C Jane 43 weeks preggo?

[QueenMother]

CJane's second child, her daughter Ever, was born at home and she is planning on a home birth this time too.

I like CJane. I identify with her on a odd level in that I have 5 beautiful thin, 5'1, 100 LB. sisters. I am number 3 of the 6 girls. I was the tall one at 5"7, and the heavier one at 130 lbs. My nickname was "The Amazon", and I felt obese standing next to them in family pictures. I think CJane loves attention and loves photos of her face, as she s pretty, and she's happy as long as no one sees her body as she is overweight. She too have beautiful thin sisters.

If you haven't been the big girl in the family, it is hard.

[annalena]

beautiful blog. it actually seems nice to read. i like the vibe it gives.

no idea about the 43 weeks though, sorry.

[AmyP]

It really depends on the type of incision and the person. Some heal faster than others. I had a laparoscopic surgery and went back to work the next day, meanwhile my friend (same age but 2 months younger) had the same laparoscopic surgery and she was on her back for 2-3 weeks.

I had 2 c-sections, and I bounced back pretty quickly. I think the first week or so I was sore getting in and out of bed, but after that I was fine. I got around quicker with the second one than the first. I never took a pain pill for either. I have been told I heal fast and have an extremely high tolerance for pain though.

Different people are different.

Sure, definately. I just like to chime in with my positive c-section stories because most of what I hear is that having a c-section is THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN, EVER. In other words, people who will go to any length to avoid a c-section, including risking the life of their unborn child. While I would never support a planned c-section that was not for legitimate medical reasons, if you need one, you need one. It's not worth all the hysteria. It's just not that big of a deal.

[lovefromgirl]

I think she did deliver yesterday--Facebook and Twitter seem to corroborate this.

[BoomerLynn]

Sure, definately. I just like to chime in with my positive c-section stories because most of what I hear is that having a c-section is THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN, EVER. In other words, people who will go to any length to avoid a c-section, including risking the life of their unborn child. While I would never support a planned c-section that was not for legitimate medical reasons, if you need one, you need one. It's not worth all the hysteria. It's just not that big of a deal.

I hope I didn't give that impression. I'm all for it if it's needed. The surgery itself wasn't all that bad or scary, the recovery just sucked for me. My first wasn't too bad ( I was walking around the mall a few days after), but my other two were harder. With my second I pulled open the corner of my incision and it got infected, and my last I also had my tubes tied so it was a much more painful recovery. And what really sucked is I still labored with my oldest and youngest before my surgery. (Oldest was emergency c-section after 42 hours of labor, youngest was pre-term so they let it go as long as they could to give her as much time as they could before delivery) I do think some people go way too far to avoid it though.

[Mommy22alyns]

That's where I fall as well. There's an increasing problem with women choosing elective inductions or C-sections at 37 or 38 weeks because they're uncomfortable and tired of being pregnant, and the babies actually end up being late pre-term and have higher risks of medical issues as a result. The March of Dimes and ACOG is now working to reverse this trend.

My OB warned me early on that he doesn't do those - for a first time mom, no scheduling of an induction until the 40 week mark, barring a medical reason. He said he's not popular with his pregnant patients in July and August (I was due in mid-August) because everyone just wants to be DONE but that the outcomes are better for baby and mom to wait until the baby's ready if possible. It's total anecdata but I know a lot of women who at their 40 week appointment scheduled an induction for 41 weeks and delivered before that date arrived, and my doctor said that statistically most women will go into labor on their own by around that time anyways. I agree with him that most babies will arrive when they're ready to come. He told me that he's had patients go to 42 or 43 weeks but it makes him nervous as hell because a postdates placenta can deteriorate rapidly and lead to a stillbirth. There's a lot of additional monitoring involved (like daily biophysical profiles which gets expensive for the patient depending on her insurance coverage) and while very few patients actually go that long it's stressful for all parties.

If I hadn't needed to be induced at 39 weeks for preeclampsia, at my 40 week appointment we would have scheduled an induction. My dates were 100% solid. A few things during my induction/labor/delivery indicated to my doctor that even without the medical complications I would likely have delivered on my own by my due date.

I think it's irresponsible to go that overdue when your dates are solid. An induction is no picnic and for me I preferred to avoid unnecessary interventions, but the risks to the baby and the mother start going up substantially after 41/42 weeks. A birth experience is not worth losing a child.

I absolutely agree.

I will never forget a woman in my due date group when I was pg with my oldest losing her baby at 42 weeks. Anecdote, I know, but I wouldn't want to get that far overdue. It's just scary.

[Rachel333]

I'm curious what the longest human pregnancy has been. I found an old Time article claiming 12 months--http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,797153,00.html--but I can't read it.

I've also seen people saying they've had pregnancies up to 48 weeks (here is one on Yahoo answers), but no legitimate sources.

I've heard stories of women in stressful situations, like in WWII concentration camps and Chinese prisons, having extra-long pregnancies and not delivering until they were out of the camp/prison.

[snarkbillie]

Sure, definately. I just like to chime in with my positive c-section stories because most of what I hear is that having a c-section is THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN, EVER. In other words, people who will go to any length to avoid a c-section, including risking the life of their unborn child. While I would never support a planned c-section that was not for legitimate medical reasons, if you need one, you need one. It's not worth all the hysteria. It's just not that big of a deal.

Understood completely. I had a very long ( almost 3 days long!) induction followed by an emergency c-section (pre-eclampsia they said but seriously I think my body was just tired of contractions and pain) and I got up the same day and was walking around, went home 2 days later. The next one I had a 19 hour labor followed by another emergency c-section (I was trying to vbac and it didn't work) and I got up the same day again and was running a 5k 2 months later.

Some people will be in a lot of pain and some people won't. You never know which you are either. A healthy mom and baby should be paramount when making labor and delivery decisions. Your birth plan will get messed up, because babies don't like to go according to plan. Whether it's something small or something big, something imperfect will happen while you're having a baby. It's life.

[Mama Mia]

I think people seriously underestimate the damage that can be done by piling on a ton of interventions when they aren't needed. Amazingly enough the vast, vast majority of babies did manage to be born on their own timeline up until the very recent past. Induction can cause huge risks, and the ever increasing infant mortality rate in the United States shows is tied to increased c-section rates ( even when controlling for other variables ). It is a matter of weighing out the risks.

C--sections can be real life savers in real emergencies or high risk situations, but for the health of the mother and the baby should be avoided if they are not medically needed.

Of course there is more than one "right" way to give birth, many people can't/don't breastfeed and not everyone gets to /wants to be a sahm.

I get concerned that these topics aren't discussed and people drink the kool-aid regarding some really dangerous childbirth practices/ parenting choices without even finding out the downsides. It isn't all about preferences with equal outcomes.

The United States ranks near the bottom of any 'developed' nation in every measure of maternal/ child health - despite spending vast sums of money on care. I think that is a feminist issue.

mags.. If you read the source articles, put out by the World Health Organization , the CDC, Save the Children etc.. you will find the studies.

I am not talking about needed interventions.. I am talking about interventions that are purely elective. Such as induction for ease of scheduling. Which is what the medical organizations argue against in the source material.

Of course I would not deny a c-section if it is medically needed - I HAD three c-sections and 1 vbac. I am arguing that choosing a birth pattern (i.e. induction without a reason ) that leads to a preventable c-section is dangerous for both mother and child.

Again, I am not saying inductions should not be done if they are not medically indicated.

I am really surprised that people who think women should have choices in their lives and be educated are so against people doing some research into the impacts and risks of various birth practices. I don't understand this unwavering "the doctor knows best - don't worry your pretty little head about it" attitude.

Sure the Doctor will generally be correct..but if I'm prescribed a medication I would kind of like to know the side effects so I can weigh the risks and benefits.

A recent , real life, example is my co-worker who recently had her fourth baby. She had no complications and excellent birth experiences with the first three who were all normal size. For her fourth child she asked her dr. to induce at 38 weeks because she wanted to have the baby before she had to deal with back to school stuff for her other kids. The Dr. obliged no questions asked. I don't think that is uncommon.

Not one person said dr knows best and certainly not me. I said it was none of your business. As in your real life coworkers real life. NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

(reply from Treemom - I edited this post accidentally. Mrs 2004 did not say this stuff. I am an idiot and don't know what I should do)

[Guest Anonymous]

http://blog.cjanerun.com/2011/11/presen ... -part.html

The baby has arrived..... and have they really stuck a pink bow directly to her scalp? :o

[clibbyjo]

That baby is only 7lbs 8oz. I think she got her dates wrong.

[treemom]

I think people seriously underestimate the damage that can be done by piling on a ton of interventions when they aren't needed. Amazingly enough the vast, vast majority of babies did manage to be born on their own timeline up until the very recent past. Induction can cause huge risks, and the ever increasing infant mortality rate in the United States shows is tied to increased c-section rates ( even when controlling for other variables ). It is a matter of weighing out the risks.

I think it is very strange that suddenly in the last decade it has somehow become extremely hazardous to have a baby go more than a week past their due date .. but prior to 1990 something almost all babies were born without induction, MANY at 42 or 43 weeks, and no one thought of anything of it. And I don't recall their being some huge number of still births either ( again, the infant mortality rate is rising, not decreasing ).

My babies tended to come late ( 20 + years ago ).. I had one "induction" when I was 40 weeks, 3 centimeters dilated with my 3rd child , and the induction consisted initially of just breaking my water (the induction was done because my dr. was going out of town, and he had concerns that the dr who was filling in wouldn't be okay with a v-bac) -- unfortunately the cord prolapsed and the baby came very, very close to dying and was only saved by an extremely emergency c-section. What I didn't know before I agree to have the water broken was that induction greatly increased the chance of cord prolapse- which is often fatal.

C--sections can be real life savers in real emergencies or high risk situations, but for the health of the mother and the baby should be avoided if they are not medically needed.

Where is this data that suggests babies were born without inductions prior to 1990?

I can't get worked up on this because the evidence for prior to 42 weeks is murky and the evidence after suggests you can have a good prognosis with watchful waiting for up to another 2 weeks...but I also don't fault women for having inductions.

Do what you and your doctor think is the right thing to do...other than that everyone else should really stay out of it.

[Kitty]

I was born 2-3 weeks late, back in 1992. My mother had a natural birth- no painkillers, even! She'd already gone into false labor like, 6 times, and by the time she figured out she was actually in labor (hey, I was her first), and got to the hospital, it was too late for an epidural. I was perfectly fine.

I think due dates are off sometimes, so she might only be a little bit past her due date, not 43 weeks. If she is 43 weeks... that baby's going to be HUGE.

[ErinIsSik]

FWIW, the doctors changed my due date after my sonogram from 6/22 to 6/13, based on baby size. Went in for my last check up on 6/18(I think?) and scheduled my induction for 6/22. When my son was born he was 8 lbs 11 oz, the smallest baby ever born in my family, and probably born on his actual due date. I wasn't 100% on my dates, so that is probably where the misconception that I was past due came from. Had they not changed my date I would have been fine waiting for the 42 week mark, but that would probably have been the end of my comfort zone.

[Mama Mia]

I don't know where to find the evidence that women used to get induced all the time, I'm sure I could dig it up if I tried hard enough ... I just know from having grown kids, that people just didn't. You just had your baby whenever it came.. because that's how babies have always come. Maybe it's different in my area, I don't know.

They did almost induce my mom's birth with my sister 45 years ago.. but that is because she was a full month over due. I was 43 weeks with my first kid 30 years ago, and there wasn't any talk of induction. But now, my niece was one week past her very, very, very vague due date and they induce. How does that make sense ?

[Austin]

All I know is that it probably bordered on malpractice that my first OB/GYN didn't do a C-section.

Maybe since I've had numerous other surgeries, that part doesn't faze me.

[emmiedahl]

I don't know where to find the evidence that women used to get induced all the time, I'm sure I could dig it up if I tried hard enough ... I just know from having grown kids, that people just didn't. You just had your baby whenever it came.. because that's how babies have always come. Maybe it's different in my area, I don't know.

They did almost induce my mom's birth with my sister 45 years ago.. but that is because she was a full month over due. I was 43 weeks with my first kid 30 years ago, and there wasn't any talk of induction. But now, my niece was one week past her very, very, very vague due date and they induce. How does that make sense ?

My brother was induced at 41 weeks in 1983.

[treemom]

I don't know where to find the evidence that women used to get induced all the time, I'm sure I could dig it up if I tried hard enough ... I just know from having grown kids, that people just didn't. You just had your baby whenever it came.. because that's how babies have always come. Maybe it's different in my area, I don't know.

They did almost induce my mom's birth with my sister 45 years ago.. but that is because she was a full month over due. I was 43 weeks with my first kid 30 years ago, and there wasn't any talk of induction. But now, my niece was one week past her very, very, very vague due date and they induce. How does that make sense ?

My husband and his two siblings were induced, in the 50's, 60's and 70's respectively. I know lots of women who were induced in the 80's and 90's (I baby sat their kids)

[Mama Mia]

Okay, I guess that has been the norm other places. Just something I didn't come across until my kids started having kids. I'm not saying people were never induced, it just wasn't something that was done routinely unless there was some compelling medical reason - like being a month overdue, or high blood pressure, things like that.

I'm also not used to people saying they are having a "natural" delivery to mean vaginal birth instead of c-section. I'm used to "natural" meaning without pain meds. Maybe I'm just old and sheltered in my hippie lefty little section of the planet (otherwise known as San Francisco bay area... and a crunchy corner of that !)

[emmiedahl]

My mother had nothing compelling--the usual stuff. It had been a hard pregnancy. She went into pre-term labor and was hospitalized for several months on bedrest. When they finally released her, her body decided that the labor thing was over-rated. I think they were worried just because the rest of the pregnancy had been so bad.

I have had many interventions, not a single one was unreasonable or unnecessary. My doctors discussed things with me and got my approval before making major changes to the plan. The only time that people acted without my express permission was when my 3rd had shoulder dystocia, and this was because there was no time to talk. Women used to give birth without intervention all the time, and they lost a lot of babies and moms in the process. I am glad I have so many technologies at my disposal, because I could not face losing a single newborn and my husband could not face losing a single wife.

I considered an assisted home birth with the first and I would be dead now if caring people had not talked me out of it.

[treemom]

I had lots of interventions and I ok with it...because it is between me and my doctor, not me and the internet. I wouldn't be comfortable going to 41 or 42 or over 42 weeks, but if she has a competent dr and they are ok...well it is between her and her dr.

This isn't a Carrie and a quack midwife situation.

[mags]

I think people seriously underestimate the damage that can be done by piling on a ton of interventions when they aren't needed. Amazingly enough the vast, vast majority of babies did manage to be born on their own timeline up until the very recent past. Induction can cause huge risks, and the ever increasing infant mortality rate in the United States shows is tied to increased c-section rates ( even when controlling for other variables ). It is a matter of weighing out the risks.

I think it is very strange that suddenly in the last decade it has somehow become extremely hazardous to have a baby go more than a week past their due date .. but prior to 1990 something almost all babies were born without induction, MANY at 42 or 43 weeks, and no one thought of anything of it. And I don't recall their being some huge number of still births either ( again, the infant mortality rate is rising, not decreasing ).

My babies tended to come late ( 20 + years ago ).. I had one "induction" when I was 40 weeks, 3 centimeters dilated with my 3rd child , and the induction consisted initially of just breaking my water (the induction was done because my dr. was going out of town, and he had concerns that the dr who was filling in wouldn't be okay with a v-bac) -- unfortunately the cord prolapsed and the baby came very, very close to dying and was only saved by an extremely emergency c-section. What I didn't know before I agree to have the water broken was that induction greatly increased the chance of cord prolapse- which is often fatal.

C--sections can be real life savers in real emergencies or high risk situations, but for the health of the mother and the baby should be avoided if they are not medically needed.

It seems like you've read a bunch of pro-natural childbirth propaganda on the internet and you've decided to start spouting off the information without independently confirming it.

Do you know the definition of "infant mortality?" It is the death of babies between the ages of 1 month and 1 year. It is more a measure of pediatric care than obstetric care. The statistic you want is "perinatal mortality" which is death from 28 weeks gestation to 28 days after birth. And the US perinatal mortality statistics are on par with other developed countries.

Also, as a physician, I hate to hear/read how much better off we were in the good ol' days because that sentiment is a steaming pile of shit. Medical care is different now because of years of research and it is part of the reason people live longer and mothers and babies don't routinely die during childbirth. Yes, terrible things still happen but not as often as they have in the past. Doctors don't just wake up and say "I think I'll do something totally different today and induce every pregnant woman who is 41 weeks and beyond." The risk of stillbirth STARTS increasing around 36-37 weeks but the benefits of the baby remaining in the womb outweigh the risks until around 42 weeks.

My personal story: Baby #1 was born at 39 weeks after an elective induction that went well. She was 9lbs and I was in significant pain for the the next 4-6 weeks. Childbirth isn't a cakewalk whether it happens via c-section or vaginally but if you give birth vaginally and tear badly then you have the additional pain of urinating on your wound several times a day. No one ever mentions that...

Baby #2 is due soon. I already have an elective induction scheduled around 38 1/2 weeks if baby doesn't come before then.

[Mama Mia]

Aw geeze, and here I was going to come home from a hard day at work and watch mindless garbage on netflix.. but now I am going to be forced to spend the evening digging up statistics regarding birth practices.

First I'm going to have a sandwich though. :roll:

[Mama Mia]

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/changing-life- ... id=9914009

Regarding the rising rates of maternal mortality in California ( you can also find the reference sources ). Primary factors include obesity, advanced maternal age and increased c-section rates, in particular scheduled c-sections, and following a birth pattern of interventions that tend to result in c-sections.

http://www.survivormoms.com/articles/timely.asp

Regarding the issue of post-maturity and induction

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44333054/ns ... ied-qatar/

Regarding the death rate of newborns in the United States. It is not accurate to completely separate stillbirth and newborn death rates. Many newborns who die do so due to issues caused at birth.

http://pregnancy.about.com/od/induction ... uction.htm

Regarding the risks of induction.. most info taken from the March of Dimes

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/41247.php

Regarding some of the risks of c-sections.

[treemom]

These childbirth can only be one right way, bf is the only right way, and sahm is superior discussions are so anti feminist,