How common are 42+ week babies?

[arlecchina]

and even more so, how many of you have let it go to term without induction and interventions?

I am curious because according to my dates I am 9 days over ("they" gave me another date of the 17th, so by them I am only 6 days over which buys me more time) I am not willing to have any interventions at all, no relaxin no arom, nothing. Human gestation is from 38-43 weeks anyways, it's not like 40 is the magic number or something. but the midwives I was recently bullied into dealing with are wanting to "discuss" induction at the end of this week

although in their defense they did say so long as the baby remains active and I allow nonstress tests they'd "let" it go.

[2tadpoles]

My DS1 was over 42 weeks when we induced. If I had known then what I know now, I would have handled things much differently.

DS2 was over 40 weeks when I had a repeat CS. I don't know how long we would have gone....I was just terrified of another horrific birth/recovery, so I chickened out of my VBAC.

[NatrlCatholicMama]

I have a friend (born about 1969) who was a month late, and Dr. Bradley says he had a patient go a full 12 months of pregnancy, safely.

It's a bell curve - most go between x & y dates, with a smattering early and a smattering later. If we see people having babies at 30wks, we shouldn't be shocked to see them having them at 50wks.

I got some journal articles with my Bradley class discussing that outcomes are not overall better when you induce at 42wks, mostly b/c of the complications that come with induction, but I can't remember the facts - it was a mainstream journal.

[Full Heart]

From what I have read 10% of babies are born after 42 weeks. Of course anymore I'd be surprised if 10% are born after 40 weeks what with all the inductions. http://www.phyins.com/pi/risk/minimize/postdates.html Thats says 10%. While this link http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3248.htm says 3-12%. http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/datesppr.html Says up to 18%. So I guess it really depends on what study you read.

I'm about ready to start a thread to rant about care providers pushing women to induce based on dates alone. Last I checked edd of 40 weeks was an avg not the limit. Its not an expiration date.

ETA: With my 6 pg going post dates I have let 2 go without any kind of trying to induce. THe other 4 I tried black and blue cohosh, castor oil and with 1 AROM. Simply because of pressure not because my babies were in any danger.

[mamabadger]

I went 44 weeks with my first baby, 43 weeks with my second. Everything was fine. Of course, this was over 20 years ago. I'd never get away with it today.

[MoonWillow]

This is a particurly poignant thread for me right now.
I got into an argument yesterday with the Non Stress Test nurse about this very thing. I'm 8 days past EDD and have been getting NSTs for 5 weeks now for other reasons. She keeps asking me what the "plan" is for me and how long they will "let" me go. Finally yesterday I let loose about there being no "magic number" and all babies developing at their own pace and if the NST's are good, therefore indicating a functioning placenta then why induce JUST based on dates.

She honestly could not give me a good reason. She simply said that in her 35 years of being in labor and delivery that the numbers have shown placentas to start declining at 42 weeks.

Soooo I brought up the fact that prenatal care and knowledge/practice of good nutrition have come a long way in the last 35 years which should account for something. She agreed but just kept repeating her blanket statement, that she "just really thought" that babies shouldn't stay in longer than 42 weeks.

I understand that statistics do show an increased risk...but shouldn't we look at these risks on an individual basis? To say that the entire population is affected by the exact same risks for the same reasons just seems beyond ridiculous. If MY baby appears to be thriving, then shouldn't she be left alone?

Besides, isn't a declining placenta part of the process of intricate signals that contribute to labor starting naturally?
:

[MommytoTwo]

I had a repeat c/s at 41w6d for a variety of reasons. Looking back I feel like I would have gone into labor within a day or two.

According to my mother I was 6 weeks late ... this was 1975 so I have no idea how accurate the dating was etc. I do have a Christmas ornament for 1974 because I was supposed to have been born. LOL My bday is January 25.

[thismama]

I went into labour spontaneously and my dd was born at 41w6days.

[laohaire]

Originally Posted by MommytoTwo

According to my mother I was 6 weeks late ... this was 1975 so I have no idea how accurate the dating was etc. I do have a Christmas ornament for 1974 because I was supposed to have been born. LOL My bday is January 25.

Me too. 5 weeks late - due in early November, and born in mid-December, 1976. My mom always said they had the dates wrong, but I think I probably was a least a little "late" - I was 10 pounds at birth, which suggests I was pretty well "cooked"

But, yeah, my mom never mentioned anything about any concerns about the dates whatsoever. Nobody was worried. She just waited. She was not induced. Everything came out grand.

[CrunchyBikerMama]

My grandmother was pg with my mother for almost 44 weeks. My mother was "due" on Dec 25th, and she was born on Jan. 20th. She was 10 lbs. These days people think a 10 lbs baby cannot be born naturally but that is just hogwash. I pushed out my 10 lb 1 oz DS1 in 4 hours with no interventions except an episiotomy that I did not want.

Right now I'm 40 wks 3 days and the babe is showing no signs of wanting to come out. People are driving me CRAZY asking me when I'm going to be induced. I want to hide for the next few weeks, I'm getting so tired of explaining that I choose to let nature take it's course. Unfortunately this seems to be a very radical concept these days. :

[arlecchina]

Originally Posted by CrunchyBikerMama

People are driving me CRAZY asking me when I'm going to be induced. I want to hide for the next few weeks, I'm getting so tired of explaining that I choose to let nature take it's course. Unfortunately this seems to be a very radical concept these days. :

I hear you. Everyone seems to have the idea of "when are you gonna get sick of it enough to get it out" rather than "it'll be out when it is ready"

which is kinda sick when you think about it.

amusement points: one of my family members who's not spoken a word to me since learning I was pregnant emailed me to ask what my doctor though about it going on still. I replied I didnt know; I dont see one.

no response to that

[stacey2061]

well, i was born 20 days after my EDD without anyone raising an eyebrow

[In Exile]

Man, I hear you!! I am just touching 39 weeks today and everyone is basically trying to hunt me down- is baby there, is baby there yet, when will you have baby, what does the midwife think, when baby will be there. and I was even keeping the "due date" (am I a container of milk or something???) secret, but people are getting more nervous than I am.

Yes, I admit, that I have a hard time waiting myself, I really want to meet my little one and yes I am longing to pee out that excess water- my feet are shy from crackling skin, it really is a pain in the rear end.

But this pressure thing is really, really annoying to me.

[Rico'sAlice]

Wait, are you planning to UC or not? (Looking at sig- sorry I don't know your whole story)

So if by their dates you are only 6 over, does that mean they are talking about inducing at 41 wks? If all else was going well it's not something I'd really start thinking about until 42.

So, if you get to the point where they won't "let" : you go any longer, what are your plans?


ETA: Just went and found your other thread. Sorry for your situation.

Originally Posted by NaturalCatholicMam

Dr. Bradley says he had a patient go a full 12 months of pregnancy, safely.

Seriously? I have got to read about that? Any links?
How big was it? Were they sure about conception dates?
I've heard of several 10mo babies (like Oliver Hudson) but never 12 months. Awesome.

[arlecchina]

Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice

Wait, are you planning to UC or not? (Looking at sig- sorry I don't know your whole story)

basically I am, I dont know how else to explain the situation but it's present in another thread on the UC forum (as it appears you found, but I am saying it in case anyone else reads this and thinks wth )

so, no, they arent (cannot) induce me w/o my consent obviously, but I worry a bit about their scare tactics, I mean I am under so much pressure and stress from them right now, what if 10 days from now I give up? (because all the scary things that go wrong with late babies *rolls eyes)

so I was kinda asking to find out good things of late babies so I can keep reminding myself that I will not do this thing to my baby or myself.

(I personally was 3 weeks late, for that matter)

[e.Rishavy]

i seems consistant with my grandmother 8 pregnancies all going a "month over" and my mother in law who had my husband in '61 at 45wks - he was 10lbs 11oz. I've been induced at 41wks twice due to scare tactics, our last one was with a midwife cuase I was fed up with standard ob/gyn crap. Our third is due in July - I know he'll be a 10 pounder and over by at least a week!!!

Even with health issues - like toximyia (sp?), gestational diabetes, etc there are so many reasons why the baby wants/needs to stay in longer. And with my life being so full of health risks - I know that ultimately God has the decision power to make things right.

I was a little over a week late and only wieghed 4lbs 6oz and was 21.5in long. My mother had been in the hospital for 2 months before my birth with toximia and palcenta previa, the were injecting hormones so that my lungs would be developed enough . . . I still ended up in the incubator for a month after birth but I'm now a "healthy" (since I think the term is truly subjective anyway) woman having babies of my own.

Ask those around you to support you decision to let the baby take it's time to develop.

Science is the art of educated guessing.

There may be thousands of similarities in life but each individual is just that. We all have different reactions to internal and external forces. Ultimately, you decided how you handle those reactions.

[In Exile]

I keep wondering and fantazising that in maybe 600 years humankind has learned so much and evolved a bit. I keep hoping how they will look back at us in 2007 and think, gee, they really did that to women, they really thought that cutting the process short helped? Why were they doing that? Just as I hope and think that they will look at stuff like circumcisions and other interventions that way- I hope in the future they will just smack their forehead and kind of laught at their dumb predecessors who really did more harm than good...

[attachedmamaof3]

My first was 9 days overdue. NO interventions/no induction. 7 hr birth no interventions/tearing

My second was 11 days. No interventions/no induction. 1h45 min birth UC no interventions/tearing

My third was 19 days late. No intervention/no induction. 1h30 min birth MW arrived 7 min before birth no interventions/tearing.

[AbbieB]

Just wanted to say DD was 3 weeks "late". She was very healthy.

Our back up hospital midwives were actually calling me and scaring me with all the reasons I should come in and induce at 42 weeks. One actually used the "Your baby could die" tactic. I don't think the added stress all the harassment added helped my labor along. I stalled several times.

Babies come when they are good and ready.

[skueppers]

My daughter was born at 41w, and my son at 41w3d; I went into labor spontaneously both times. She was 8 pounds, 5 oz, and he was 9 pounds, 12 ounces.

With my son, I was scheduled to be induced the next day, at 41w4d. My doctor would have supported going to 42w, but really encouraged me to be induced at 41w2d; 41w4d represented a sort of compromise.

Despite feeling very negative about the idea of induction, I agreed to it because I read an interesting article ("Post-term induction of labor revisited," Rand, Robinson, et al., Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 96, Issue 5, Part 1, November 2000, pages 779-783) which really made me think seriously about the increased risk of stillbirth before the end of the 42nd week of gestation. Although the risk is still fairly low, I knew I would have really regretted my decision not to induce if my baby had been one of the ones that died -- whereas I knew any regret I would feel about the induction itself would be minor by comparison.

Luckily, I went into labor on my own, so it turned out to be a non-issue.