Normal Practice to Induce AMA Mom's at 39 Weeks?

[Anonymous]

I'm 46, and this was not my first baby. I had a VBAC, and initially, doctor was going to let me go to 40, but I pushed the "deadline" to 41, and I probably could have pushed it to 42.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I don't wish to go beyond term. But hate the idea of inducing labor by requirement before my due date! Due dates are often squishy and I'm 40 and in perfect health. This is my first and I really want to have labor happen when it should. All of my friends who have been induced have had different experiences and not all positive. Mostly not positive.

"When it should" is a really relative term.

Your age is a risk factor even if you are healthy--no getting around that.

[Anonymous]

Don't understand that panic about being induced.... was very happy as AMA and preggers lady anyway to have a scheduled induction but DD can sooner. No, your OB isn't crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I don't wish to go beyond term. But hate the idea of inducing labor by requirement before my due date! Due dates are often squishy and I'm 40 and in perfect health. This is my first and I really want to have labor happen when it should. All of my friends who have been induced have had different experiences and not all positive. Mostly not positive.

I had my hoed at 37 and my doc really pushed for me to be induced. I finally gave in at 40w5d. It was no different from my other two labors except I went to the hospital at 5 am instead of in the middle of the night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't understand that panic about being induced.... was very happy as AMA and preggers lady anyway to have a scheduled induction but DD can sooner. No, your OB isn't crazy.

Completely anecdotal, but most of the induction stories I personally know of (with FTMs, that is) resulted in failure to progress and c-section after a long induction process. These were situations where Bishop score was very low, but OBs recommended induction at 39w or 40w anyway. I think this is the concern a lot of women have. Despite the research that apparently shows no relation between inductions and risk of c-sections, anecdotally, that doesn't appear to be the case, and these are the stories many women hear.

As a FTM, I was induced with an unfavorable Bishop score, told by on-call OB to expect to go to c-section, and I ended up delivering vaginally. So, there's another data point.

[Anonymous]

I would rather be induced a few days before labor was going to happen on its own than have a stillbirth. Babies are basically fully cooked at 37 weeks anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't understand that panic about being induced.... was very happy as AMA and preggers lady anyway to have a scheduled induction but DD can sooner. No, your OB isn't crazy.

Completely anecdotal, but most of the induction stories I personally know of (with FTMs, that is) resulted in failure to progress and c-section after a long induction process. These were situations where Bishop score was very low, but OBs recommended induction at 39w or 40w anyway. I think this is the concern a lot of women have. Despite the research that apparently shows no relation between inductions and risk of c-sections, anecdotally, that doesn't appear to be the case, and these are the stories many women hear.

As a FTM, I was induced with an unfavorable Bishop score, told by on-call OB to expect to go to c-section, and I ended up delivering vaginally. So, there's another data point.

I was induced at 37 weeks and didn't have a c section.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I don't wish to go beyond term. But hate the idea of inducing labor by requirement before my due date! Due dates are often squishy and I'm 40 and in perfect health. This is my first and I really want to have labor happen when it should. All of my friends who have been induced have had different experiences and not all positive. Mostly not positive.

I get that you feel that. But nature is not perfect and it does not care about you or your baby. There is no "should." Although you are 40 and in perfect health, as a first-time mom at 40, stillbirth rates rise because your body and placenta just is not as strong as it would be if you were 20. It would not be unreasonable for you to wait for 40 weeks -- but do so in the knowledge of the risks of stillbirth, as well as any advice that your particular doctor gives you in your case. For example, even slightly high blood pressure might tip the scales more strongly towards 39 weeks.

[Anonymous]

The different between a 38-40 week baby is not at all worth the risk of stillbirth to me.

[Anonymous]

I also didn't want to be induced but had slightly elevated blood pressure that was controlled by medication and my doctor highly recommended inducing on my due date. Although I wanted to wait I figured that I would regret a stillborn indescribably more than ending up with a csection.

I did end up with a c-section and it was actually a super easy recovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The different between a 38-40 week baby is not at all worth the risk of stillbirth to me.

Yes, all of this. With one in 160 pregnancies ending in stillbirth, I would take the lowest risk route possible, especially given your age.

[Anonymous]

Did your OB say why?

It is becoming standard practice for everyone because there are new drugs and more "gentle" and less invasive approaches to induction being used now (waiting for the cervix to ripen first, or doing membrane sweeps). And because women aren't really pushing back because, stillbirth. And, science, which apparently now tells us our placentas turn gray and hard after week 40 or maybe sooner if you're 'old.'

Induction at 'term' also allows hospitals/providers to schedule your birth to begin at (and be managed according to) their convenience. Then if you don't progress X much by X hours, you will either be sent home or will get further interventions to expedite labor. Things to be aware of.

Check out the recent thread on elective inductions. I posted some articles on the risks of induction and stillbirth, etc. on the second page:
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/641984.page

Good for you for being a conscientious consumer. Not saying don't trust your doctor, but you have a right to ask questions and be fully informed when making decisions about your own care.

[Anonymous]

'Nature does not care about you or your baby' - yep. I had a full-term neonatal loss (after a textbook first pregnancy, Bradley method classes, general crunchy outlook etc) I was not AMA at the time, was perfectly healthy, and was with midwives. Turned out my son had an undiagnosed cord issue. I now know several AMA moms who had stillbirths at 40+ weeks due to placental insufficiency. This stuff isn't just made up by mean medical people - there are real risks and the consequences are devastating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The different between a 38-40 week baby is not at all worth the risk of stillbirth to me.

Yes, all of this. With one in 160 pregnancies ending in stillbirth, I would take the lowest risk route possible, especially given your age.

Really?!?! 1 in 160? Is it really that high? My mom practiced for 30 years and only lost 2 babies in all that time. I can't imagine the numbers being that high.

[Anonymous]

I delivered at age 42, OB wanted to do 39 weeks, I negotiated to 40, and they said I could go to 41 weeks if I agreed to extra monitoring.