*stillbirth mentioned*

I was just wondering at what stage different people would agree to an induction?

I know that some on EB are against induction, but is there a point where you would agree eg what if you were 43 weeks?

Others seem to want to be induced before their edd.

What is your view for you?

I have gone 8 days over and 4 days over in previous pregnancies. This time I think I would agree to an induction at 11 days over ( 10 days is over the weekend). I think I would agree to a s&s around 40 weeks. I would prefer to go into labour naturally, but I know 2 people who have had full term stillbirths and this has been a hard pregnancy which took 20 months of ttc and I know that at some stage I will want him out safely.

I would say for me, until it becomes medically necessary to be induced.

I had a small rupture with my daughter, so I had to give birth within 48hours. They offered to induce me immediatly and I refused, at my visit the next day they offered to induce me, I refused because I still had 24 hours to go naturally, and before I even got home from that visit, my body decided it would make the 48 hour time limit.

But I have never gone to 43 weeks, if I did I might change my view

I went 11 days over with DS1 before having my waters broken and the drip started at 4cm as I had been stalled there for 2days..

If I was to be induced again, I would agree to my waters being broken but delay the drip as long as I could as I think both at the same time was more than I needed and added to the pain of induction.

This time around I am getting a membrane sweep at 38weeks as we know bub is a good size and after having DS2 at 36weeks (and a healthy 2.8kg) I am confident bub will be fine to come early.

From my own experiences I would wait until I was 42 weeks or more and as long as my body was receptive to it. Obviously getting to 42 weeks or more doing so with a healthy functioning placenta and healthy stable baby.

I got induced at 14 days past my EDD. I had 2 sweeps prior to that, and nothing was working! It wasn't what I wanted, or planned, but at that point I didn't have much choice. After 28 hours, and no progress at all (3 cm dilated) I ended up having to have an emergency C-Sect.

I was so determined to have a completely natural birth, that I never considered any other options. It didn't go as plan, but what can you do. I still have a beautiful baby girl that I treasure no matter how she came into the world. #2 also needs to be C-sect due to medical reasons, so I won't need to think about it this time, but I'm a lot more open minded second time around!

This. My OB is happy with this too. Provided things are still looking good all round I'd be happy to wait even longer with more monitoring.

I was induced with synctocinon at 37+6 weeks due to a prolonged rupture of membranes and concern about possible placental abruption. I think I probably would have been begging for an induction if I had gone over 40 weeks.

My last baby was born perfect at 43 +1

I have a friend who gave birth last year at 45+2

I would never consent to an induction without medical reason, baby not being born yet is not a medical reason.

I wouldnt be induced before my DD except for pretty dire circumstances to my baby's health, or my own health. However I will ackiwledge that this is coming from the perspective of never having had chromic pain during pregnancy (such as SPD or hymeremisis etc etc) or suffered a previous loss...

Post dates... I'd start considering it at 10 days over, but try and push out to 14 days over. I dont think I'd go longer than that. Any whiff of something a miss and you couldnt get my legs in the air quick enough. LOL.

My own expeience is 2 spontaeous labours at 41 and 40+3 weeks, and then a 3rd baby by c-section at 37+5 due to placenta previa. I was very anxious and angry that I had to wait to 37+5 to have the placenta previa baby... I would much preferred to have him at 35-37 weeks.

I was induced with DD at 40 + 13. Ob was happy to go 40 + 14, but they were fully booked that day, so 40 + 13 it was!!
I wouldn't consider going much further over than that as my placenta was quite deteriorated when she was born.

Except I haven't had to wait. DD came at 39 weeks.
I would be happy to be induced sometime after 42 weeks or longer with some monitoring after 42 weeks ( personally for me i'd feel more comfortable to wait then).




I probably wouldn't agree with most medical reasons either, twins, small baby, large baby- Some consider these "medical" reasons nutsabouthazel , but I know what you're trying to say .

Same. My second was 16 days past EDD, I was booked for an induction that day but she came of her own doing before it was required. I had monitoring and she was well and healthy.

Just on a side note - my first was 11 days late (spontaneous) and her placenta was gritty and starting to break down. Her skin was cracked and peeling, she was well and truly ready to be born. My second was 16 days late (and I knew my ovulation date!) and she was covered in vernix, healthy pink , her placenta was in fantastic shape. The midwife even commented on it as she was surprised.

I was induced on my EDD and DS was born at 40+2. I was heading for a big baby and required forceps and an episiotomy to get him out. I'm happy I didn't wait any longer (my Ob wanted to induce at 39 weeks but I asked to wait a week) as who knows how much bigger he could've grown.

I'd do it again this time around if my Ob recommended it. She is all for as natural a delivery as is possible, so I trust her judgement.

I agreed to an induction at 38.6. My reasons were - GD, big baby, lots of pain and pre-labour for about 2 weeks which contributed to the pain. On their own none of those reasons would have been enough but combined they were causing me distress and my ob felt we would be better with induction, but ony if my cervix was showing signs of starting to be ready.

If everything was medically OK, I would go 14 post EDD with monitoring of fetal heartbeat, movement and placental function after 7-10. This was always the plan with my VBACs. Hovever it was never necessary as I went into labour at 38w5d and 40w exactly.

ETA: Medical reasons to me are an imediate risk of death or serious harm to me or my baby. Big baby, etc to me are not medical

I would go to about two weeks over, presuming everything was going smoothly. I actually changed doctors at 20 weeks with my second son for this reason - my previous dr, who does most of the deliveries around here, induces/caesers around four or five days over, to the point there is a common perception that going over is "wrong", and negligent on behalf of the dr

I went to 42 weeks with my DS and I talked the doctor into holding off the induction for one more day and I went home and took caster oil and he was born that evening.

Natural birth, large baby (10.5 pound), posterior so more painful that first baby.

If I have a third I would agree to an induction sometime after 42 weeks if ALL other methods to get things started had failed.

Caster Oil does work and I didn't have a problem in the world.

DS1 was induced at 42 weeks but was monitored from 40 weeks. My OB didn't do a S&W or check my cervix until the induction.

I think I was just about ready to go into labour anyway. I had had a large show that day and was ripe and about 1cm dilated. I only had gel and a S&W. I was in full labour within 5 hours.

Excluding medical reasons, I will probably stick with that again if I have to wait that long.

For me the size of the baby alone is not a medical reason.

I would be happy to agree to an induction at any point my OB advises, whether this is a month early or a couple weeks over I don't care. I know he is great at his job and has saved many babies, I trust his judgement and training far more than I trust my own body which has a history of betraying me. I don't care about the 'ideal' birth or having interventions I care only about outcome.

I went into labour naturally at 40+13 with DD and was about a week overdue with DS (dates weren't as exact as with DD). At about 8 days over I started having CTG every other day as they tried to book me in but I refused. I was booked in to have gels at 42 weeks but had spontaneous labour the day prior. I don't see the need unless there is a medical reason.

Placenta was fine with both babies - I think I just take longer to cook them

I did everything, acupuncture, sex, walking spicy food, pineapple and was about to try castol oil.

I would go to 42 weeks without a doubt.

I've gotten to 41+3 before & went into labour spontaneously

I would go 10-14 days over providing everything was ok with bub and placenta etc, and there was no risk to my health by doing so.
Monitoring after 10days over would make me feel better.

That is a policy to avoid infection. I know of women who have gone for weeks with ruptured membranes and managed to avoid infection. In this case I would take antibiotics and agree to monitoring, but I wouldn't agree to induction unless there were indications of something wrong.

I can't have an induction now that I have had a caesarean. But if I could, and I was overdue, I would agree to daily monitoring, and again, not induce unless there were indications of the baby in distress or the placenta failing.

same. I haven't experiened this poster's tragic loss. However, my OB decided on (what I thought was) relatively flimsy information to induce at 38+3. Despite a growth scan indicating otherwise, my baby was IUGR and placenta was finished. Baby was LBW and immediately BGL dropped to dangerous levels after birth. Glad i trusted OB then, will happily trust her in future. That's why I paid her the big bucks!

It seems a shame that people have so little faith in their carers that, without any medical training of their own, they would prefer not to follow suggested interventions.

(Obviously for many this is totally hypothetical and not about a dispute with their doctor, but some have mentioned specifically distrusting their carers and refusing recommended treatment.)

It's great your OB has proven trustworthy. Based on your own experience, of course you would take her advice. Unfortunately, I have experiences which cause me to not blindly accept advice from someone just because they have a medical degree. I resent the implication that this means that my birth experience is more important than a healthy baby to me.

42 wks

I resisted induction with DS until 16 days overdue, and he was born 24 hrs later. But it was not a very good experience.

I didn't want to go so long with DD2, I'd learnt that if they weren't out by then they weren't going to, so I agreed to induction at 13 days overude and she was born the next morning.

My first was born at 11 days over after an induction (drip) and my second was born naturally at 16 days over. After experiencing the pain of an induction compared to a natural birth I would happily go well over if all was well with the baby and placenta.

The midwives at both births commented on how good my placenta (or baby's placenta ?) looked considering they were so old, so I think I could have gone longer and would if it meant avoiding the pain of an induction. As long as I was able to have an US to check blood flow etc. My babes were quite shrivelled on their hands and feet and peeled a layer of skin so were certainly 'overcooked'

I completely agree with you Eirinn, I have a similar situation and while I have a lot more confidence in my current OB than my last (who's excessively early interventionist ways led to a very unwanted & long resented c/s), I will not be dictated to by arbitrary time limits and practices that are not evidence based. If they can show me good reason in my own personal situation why an intervention is absolutely medically necessary I will then be happy to consider informed consent.

my bold added.

I agreed with the pp who said she would follow her dr's advice. I said it's a shame people don't feel they trusted their clinician enough to follow their advice. If people inferred a judgment in this, that's their choice.

I simply meant I think it's unfortunate. It must be much more scary to give birth if you don't trust the people around you. In my vulnerability I was damn pleased that at least the doctor could handle what was going in, since I was not making a positive contribution to proceedings.

The above post seems to indicate a very adversarial relationship with the doctor, 'dictated,' and 'show good reason,,, absolutely medically necessary,'? Surely it's not a matter of proving a medical case? Each pg and labour needs to be managed individually, based on all the circumstances of that case, with reference to earlier research on what's best in generality. This is a matter of judgment, with pros, cons, risks and benefits to be weighed. Obviously informed consent is critical, but I rely heavily on the good clinical judgment and practice of my doctor, and trust that she has weighed risks and recommends an appropriate course of action. If you have a private OB, but don't have this r'ship, then why not? Why would you pay them? I wouldn't hire a tradesman I thought was giving me dodgy advice.

I agree that the public system doesn't necessarily allow you to get to know the practitioner, and that you are more likely to be subject to generalised policies, but still? Practitioners can only really PROVE a c/s was necessary by not doing one and showing fatal consequences. Not many would allow it to go that far.

I agreed to be induced at 36+5 due to PE and diabetes causing placental problems. I am glad I did as when my daughter was born the placenta had almost totally failed, she would not have survived another day. The only problem with being induced so early was that my body was not ready and it ended in a c-sect at 37 weeks exactly.

Have some medical basis for that? Nothing worked for me.

Induced twice at 42 and then 41.5. Both times induction was started at 10am with breaking waters (painful 2nd time, 1st time ok) and later drip, babies born around 6-6.30pm. Full on labour started at 2pm. Only gas for both.

I wasn't induced for life threatening conditions and I have no issue with it either and neither did bubs. Neither suffered any distress and I was able to manage the pain.

3rd came naturally at 41.3 (night before planned induction). She was breech and large so it was a VERY painful labour but short so all I got time for was pethidene. I only had 3 hours of labour from show to woe and of that only 2 was full on.

If I was having another child and went over again I would choose induction at +41 weeks. Frankly though I am NEVER going through it all again. Youngest is 3 and I couldn't go back for more.

Personally I think 43 weeks would be my cut off but only because my history is all my babies coming before 42 weeks, if I'd experience a baby coming later first time around then I would know that I obviously gestate longer than the norm and hopefully have encouragement from my private midwife to wait as long as bubs and I were healthy.

I would ask though for induction via gel, then ARM and drip as the last option only due to having a bad induction experience with the drip for my 1st which caused huge attachment and breastfeeding issues for me due to having no natural oxytocin in my body for birth due to the drip.

I was induced at 42 weeks- 14 days "over".

I was induced at 38 weeks because i had obstetric cholestasis and pre eclampsia, they scared me a few time from 33 weeks but there was no way i wanted DD out that early!! My induction failed after 16 hours with me stopping dilating at 5-6cm and the labour wasnt progressing, soo c section that time, The amount of inductions that end in c section is really sad and i really feel for these women because i know exactly how they feel alot of bad feelings and thoughts come with it.. If i had have been able too wait it out there is no doubt in my mind that i wouldn't have and i was EXTREMELY uncomfortable in the last weeks as most women are, but i had no choice for induction i would rather that than a stillborn baby, but if i had a choice then yes i would go over. However i wouldn't let it go too long with risking my placenta reaching its use by or whatever.. I don't know much about that but surely they deteriorate after awhile?

+ 1

If the only reason for the induction was prolonged pregnancy, I would prefer to wait until 42 weeks with monitoring, all being well. Inductions are more likely to be successful if left until after 41 weeks.

As it turned out I had an induction at 39+6 weeks due to medical reasons but I would have liked to wait longer as I wanted my baby to continue to develop his potential in utero. I belive there are reasons why some babies gestate for longer than others, that possibly have not been discovered yet.

There is research to show that babies born at 40-41 weeks may have better long term outcomes than babies delivered at 37 - 39 weeks - see link.

http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaign...ional-age-deliv

If I re to ever have another baby I think I'd be asking for the induction at 42wks, along as everything was functioning as normal and the baby was stable.

I was induced with DD2 last year at 40+8 which was ok by me, as she was #3 and I was tired of waiting and DD1 & DS really wanted to meet their new little sibling.

Funny thing was - when she was delivered, she actually had the most white vernix on her out of my 3 babies (even though she was 8 days over - and DD1 arrived on her due date, while DS arrived 5 days early) and my Mum who's a midwife, said she was probably ok to keep cooking for another week or so.

Lokum I did feel as though judgement was implied, I'm sorry if I mistook your intention.

I guess it's difficult for you to understand my position without having been in my position. I put my entire faith in the practicioner I was with previously and was badly let down. Induction via gels led to 2cm dilation at which time the Dr broke my waters without entering into discussion on the pros & cons, just saying it was protocol & would get things going. Wrong. Then had 6 hours on the drip which did nothing & was then advised that due to having had ARM for 6 hours I HAD to have a c/s right then & there. Both of us where still comfortable. What a complete load of BS. The fact that they were about to close their operating lists for the night had far more to do with the sense of urgency than 6 hours of broken waters which was actually perfectly safe. Every midwife I've spoken to since has shaken their head in disbelief at that decision. I didn't realise till after the fact that the advice was dodgy, I was blithely trusting the system to take care of me. I only wish I'd known then what I know now and would have refused the ARM. My body was clearly not ready & my baby was not "overcooked". When he was delivered by c/s he was far from dry & cracked, he still had some covering of vernix & my placenta was in great condition. Despite it being perfectly possible my request for delayed cord clamping was disregarded, my baby was taken away for APGARS (9 btw) before being brought to me, there was no skin to skin contact, he wasn't with me in recovery, I didn't see him for well over an hour after the delivery. All in all very unsatisfactory & unnecessary.

This was completely discarded at the expense of this . I simply gestated longer than the average and the Dr didn't look outside the square to see that. And after all an average is only an average because a range exists in the first place.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to come across as combative, it's just a very troublesome topic for me as the c/s has had long lasting negative emotional effects on me and I need to try to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again even given that a repeat c/s may end up being truly medically needed. Hopefully this time around with a far more enlightened OB and an IM on board things will be the best they can be regardless of it ending up a VBAC or a repeat c/s.

From 42 weeks onwards, I would agree to regular monitoring. I would agree to an induction if it was deemed fairly necessary. I would be in the care of my independant midwife, and would trust her judgement on the matter.

I have had a previous caesarean though (at 42 weeks after 3 failed inductions from 10 days past my EDD onwards - there was nothing to suggest there was any need to have my baby out immediately and my placenta was fine), so induction isn't something I'd want as it can increase the risk of uterine rupture.

Hi OP,
My 1st son was born 7 days over, naturally. DS2 was induced at 8 days over, both public system no OB advice. I too felt i wanted to go naturally, but in the end i followed hospital procedure without really questoning, because i did not really feel uneasy about it. (i am pretty easy going as a person).

I had very good induction. Very intense labour as it came on suddenly but lasted 3 hours compared to the 16 hour 1st birth and DS2 was born with 2 pushes. But when i reflected on the pain etc, it was the same as the first labour, just took me by surprise. Just used gas with both births. Also i did not have the drip, just gel twice.

Please do what you feel in the bottom of your heart is right. I know i will be crucified here, but a labour is just a process to get the baby out. And yes it is wonderful and amazing, but also can be horrific for some, but if you both come out of this experience healthy and happy, none of that matters anymore, how you had hte baby i mean, naturally/induced etc. All you want in the end when you have them is to have a healthy baby, that is all.

Good luck

I care about all of these things and I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

If you have a normal birth and can avoid unnecessary interventions this tends to result in better outcomes for the baby and mother, both in the short and long term. This is why many women do not want to have an induction (and other interventions) unless there are sound medical reasons. They are not being selfish, they just want what is best for their babies.

Each to their own with what they believe about birth but for me I know the way my first child was born had a huge impact on my emotional and mental health. It is a fact that when labour is induced with synthetic oxytocin then the body does not produce (or only produces small amounts) it's own natural oxytocin (the love hormone) and can cause issues with bonding and breastfeeding. Obviously this can vary from person to person with some having a severe impact and some having no impact, but the fact remains it does happen. So sometimes the process of birth DOES impact a mother's and babies health and happiness and it's important to be informed of these possibilities so we can all make the best informed decisions. Sometimes we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, if there is a medical need then for sure we may have to forgo the possible risks for the risks of leaving baby in there and something worse happening, but let's not just ignore the fact that induction *can* be a risky process not just physically but also mentally for mother and baby.

This article explains it well: http://www.naturalparenting.com.au/oxytocin-the-wonder-drug

Oh I agree that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive and I'm not into unnecessary interventions either. I didn't mean to suggest that women who want the perfect birth don't care about their baby, I'm just stating my opinion on the the question posed "How many days over/under would you agree to induction?" I 100% trust my OB, I don't trust my body to know when its time for baby to come out simple as that for me. Other women have different relationships with their carers and different past experiences which shape their opinions, there is no right and no wrong certainly isn't a one size fits all thing.

I've had 3 births first 2 were full of interventions including syntocin, ARM, induced due to high bp, baby monitoring they were horrible painful births where I felt like I was pinned down due to the amount of crap they had attached to me. But in the end I had 2 beautiful healthy living babys with zero complications, really good apgar scores and breastfed for 18/22months. My other birth my body failed me early on and my baby died, it was physically and emotionally to the most difficult birth. So you can see why I feel the way I do, why I don't believe 'baby will come out when its ready' because in my case it just wasn't true.

But really each to their own, I respect each womans right to do what they think is best and will not judge and I don't expect people to judge me either What I think is best for mes isn't goingto be what someone else thinks is best but the great things is that we all do have choice.

Induction did not interfere with my bonding or breastfeeding.

And neither did I have a 'cascade of intervention'. In both cases I had gas only and gave birth vaginally.

In fact forceps were only used on my 3rd and non induction bub because she was breech, poor love. And frankly for her I should have had a caesar as I live with the aftermath of giving birth breech. I will have lifelong issues as a result of this - which will probably require surgery down the track.

The same thing happened to me. I was 38+5 when I got my rupture and was told I would have to be induced. I wasn't given a choice and didn't think I even could say no.

Given what happened (12 hour labour, FTP, so called big baby (8lb 1), CPD whatever else they wanted to throw at me, followed by ECS, a very bad experience that 4 years later I still haven't got over), I wish I'd known I could say no. A couple more days and he might have been ready to come out

I think it ignorant for people to say that a big baby is not a medical reason to induce. It most certainly is a very valid reason.

For my last two babies, I would have happily gone to 42 weeks

As it was, DS came spontaneously at 40+3 and DD2 came spontaneously at 41+3

First time around, I was young and naive and allowed myself to be induced for my dr's convenience..... never again!

This time around, I'm more than happy to go to 40 weeks with these twins! Hoping I don't get much further than that though

I'll reassess at the time if I want to go further

given the inaccuracy of biophysical profiling and the risks of induction it isn't really, extremely large and by that I mean over 6kg babies are extremely rare and in general the size of the baby does little to the mother's ability to birth it if the birth is unhindered and without ridiculous time limits. Even true shoulder dystocia is not strongly related to size of the baby.

I'm sorry but that is just not true nutsabouthazel. Yes there are inaccuracies in sizing. However, a large baby does carry more risk for both mother and baby, especially post dates than you are are inferring.

I would be over 42 weeks and only if medically necessary, I would rather get scans everyday to check on placenta function etc...If I was going by dates my DS was born 19days 'over due'