weeks requires a mandatory consultation with an OB. I had to use Google translate though because I don't speak French, so you may want to check that yourself.

Hey Qbear - I'm in Quebec (I think we're at the same MDN!) and Ola is right. At 42 weeks, your midwife is required by law to refer you to a consult with an OB at the Gatineau Hospital. I think the MW goes with you too. Induction is not mandatory, nor is a transfer to OB care. The purpose of the consult is for second opinion and to discuss medical options once your and the baby's condition have been evaluated. I made sure I understood this very clearly with DS because my due date kept hopping around too and my instincts told me that I'd go late with him.

In that case, my due date according to LMP was Dec 12. I was still with my family doctor then and she would not look at my chart that indicated I'd ovulated early. When I transfered to the MDN, my MW did believe me and figured a due date of December 5 was more likely. However, at my request she left Dec 12 on my paperwork so that we'd hit the 42 w mark later. Then my 12 week ultrasound spat out a due date of December 2 based on measurements, and the 20 week ultrasound said November 30. Well, he was born on November 30! Best day of my life and a very nice surprise as I thought I had at least another two weeks to wait.

All that to say...whether you split the difference or stick with your original due date, it probably doesn't make any difference unless you really want to buy a few more days to avoid that consult (which doesn't sound so bad really, they can't lock you in once you're there after all! though I didn't ask if they can insist on a transfer if certain conditions present - it would be worth looking into that and seeing how you feel about it).

This time around, my due date has shifted a few times too and I'm just ignoring it, though the latest date still remains on my file. When people ask, I now say "early to mid October" instead of any specific date. When I get asked how many weeks along I am, I have to laugh because I honestly lose track!

[Qbear'smama]

Thanks for the info, JessieBird! It's reassuring to know what the process is, like I said, my MW was really not concerned and clearly expressed that a date change is not going to make her want to automatically induce once we reach a certain (earlier) date especially given the original later date based on LMP, but it is nice to know what the process is if we get to that point. I can tell you right now, I would be a little irked if I reach the end of the first week of December (or, let's say 10 days) without a baby. I just feel like I'll go early, which I did with DD. Of course now that I said that, I'll go right to the bitter end and have the baby on Christmas Eve! (have I just jinxed myself?)

[SumnerRain]

I have a 2 day window of when I could have gotten pregnant, no ifs ands or buts I am due Dec 27th. Two early scans confirmed it. At my 20w0d u/s they told me baby was 19w and my dates were wrong. Impossible. Hubby and I are short, under 5'5" each. We make little babies... #1 together was 7lbs7oz 19 long @ 41 weeks. 6lbs 13oz and 20" at 40w2d. 6lbs 10oz 17 7/8" at 40w4d. Both the tech and the MW think the little baby is a DIRECT result of genetics, not downs or IUGR.

Sounds to me you just make bigger babies and I would keep the dates the same. My MW does not agree with induction, but if I go past 42 weeks, she risks her license by keeping me in her care and will have to transfer me.