The practice I was with (not in DC) gives AMA moms 35-40 years old up to 42 weeks unless otherwise indicated. I know they require additional monitoring once you hit 40 weeks. But I delivered at 39w 4d, so not something I experienced. Moms 41 and older have to deliver by 41 weeks.

FWIW, I started my pregnancy with the GW midwives and I was told I had until 42 weeks, so long as monitoring showed healthy baby.

I would discuss what the absolute risk is going beyond 39 weeks. Yes, the risk does increase, but the actual, absolute risk to mom and Baby is still very low. Each woman has to decide what their risk tolerance is. Some may be fine with the blanket "all moms 35 and older delivery by 39 weeks PERIOD," but others may be more comfortable with a slight increase in the risk of stillbirth or other complications to see if labor starts spontaneously.

I think GW midwives might let you go to 40/41 weeks at over 40.

Then if your OB insists you might want to consider switching practices.

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.

Another article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-science/should-pregnant-women-be-induced-at-39-weeks/2016/06/27/e1bb9d16-27fe-11e6-b989-4e5479715b54_story.html

I am 42 and want to be induced at 39 weeks if I don't go into labor before.

The risk for stillbirth goes up for those age 40+ after 39 weeks. That is why some OBs want to induce then.

Just had this conversation with my doctor. I'm 36 and their recommendation is to induce on my due date if baby doesn't come on his own by then. They're also comfortable inducing starting at 39 weeks if I would prefer that.

GW will let moms 40 and above go to 40 weeks, but not longer. And they are pretty crunchy.

This was a few years ago, but I was 41 with my son and they were willing to let me go to 41 weeks with him. I was 44 with my dd, and that dr was insistent that she come out at 39w. I definately felt that there was more concern for my age at 44 than there was at 41. I think at 40 it's more dependent on the dr.

I am not an au natural crunchy mom who wants a drug free home birth. But I do prefer that my baby arrive when she is ready, assuming no health problems.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is becoming increasingly normal due to evidence that it reduces stillbirths and does not in fact increase c-section rates. I suggest you have a discussion with your OB about it to hear his thinking. If you don't agree you have the right not to do it, but I'd take his views into consideration, since he is in the medical expert you hired!

I love how this poster assumed your OB is male.

FYI - you can always change practices if you are not comfortable with the direction things are going.

It is not standard of care.

I was 38 when #2 was born at 40 Weeks and 6 days (my water broke at home)
I was 41 when #3 was born at 39 weeks and 2 days (went into labor at home)

This was at GT

Yes, it is becoming increasingly normal due to evidence that it reduces stillbirths and does not in fact increase c-section rates. I suggest you have a discussion with your OB about it to hear his thinking. If you don't agree you have the right not to do it, but I'd take his views into consideration, since he is in the medical expert you hired!

Just found out that my OB requests that all AMA moms (I'm 40) are induced if they get to 39 weeks. Isn't term 40 weeks? Is this a normal practice? I do not want to be induced at 38-39 weeks if everything is okay and me and baby are well. I wanted a lower intervention birth.

Would love to hear others experiences. TIA.