Due Date Help? (x-posted in August 2011 forum) - Mothering Forums

Thread Tools
#1 of 7 Old 09-04-2011, 04:22 PM - Thread Starter
Magdalen1978's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So here's the deal.  According to both my homebirth midwife and the OB practice I saw for a while as a backup, my due date was August 31.  This was based on the LMP calculation method.  It should be noted that I am still breastfeeding DS and had had no periods until the one before conceiving, so there is no guarantee that it was regular.  But my LMP was November 24, 2010.


I also know the exact date on which we did the deed resulting in pregnancy -- we only did it once that month, late at night on December 8, which was Day 14 of my cycle.  (Sorry if TMI.)


Now, according to the LMP date method, and assuming that I ovulated on the 8th or the 14th day of my cycle (which of course the LMP dating method does), that would be the exact date I conceived.  Which, of course, makes no sense because I could not have conceived before having intercourse late that night on that day.  In addition, I have always had 30 or 31-day cycles and ovulated relatively late.


Add to this the fact that at my 8-week dating ultrasound, and written on the printout, my baby's gestational age was estimated at 8 weeks exactly.  That was on January 24, which would mean that my LMP would in fact have had to be on November 29 for that estimate to be correct.  But it was on the 24th.  Following me?  Good, because I'm not...nut.gif


In short, the estimate from my early dating ultrasound puts me at 5 days behind my "official" due date of Aug. 31, which is based on the LMP/Wheel of Doom method.  My alternative due date would then be September 5.  But everyone seems to want to go by the earlier one, because, as the OB said, "Well, there's not a big difference in dates there."


Yes, there is!  That's five more days to not have to be induced or have transfer of care to the hospital (unless a problem arises)!!!


My midwife (whom I love!) has always gone by the LMP method, even though I've brought up my concern that the Aug. 31 due date I have is too early.  I'm not sure how seriously she'll take the dating ultrasound info, because it's not particularly clearly charted in my OB's files.  The only hard evidence I have is the little photo printout with the gestational age and the date of the ultrasound printed on it. 


So my question to you wise women is this -- which date should I take more seriously?  The early ultrasound date or the LMP date?


Argh.  I am a crazy person.  I just hate this pressure to pop the kid already...

Magdalen1978 is offline  
Sponsored Links
#2 of 7 Old 09-04-2011, 04:30 PM
CamilleBethany's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm also having due date issues (8 day difference-but I always go early and have big babies), but in your case, as long as there is no medical reason to be induced, I'd just go with the later date. Just keep your regular check ups and of course, watch for anything abnormal with how you're feeling, and your body. just in case of low amniotic fluid, etc.

CamilleBethany is offline  
#3 of 7 Old 09-04-2011, 05:01 PM
EarthyLady's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Central US
Posts: 1,066
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

What's the time line they've given you for needing to start induction methods or transfer care?  Do you think it will actually come down to that really being an issue?  How long is your mw willing to wait past what she expects your due date to be before it becoming a "problem" for her to care for you?


I'd try to not make a huge deal out of it until it needs to be made a huge deal out of.  Know what I mean?  If they give you say...til September 10th to have the baby and then want to start pushing induction or transfer of care....I'd wait until i went to that appointment on Sept. 10th and I'd then start pushing the issue of the date on the u/s...which is the whole purpose of a dating u/s that early is to get an accurate date.


Otherwise, let it lie low for a bit.  No reason to cause more stress for yourself than necessary.  It's totally possible you'll have the baby before their 'x' date gets here anyway.  :)

Mandy - chicken3.gif  candle.gif candle.gif novaxnocirc.gif  hbac.gif  h20homebirth.gif  h20homebirth.gif  goorganic.jpg  homeschool.gif

EarthyLady is offline  
#4 of 7 Old 09-04-2011, 05:16 PM - Thread Starter
Magdalen1978's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Well, my OB practice dumped me because they stopped wanting the liability of dealing with homebirth backup patients, so at the moment I really am just dealing with my midwife.  She's said that she is fine with whatever makes me comfortable up to 42 weeks -- if I want to go in for a biophysical profile or an u/s at 41 weeks, that's fine, or I can just do kick counts starting at 41 weeks.  I'm not totally clear on whether she can/will see me after 42 weeks.  I think state law prevents her from attending the birth after 42 weeks (in MA).  I'm also not clear on what documentation the state would use to press a case against her, if it came to that.  Which date does the state use?  U/S or LMP?  shrug.gif  More importantly, I don't know how seriously she will take dating ultrasound info.  I guess I need to check my OB records and see how accurately/fully that dating ultrasound info was even recorded -- the tech basically said she would leave my due date as is, even though the ultrasound suggested that I was five days behind that estimate.  Not very helpful!


I'm just so lousy at chilling out about things like this!  I guess I do have some fears about going postdates, and it never even occurred to me that I would go past my due date, since I was induced for suspected IUGR (false alarm) at 37 weeks last time.  I'm incredibly rattled that this kid shows NO SIGNS of moving it on out, and the days are ticking by! 


Thanks for the thoughts and insights!

Magdalen1978 is offline  
#5 of 7 Old 09-05-2011, 02:55 AM
She2dancer's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Red Sox Nation
Posts: 1,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I'm in MA, using a midwife and my last babe was born at 43w.....pretty sure there is no 42w law in MA....but I could be wrong :shrug

Homeschooling catholic vegan Mama to my boys
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Simon (7), Keegan (5), Ezra (3) and Baylen (born 11/11/14)
She2dancer is offline  
#6 of 7 Old 09-05-2011, 05:19 AM
redpajama's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 1,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

To me, it sounds pretty clear that your "due date" is later than originally assigned.  The early ultrasound is a strong indication, as is your history of longer-than-28-day cycles, and the fact that you know you didn't conceive on (or by) the day necessary to produce that due date (so, at absolute *least,* you must be due 1-2 days later, though it sounds like it's probably more like 5-or-so).

redpajama is offline  
#7 of 7 Old 09-05-2011, 07:03 AM - Thread Starter
Magdalen1978's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thank you so much, all.  RedPajama, you're right -- the first due date never did make sense, and I initially was estimating Sept. 3 as the 40-week point.  Then I got anxious to have this baby and switched to thinking in the OB's terms so my baby would magically appear earlier!  Hah hah. The more I think about it, the more that early u/s seems like it should be the guiding point.  Don't know why they never changed my date at the OB office, as the 9/5 due date is in fact reflected on my 20-week u/s report, just not anywhere else in my files.  Weird.  And of course the m/w went by the wheel because she did not at that point have access to my files.  But now I do recall her noting when looking at my u/s reports later that they had listed a different due date, and that that would "give us wiggle room if we need it." 


She2Dancer, thanks for the input.  I may be way off on the law.  I know that 36 weeks is the earliest a CPM is supposed to deliver and may have just assumed that 42 weeks was the latest. 

Magdalen1978 is offline  

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 14,513

28 members and 14,485 guests
AdisonBale , awill , BarefootBrooke , Bow , Clara John , customphotoprops , DealMop , Deborah , emmy526 , etsdtm99 , FairfaxGirl , foursea21 , girlspn , glance , happy-mama , jamesmorrow , kathymuggle , Lydia08 , MarthaKw , Mikai , redsally , RollerCoasterMama , Saladd , samaxtics , Skippy918 , verticalscope
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.