why??!!

[Olive]

why if pregnancy is considered fullterm from 38-42 weeks do Dr like to intervene and induce 10 days over at 41+3???

[Nelle]

*shrugs*

Dunno. Perhaps their argument is that you can never be sure of dates? Never mind, they can't do anything without your consent, so if you get to 41+3, you can always get all difficult with them.

[STARRYSKY]

no idea really, but that was what Iwas told, 10 days over andthey will induce.
from the books ive read it has something to do with the "ageing placenta" eg not working the way it should and generally breaking down, but i havealso read that this is crap!!

[AnyDream]

Yes the placenta does age (my DD1 was born at 42.5 and the placenta had huge holes in it where it had started to deteriorate and my bub didn't have much fat on her either) and the other factor mentioned by my dr is that the skull begins to harden after a certain point, meaning it's not as squashy and therefore more difficult to pass through the pelvic opening.

But most of all I believe it's a case of statistics. Statistically the risk increases by x% after a certain day so therefore inductions are carried out before that time.

[BellyBelly]

But hang on, how do you know you are actually 40 weeks? 40 weeks is an average.

Doctors like certainties.... they know an average woman has a 28 day cycle, they know an average woman ovulates on day 14 so an average (3-5% mind you) woman will give birth at 40 weeks! Gotta love science.

[christy]

Yeah I dunno... Matilda was born 17 days post 40 weeks and she was nearly ripe. There wasn't any issue with the placenta and she wasn't "overcooked"....

Its crazy that they are so eager to intervene earlier than our normal gestation... crazy.

[Lucy]

Olivia was "over due" according to the original EDD, but I re-worked the date based on a 29 day cycle, and just avoided induction.....she WAS a little overcooked (covered in peeling skin like an overcooked chook) and the placenta WAS a little odd, but all good regardless.......