42 week pregnancy - advice!

funky-footprints

lucym wrote:

My first was born at hospital – 24 hour labour, pethidine and episiotemy.

Other four were home births – longest labour was 6 hours, gas and air for two of them and stitches for one (only because her hand was up by her face as she was born).

2 hospital births ... 1st 9 hours 9lb, 2nd 8 hours 9lb 10 ounces, both on gas and air, no stitches .. sorry i dont see your point ? ?

first births are normally always longer ..you dont have a clue what to expect and cant work with the pain ...2nd and subsequent births are much easier, much more relaxed as your work with your body .

filigree_2

The hospital said I'd have to be induced at 42 weeks, and by that stage I was desperate to get it over with! I'm only little and Dad is huge, I didn't want to push out Monster Baby As it happens labour started spontaneously and he was born at exactly 42 weeks. He was 8'7" and I'm glad he didn't cook for longer.

I had other measures of my due date - the main one was the "scan date" where they make calculations based on the baby's measurements on the ultrasound. A low-tech version was measuring the bump with a special tape that counted the weeks according to how big you are (might not be accurate with plump ladies). Every method calculated almost the same date give or take a day. Let's just say I know very well what day I got pregnant and Mum's intuition wins My Mum went three weeks overdue with me so maybe heredity was a factor - hips like a cow

You can have a scan to check on the placenta and the waters, because if the baby is seriously overdue the placenta shrivels and the waters disappear and then the baby would be better out than in.

An alternative to drug induction is a cervical sweep, I didn't have one personally but I've heard that it's less drastic than the dreaded pessary.

Jo_R_2

Mishka

That's a good question, obviously one I can only answer speculatively but will have a go...

If I were to home birth and it resulted in something going wrong then I would question my decision and the thoughts that led me to where I was. My belief in home birth means that I make the decision based on the facts I know about my pregnancy, my body and my baby. From this pregnancy, I feel there is nothing high-risk that merits a hospital birth. Therefore, if something were to go wrong birthing at home it would more than likely be something that would also happen if I were having a hospital birth anyway, ie in that it couldn't be predicted. In that sense no, I don't think my opinions of home birth would change. I think looking at the broader spectrum, yes I fully advocate home birthing but you HAVE to assess each and every pregnancy as it comes. I would give birth in hospital if anything indicated it would be better for either me and/or baby to be there for medical treatment.

As an aside I gave birth to DD #1 in hospital, had a horrible initial examination by a midwife who obviously had no patience with the fact that I didn't want the examination during the pain which didn't just come in contractions but all the time, couldn't find any midwives to ask about pain relief then delivered my own baby as there was no one to be found!

Rozeepozee - not gone into labour yet! Am 41+3 now, speculating about what to do should I get to 42 weeks and the fact my maternity is slowly passing me by with no baby yet!

The best thing to remember is that no one can force you to do anything, they can advise and recommend but ultimately any decision about whether to home birth or to have induction is up to you. Doesn't man you won't get pressured but I find that knowing why I want what I want really helps when explaining to consultants and midwives etc. After 42 weeks you should be offered regular monitoring and a scan to check baby and the placenta if you refuse induction. Highly recommend https://www.homebirth.org.uk for reading up about home birth.

Filigree - not sure how much this baby will weigh, DD #1 was 8lb 5oz at 41+1 so imagine this one will be around the same. Felt this one would be late too as have a longer cycle than 28 days.

deaththecat

honeychunky wrote:

Was this written by a man by any chance?????????????:rotfl:

Nope, not by a man, I posted it in another thread a while ago!
I was 2 weeks overdue with Deaththekitten and was shown an article in a midwifery journal by a midwife friend about some research done in Denmark or somewhere that showed that swallowing the enzymes in the sperm was more effective than the usual...er...approach.

lucym

mishkanorman wrote:

My midwife was literally an angel<snip>

mishka

I think you have hit the nail on the head there…it is the midwife who helps the birth to go smoothly – unfortunately when they attend a hospital birth their opinions are often ignored by the doctors.

The midwife I had for my fourth home birth was really not in tune with how things were going (I didn’t know her, my baby was late and my own midwife had gone on holiday) and it was my husband who saw me through that birth.

bumpybecky

Hope this makes some kind of sense....

I think the reason they give for wanting to induce by 42 weeks is that rates of stillbirth start to increase at 42+. What they won't tell you is that the rate is still very, very low even after 42 weeks

Also they don't know whether the babies that are stillborn would have been stillborn whenever they arrived - that one of the problems they had is that the factors the baby produces to trigger labour off don't function properly, which is why they're late. I mean it's not being overdue that causes the
stillbirth - it's an effect not a cause.

I've been where you are now - dd1 went 41+3 also booked for homebirth dd2 was only 41+1 and dd3 suprised me at 40+2 I can completely understand you wanting to avoid an induction, and in your situation would also be looking at refusing.

In my case I was happy to have extra monitoring, including being hooked up to a heartbeat monitior thing to make sure dd1 was OK. Has your midwife offered this?

Have you had a membrane sweep? can be very uncomfortable if you're not ready, but when you're a few days off labour they don't hurt and can sometimes kick things of. There is a danger of them breaking the waters when they do the sweep though, so make sure you know what you're letting yourself in for. If you speak to a supportive midwife that'll help make your decision

If they try to insist on an induction one tactic is to stall as long as you can, try to delay by as many days as possible, then cancel on the day (if that's what you want). Also they offer an induction - they can't make you, no matter how persuasive they are!

Links you've not mentioned yet...

Yahoo list for homebirth..

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homebirthUK/

Yahoo list for midwifery...

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ukmidwifery/

I did have a link for an American site called soemthing like 10 month Mommas, with lots of stories of longer gestation periods. Can't find it now though

and finally! next time can I suggest you lie about the date of your last period?

cookiesncream

deaththecat wrote:

swallowing the enzymes in the sperm was more effective than the usual...er...approach.

:rotfl: We need to keep this from the men...

Spendless

mishkanorman wrote:

. I made the mistake of watching an emergency midwives programme where a baby got stuck, first time pregnancy no obvious signs of upset, then they lost the babys heartbeat and after frantic calls for an ambulance that never came the baby arrived and needed resusitation. All was well in the end but I sat and howled for about an hour as it was sooo traumatic to watch.

This is what happened with my eldest. His head was twisted. I was having a hospital birth and rushed for an emergency C-section. It was then discovered that I can't actually deliver normally. 17 months earlier I had had to have a termination when they discovered the baby wouldn't live and was induced and put thru labour, so the news that I am not able to physically give birth to a full-term baby was a shocker. Unfortunately no-one thought to write this on my notes, and no-one not even my consultant (DS was born on a w/end and my consultant was not on duty) believed what I said I'd been told until a few days before DD was born.:mad:

I'd always worry about someone going thru circumstances like my own with a home birth though mainly if it was their 1st child.

patchwork_cat

As far as the debate about home birth vs hospital birth goes I would opt for hospital as things can go wrong - in fact I did with DD as she turned breech at 39+5! and the placenta was dangling - apparently if my waters had gone the cord would have gone into shock - I really wanted to go home, but was told if that happens we only have 4 minutes to deliver baby .

Needless to say I didn't get any sleep in the side ward nearest the operating theatre that night! and opted for a section as soon as the Consultant arrived next morning. Yes I was bullied into it by an insensitive SHO. However ultimately the most important thing was that we had a healthy baby, however having had a normal and section delivery I would go normal every time.

I have a friend who has only had sections and requests them - now that is completly beyond my understanding the pain after with a natural is nothing compared to a section.

I am pro choice in all things and believe that the informed womans wishes are paramount. I personally would have a hospital birth, but that is my choice.

bumpybecky

When you're in hospital you normally get one midwife looking after several women, whereas at home you've got one or more midwives there for you and no one else. This means problems get detected much earlier in labour as the midwife is concentrating on you more

Even in hospital they don't say you need an emergency section, and then it happen immediately. It takes time to assemble a team, get room ready, get you to the room etc. If you are at home and need a section the midwife can call ahead so all that preparation starts before you get to hospital. There is usually very little delay.

It's also true that you are much less likely to need medical intervention if you're at home. It's like a cascade thing in hospital. They think you're not performing to their rules so give you drugs to start you off, then it's slow so more drugs to hurry you up, then it's going fast so it hurts more so more drugs, then you can't feel to push properly so you need assistance, that might not work so you end up with an 'emergency' section.

If midwifes managed more wome's labours then I'm sure there would be far less intervention. Leave the doctors to those who have genuine need for them

off soapbox now