How long past my due date will they let me go?

[Anonymous]

The risk of stillbirth at term increases with gestational age from 2.1 per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies at 37 weeks of gestation up to 10.8 per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies at 42 weeks of gestation. At 38 weeks of gestation, the risk of expectant management carries a similar risk of death as delivery, but at each later gestational age, the mortality risk of expectant management is higher than the risk of delivery (39 weeks of gestation: 12.9 compared with 8.8 per 10,000; 40 weeks of gestation: 14.9 compared with 9.5 per 10,000; 41 weeks of gestation: 17.6 compared with 10.8 per 10,000).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719843/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you afraid of an induction, OP? There is a lot you can do to start labor on its own. Like acupuncture, for one. But if you don’t go into labor on your own, an induction is important and needed. There’s a lot of fear mongering about it as an “intervention” but it’s much better to induce than the alternative—having a baby who is gaining weight rapidly and can be too big to birth vaginally, having a placenta at the end of it’s life that may not be working well, decreasing amniotic fluid, rapidly rising stillbirth risk, increased risk of preeclampsia and other complications, etc.

Nothing drives the point home than more fear mongering!

Being honest about risks is not fear mongering.

If they were real risks, yes. Risks that are either greatly exaggerated or entirely made up to coerce women to induce are indeed fear mongering (see "baby too big to birth vaginally", "rapidly rising stillbirth risk", "placenta at the end of its life").

If you are going to tell me that there is not a rising risk of stillbirth, preeclampsia, and fetal weight gain the later a pregnancy goes and that these are made up risks, then you are not even worth responding to because you are ignoring science and evidence. Feel free to go freebirth your baby, because your ignorance of modern day obstetrics is frankly, insulting to anyone who has done a base level of research on these topics.

You sounds like that poster on an older thread who kept citing articles on the evidence based birth website, and refused to acknowledge the author’s profound bias and understanding of how to accurately understand evidence.

And you sound absolutely unbearable and preachy without actually backing up your claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you afraid of an induction, OP? There is a lot you can do to start labor on its own. Like acupuncture, for one. But if you don’t go into labor on your own, an induction is important and needed. There’s a lot of fear mongering about it as an “intervention” but it’s much better to induce than the alternative—having a baby who is gaining weight rapidly and can be too big to birth vaginally, having a placenta at the end of it’s life that may not be working well, decreasing amniotic fluid, rapidly rising stillbirth risk, increased risk of preeclampsia and other complications, etc.

Nothing drives the point home than more fear mongering!

Being honest about risks is not fear mongering.

If they were real risks, yes. Risks that are either greatly exaggerated or entirely made up to coerce women to induce are indeed fear mongering (see "baby too big to birth vaginally", "rapidly rising stillbirth risk", "placenta at the end of its life").

If you are going to tell me that there is not a rising risk of stillbirth, preeclampsia, and fetal weight gain the later a pregnancy goes and that these are made up risks, then you are not even worth responding to because you are ignoring science and evidence. Feel free to go freebirth your baby, because your ignorance of modern day obstetrics is frankly, insulting to anyone who has done a base level of research on these topics.

You sounds like that poster on an older thread who kept citing articles on the evidence based birth website, and refused to acknowledge the author’s profound bias and understanding of how to accurately understand evidence.

And you sound absolutely unbearable and preachy without actually backing up your claims.

Oh I’m sorry, let me Google that for you. I already shared info about stillbirth risk. Fetal weight gain is known. They gain 1/2 pound per week at the end. Preeclampsia risk also increases at the end of pregnancy. If you don’t believe me, Google postterm birth risks. There are a lot. A lot of conservative OBs want you delivered by 39-40 weeks because evidence suggests this is the optimal biological window. Plenty of recent evidence supports this (Google the Arrive trial). I don’t have an hour to Google for you to attempt to debunk your misconceptions about the inherent superiority of unmedicated physiologic natural vaginal birth. The Evidence is out, sorry you don’t want to read it.

[Anonymous]

“Induced labor at 39 weeks may reduce likelihood of C-section, NIH study suggests. Elective induction at 39 weeks also linked to lower risk of maternal high blood pressure disorders.”
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/induced-labor-39-weeks-may-reduce-likelihood-c-section-nih-study-suggests

Gestational age past 40 weeks is a risk factor for macrosomia, which carries a lot of risks.
https://www.aafp.org/afp/2001/0701/p169.html

[Anonymous]

Have a good weekend PP...

[Anonymous]

Healthy first-time mothers whose labor was induced in the 39th week of pregnancy were less likely to deliver by cesarean section, compared to those who waited for labor to begin naturally, according to a study funded by the National Institutes of Health. Researchers also found that infants born to women induced at 39 weeks were no more likely to experience stillbirth, newborn death or other severe complications, compared to infants born to uninduced women.

The study examined a very specific subset of pregnant women. And the outcomes for babies were comparable in induced and non-induced women. I'm so tired of seeing this study thrown around as the gold standard for every woman when it applies ONLY to healthy first-time moms and the difference outcomes for babies is not statistically significant.

[Anonymous]

So I guess reduced risk of maternal blood pressure disorders and C section mean nothing to you, PP? You do realize that having preeclampsia increases a woman’s lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease, right? And a lot of women giving birth are healthy FTMs. This is just one study of many showing benefits to delivering at 39 weeks.

[Anonymous]

I have had two babies, both born at 41 weeks, one spontaneous, one induced. I think that the PPs need to recognize that the risks, though they do increase between 37 and 42 weeks, are still very, very small. If you are talking about 2 babies in 10,000 or 10 babies in 10,000, it is still a very, very small risk. I don't think that gets mentioned frequently enough.

I am not an anti-science idiot, but I think that people make decisions all the time to engage in things that are more risky than that. Driving a car is risky, for example, but many of us put our children in cars multiple times a day, every day, and no one is ever criticized for doing so.

Either way, I think that the PP is taking this very personally and is being rather nasty. PP, who hurt you? Why do you feel like it's a good use of your time to be snippy and superior to someone who disagrees with you on an anonymous website?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have had two babies, both born at 41 weeks, one spontaneous, one induced. I think that the PPs need to recognize that the risks, though they do increase between 37 and 42 weeks, are still very, very small. If you are talking about 2 babies in 10,000 or 10 babies in 10,000, it is still a very, very small risk. I don't think that gets mentioned frequently enough.

I am not an anti-science idiot, but I think that people make decisions all the time to engage in things that are more risky than that. Driving a car is risky, for example, but many of us put our children in cars multiple times a day, every day, and no one is ever criticized for doing so.

Either way, I think that the PP is taking this very personally and is being rather nasty. PP, who hurt you? Why do you feel like it's a good use of your time to be snippy and superior to someone who disagrees with you on an anonymous website?

Sure, but if something whose statistical risk is low happened to you, like stillbirth or preeclampsia, and it could have been avoided by induction at 39 weeks rather than waiting to go into labor naturally, you would have a very different outlook. Just like you take precautions when driving, like wearing a seatbelt, and not driving in poor weather, and having your car inspected and cared for, you can take precautions in pregnancy and delivery to avoid poor outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have had two babies, both born at 41 weeks, one spontaneous, one induced. I think that the PPs need to recognize that the risks, though they do increase between 37 and 42 weeks, are still very, very small. If you are talking about 2 babies in 10,000 or 10 babies in 10,000, it is still a very, very small risk. I don't think that gets mentioned frequently enough.

I am not an anti-science idiot, but I think that people make decisions all the time to engage in things that are more risky than that. Driving a car is risky, for example, but many of us put our children in cars multiple times a day, every day, and no one is ever criticized for doing so.

Either way, I think that the PP is taking this very personally and is being rather nasty. PP, who hurt you? Why do you feel like it's a good use of your time to be snippy and superior to someone who disagrees with you on an anonymous website?

Sure, but if something whose statistical risk is low happened to you, like stillbirth or preeclampsia, and it could have been avoided by induction at 39 weeks rather than waiting to go into labor naturally, you would have a very different outlook. Just like you take precautions when driving, like wearing a seatbelt, and not driving in poor weather, and having your car inspected and cared for, you can take precautions in pregnancy and delivery to avoid poor outcomes.

DP. But stillbirth and preeclampsia can't be 100% avoided by inducing at 39 weeks. Only that the risk is lowered. And not so much to be massively different, particularly in the case of stillbirth.

I think the study is important, and provides important data to each individual woman making the right individual decision for her. I know that even with all the information out there, I personally would not have decided to induce at 39 weeks at a healthy FTM less than a month from my 36th birthday.