[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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! [/quote]

No, this is not fact. It is a shaky theory that insecure women are clinging onto to absolve themselves of guilt when they seek convenience inductions.

You're right to wait until things progress naturally whenever possible. Don't let these other PPs attempt to minimize the benefits of a natural birth without medical intervention. [/quote]

Calling women insecure and accusing them all of wanting convenience is really mean and presumptuous. Sure, maybe some women fit this description, but a lot more are probably just worried about their babies and want to ensure they are born healthy and safe. There is research to support the safety of induction starting at 39 weeks, and there is also research showing increased risks of stillbirth in AMA mothers. Women have the right to make their own choices based on all available information without judgmental strangers calling them insecure and implying their motives are selfish. Maybe try reining in your hostility and being kind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'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.

I'm sorry. I had a similar experience, except I was AMA (37). My daughter survived the initial cord accident but with severe brain damage, and she died shortly before her second birthday. I remember discussing the risks with my midwives when I went past my due date and finding some comfort in the fact that the risks were low, but someone's gotta be in that "less than 1%". You just never think it'll be you until it is.

I am so sorry about your losses. Hugs! INOVA Fairfax Antenatal Center diagnosed my cord issue during one of the scans and I was advised to have my DS via c-section. I am glad I did. After my DS was born, I am firm believer that all AMAs should have a c-section to avoid complications for the baby. I could not imagine going through an induction or a natural birth at 40--just too many risks. . Many of my AMA friends went the natural way, but ended up with late night emergency c-sections and horrible recoveries.

Wait, what???

Also, I understand the issue with aging placenta, but is there some relation between cord issues and AMA, as well?

It is very common for AMAs to have cord/placental issues. We're not 20-30 yo on an inside, even if we look young on the outside.

Anonymous wrote:

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!

No, this is not fact. It is a shaky theory that insecure women are clinging onto to absolve themselves of guilt when they seek convenience inductions.

You're right to wait until things progress naturally whenever possible. Don't let these other PPs attempt to minimize the benefits of a natural birth without medical intervention.

Yes, definitely take the anonymous Internet poster tips over medical advice of physicians who cared for you during your entire pregnancy.

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!

No, this is not fact. It is a shaky theory that insecure women are clinging onto to absolve themselves of guilt when they seek convenience inductions.

You're right to wait until things progress naturally whenever possible. Don't let these other PPs attempt to minimize the benefits of a natural birth without medical intervention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'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.

I'm sorry. I had a similar experience, except I was AMA (37). My daughter survived the initial cord accident but with severe brain damage, and she died shortly before her second birthday. I remember discussing the risks with my midwives when I went past my due date and finding some comfort in the fact that the risks were low, but someone's gotta be in that "less than 1%". You just never think it'll be you until it is.

I am so sorry about your losses. Hugs! INOVA Fairfax Antenatal Center diagnosed my cord issue during one of the scans and I was advised to have my DS via c-section. I am glad I did. After my DS was born, I am firm believer that all AMAs should have a c-section to avoid complications for the baby. I could not imagine going through an induction or a natural birth at 40--just too many risks. . Many of my AMA friends went the natural way, but ended up with late night emergency c-sections and horrible recoveries.

Wait, what???

Also, I understand the issue with aging placenta, but is there some relation between cord issues and AMA, as well?

+1. Confirmation bias.

AMA does put you in a higher risk category but there is just not enough research into the association between cord accidents, stillbirth, and maternal age to definitively state the risks of it outweigh the risks of cs. Let alone the fact that some cord problems occur most commonly in the low-risk population. There are no easy answers here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'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.

I'm sorry. I had a similar experience, except I was AMA (37). My daughter survived the initial cord accident but with severe brain damage, and she died shortly before her second birthday. I remember discussing the risks with my midwives when I went past my due date and finding some comfort in the fact that the risks were low, but someone's gotta be in that "less than 1%". You just never think it'll be you until it is.

I am so sorry about your losses. Hugs! INOVA Fairfax Antenatal Center diagnosed my cord issue during one of the scans and I was advised to have my DS via c-section. I am glad I did. After my DS was born, I am firm believer that all AMAs should have a c-section to avoid complications for the baby. I could not imagine going through an induction or a natural birth at 40--just too many risks. . Many of my AMA friends went the natural way, but ended up with late night emergency c-sections and horrible recoveries.

Wait, what???

Also, I understand the issue with aging placenta, but is there some relation between cord issues and AMA, as well?

I had my daughter a few months of 42. I was also with one of the more conventional practices (Reiter Hill). They allowed me to go to 41 weeks but were abundantly clear that they want the baby out immediately after 41 weeks. I balked at the idea initially but they were dead serious, to the point that they had several senior physicians in the practice pop into my appointment and make it very clear that to keep the baby safe, the baby needs to come out. I think they said "when things go bad, things go bad quickly and not necessarily in the way you notice."

Induced at 41 weeks 2 days, baby born easily and without any issues. Definitely fully baked!

So agree that AMAs are now receiving strong guidance to not go too far over term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:'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.

I'm sorry. I had a similar experience, except I was AMA (37). My daughter survived the initial cord accident but with severe brain damage, and she died shortly before her second birthday. I remember discussing the risks with my midwives when I went past my due date and finding some comfort in the fact that the risks were low, but someone's gotta be in that "less than 1%". You just never think it'll be you until it is.

I am so sorry about your losses. Hugs! INOVA Fairfax Antenatal Center diagnosed my cord issue during one of the scans and I was advised to have my DS via c-section. I am glad I did. After my DS was born, I am firm believer that all AMAs should have a c-section to avoid complications for the baby. I could not imagine going through an induction or a natural birth at 40--just too many risks. . Many of my AMA friends went the natural way, but ended up with late night emergency c-sections and horrible recoveries.

At age 39, my ob did not want me to go past 40 weeks bc of AMA and because I had read the acog study mentioned above about escalating odds of stillbirth I was in agreement. Ended up being induced at 39 weeks due to monitoring concerns that turned out to be nothing. he was 8.5 lbs, vaginal delivery, and definitely fully baked. The added discomfort of Induction was worth the peace of mind for me, as I was constantly doing kick counts towards the end. I Was also Still able to exclusively Breastfeed. Hope that helps.

Anonymous wrote:I'm deeply sorry, PP with the nearly two year old that passed away (PP with the neonatal loss here). I hate these threads and should prob stop reading them. It's too painful.

xox you guys

Heartbreaking. So sorry pps.

I'm deeply sorry, PP with the nearly two year old that passed away (PP with the neonatal loss here). I hate these threads and should prob stop reading them. It's too painful.

Anonymous wrote:'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.

I'm sorry. I had a similar experience, except I was AMA (37). My daughter survived the initial cord accident but with severe brain damage, and she died shortly before her second birthday. I remember discussing the risks with my midwives when I went past my due date and finding some comfort in the fact that the risks were low, but someone's gotta be in that "less than 1%". You just never think it'll be you until it is.

Anonymous wrote:I was really wary of induction and looked for an OB who didn't induce AMA until 41 weeks (sadly, I still was induced). But there actually is lots of new (or newly recognized) evidence about the reduction in stillbirths and the small increased risks. You could talk to her about waiting a few additional days, but, even as someone who wanted more time, it may be best to induce. (FWIW, my baby was born vaginally with both of us healthy, although she did have lots of meconium and had to have her lungs suctioned which was really scary.)

That does sound very scary. Was the baby suctioned because of not breathing well or low apgar, or just because they saw meconium? It is common for later term babies to be born with meconium (just means their bowels have matured) but it usually does not get into their lungs unless there was some other problem. Just curious about the protocols for it.

I was really wary of induction and looked for an OB who didn't induce AMA until 41 weeks (sadly, I still was induced). But there actually is lots of new (or newly recognized) evidence about the reduction in stillbirths and the small increased risks. You could talk to her about waiting a few additional days, but, even as someone who wanted more time, it may be best to induce. (FWIW, my baby was born vaginally with both of us healthy, although she did have lots of meconium and had to have her lungs suctioned which was really scary.)