External Monitoring starting on due date?

[Kathy]

Hello Everyone--

Yesterday I had my regular appointment with my OB (I am at about 38
weeks plus 3 days).

As we were going about the appointment, she told me that she would
induce once I am 10 days past my EDD. This didn't bother me TOO much,
as 10 days is better than I expected from her...I thought she'd be
talking about inducing much sooner than that.

Anyway, she also said that starting on my DUE DATE she would be sending
me to the hospital every 3 days for monitoring. I found it odd that she
would start doing this on my actual EDD and I asked her about it...she
said it was routine and they need to do it to watch out for things like
stillbirth (thanks, like I needed something else to worry about). She
seemed a bit annoyed with my questioning this and said that it's no big
deal, takes 1/2 hour and is non-invasive.

My question: Is this really routine? Any one else out there who has
had their doctor suggest or do the same thing? Am I over reacting by
thinking this is not necessary, especally as early as ON my due date (as
if that date is set in stone)? By the way, in case it matters I have
had no complications during my pregnancy, and this is my first.

Thanks for any insight!
Kathy

[Plissken]

"Kathy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hello Everyone--
>
> Yesterday I had my regular appointment with my OB (I am at about 38
> weeks plus 3 days).
>
> As we were going about the appointment, she told me that she would
> induce once I am 10 days past my EDD. This didn't bother me TOO much,
> as 10 days is better than I expected from her...I thought she'd be
> talking about inducing much sooner than that.
>
> Anyway, she also said that starting on my DUE DATE she would be sending
> me to the hospital every 3 days for monitoring. I found it odd that she
> would start doing this on my actual EDD and I asked her about it...she
> said it was routine and they need to do it to watch out for things like
> stillbirth (thanks, like I needed something else to worry about). She
> seemed a bit annoyed with my questioning this and said that it's no big
> deal, takes 1/2 hour and is non-invasive.
>
> My question: Is this really routine? Any one else out there who has
> had their doctor suggest or do the same thing? Am I over reacting by
> thinking this is not necessary, especally as early as ON my due date (as
> if that date is set in stone)? By the way, in case it matters I have
> had no complications during my pregnancy, and this is my first.
>
> Thanks for any insight!
> Kathy


It is certainly not routine where I am (Victoria, Canada). They only time I
went for monitoring is when I hit 9 days past my EDD and I had every right
to refuse that if I wanted (I chose to be monitored). I would have had
another at 12 days past my EDD if I had chosen not to get induced on that
day instead. The reason for the second was to keep an eye on my amniotic
fluid as it was on the low side. But maybe monitoring is routine where you
are, however, you still have every right to refuse it. The choice is yours
not your OBs and don't feel bullied into anything you are not comfortable
with.

Nadene

[Dagny]

"Kathy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hello Everyone--
>
> Yesterday I had my regular appointment with my OB (I am at about 38
> weeks plus 3 days).
>
> As we were going about the appointment, she told me that she would
> induce once I am 10 days past my EDD. This didn't bother me TOO much,
> as 10 days is better than I expected from her...I thought she'd be
> talking about inducing much sooner than that.
>

Is this regardless of the baby's condition and regardless of the
favorability of your cervix? :( I'm not sure why a hard and fast rule like
this would be in any patient's interest. Induction can be hard on mothers
and babies when it is not medically necessary.

> Anyway, she also said that starting on my DUE DATE she would be sending
> me to the hospital every 3 days for monitoring. I found it odd that she
> would start doing this on my actual EDD and I asked her about it...she
> said it was routine and they need to do it to watch out for things like
> stillbirth (thanks, like I needed something else to worry about). She
> seemed a bit annoyed with my questioning this and said that it's no big
> deal, takes 1/2 hour and is non-invasive.
>

Watch out for things like stillbirth? If the baby has died, it's beyond
help and doesn't need to be monitored. Maybe what she means is, "The risk
of fetal demise from longer gestation doesn't really go up too much until 42
weeks, and then it is still very small. However, since obstetricians are
rarely sued for unnecessary induction, but about 30% of obstetrics
malpractice cases involve "late" babies, I'm going to make sure I'm in a
position to recommend induction if there is anything I might interpret as
distress, and that you and/or your husband are in a suitable state of alarm,
fatigue and frustration to take my recommendation." (Of course that's the
cynical version.)

> My question: Is this really routine? Any one else out there who has
> had their doctor suggest or do the same thing? Am I over reacting by
> thinking this is not necessary, especally as early as ON my due date (as
> if that date is set in stone)? By the way, in case it matters I have
> had no complications during my pregnancy, and this is my first.
>

Maybe you should get a second opinion.

The average first-time mom goes to (according to the study) 41w1d or 41w3d
(if I remember right). Meaning your doctor wants to hard and fast induce
you at the average for first-time birth.

This article seems reasonably balanced while still obstetrics-oriented.

http://www.obgyn.net/fm/articles/postdates_pg.htm

Good luck-- Dagny EDD 10/6/03

[E. 123]

> Ericka Kammerer > wrote:

> There is no medical evidence that all this monitoring
> helps at all, and it is most definitely not routine.

Post dates?

> It is true that babies can die in utero late
> in pregnancy without warning. Fortunately, this is
> blessedly very, very rare. And it's sad but true that
> most of these can't be predicted or fixed--and there's
> no evidence that monitoring every three days will do a
> damn thing to prevent it.

Depends when monitoring commences. Besides the studies quoted in the link
Dangy provided, there are *many* studies showing a significant improvement
in perinatal outcomes when monitoring was used after a certain date (what
date exactly is a point of controversy, but not the actual need for
monitoring at some post-date point).

> Inductions carry risks! Why accept them without good
> inducation?

You mean good indication, right? ;-)

[Larry McMahan]

Let me say that I don't think ANY of this is routine, and that your
doctors overly conservative approach creates more risks than it
avoids. I would suggest Henci Goer's book, "The Thinking Woman's
Guide to a Better Birth," but you will have to read it fast to
avoid unnecessary interventions.

Kathy > writes:

: Hello Everyone--

: Yesterday I had my regular appointment with my OB (I am at about 38
: weeks plus 3 days).

: As we were going about the appointment, she told me that she would
: induce once I am 10 days past my EDD. This didn't bother me TOO much,
: as 10 days is better than I expected from her...I thought she'd be
: talking about inducing much sooner than that.

"she would induce you" First, let me say that you have the right to
refuse any medical procedure. While it is only 4 days different, the
standard is to talk about induction after 2 weeks. There are alternatives
to automatic induction. This includes a weekly ultrasound to check
the viability of the placenta and the volume of amniotic fluid, the
two most reliable indicators of the baby's health.

: Anyway, she also said that starting on my DUE DATE she would be sending
: me to the hospital every 3 days for monitoring. I found it odd that she
: would start doing this on my actual EDD and I asked her about it...she
: said it was routine and they need to do it to watch out for things like
: stillbirth (thanks, like I needed something else to worry about). She
: seemed a bit annoyed with my questioning this and said that it's no big
: deal, takes 1/2 hour and is non-invasive.

OK. I think you should have gotten some more information. (Unless you
actually did and just didn't post it here) She probably means a Non-
stress Test (NST), where they measure heart rate accelerations and
decelerations. I think that it is just a reliable to have you do a kick
count every day, and this is something you can learn to do in your own
home. Again, her recommendations seem like overkill.

Even more worrysome is her being annoyed at your asking intelligent
questions to help you manage your own health care. (Reinsert plug for
Henci Goer book here~ :-) This is a red flag to me and raises other
questions in my mind.

First regarding her: What is her induction and augmentation rates?
Does she do episiotomies? What is her episiotomy rate? What is her
cesearian rate? What percent of her births are natural unmedicated
births?

Next regarding you: What are your expectations for this birth? Do you
plan/want to go unmedicated? Have you even thought about it or researched
the information to find out if you think it would be better for your and
your baby? Have you discussed it with your doctor?

I am sorry that it is a bit late to bring all of these things up, but
it is better to think of all these things now than to walk into the
hospital for labor and be blindsided by both the doctor and the hospital
protocols.

: My question: Is this really routine? Any one else out there who has
: had their doctor suggest or do the same thing? Am I over reacting by
: thinking this is not necessary, especally as early as ON my due date (as
: if that date is set in stone)? By the way, in case it matters I have
: had no complications during my pregnancy, and this is my first.

: Thanks for any insight!
: Kathy

I think these things are NOT routine, and from what you have described,
your OB is a throwback to times when women took less personal responsibility
for their own well being. I also think that she is dictating some
pracitces to you that have not proven to be beneficial. I do know know
if it is serious enough (yet) to suggest changing care providers, but I
do know that for your own well being and peace of mind that your should
revolve this quickly, before you present for labor.

Good luck,
Larry

[Dagny]

"E. 123" > wrote in message
et...
> > Dagny > wrote:
>
> > The average first-time mom goes to (according to the study) 41w1d or
> > 41w3d (if I remember right).
>
> I have read this study before (41w1d), but doubt the validity of its
> findings.
>
> (a) anecdotally, there is absolutely no way half of primiparas go beyond
> 41w1d.
> (b) more importantly, studies examining the percentage of pregnancies that
> actually reach 42w found that merely *3%* of them will reach that
> stage when accurate dating was confirmed by early US. If that is the
case,
> the finding that *half* of primiparous pregnancies will go beyond 41w1d,
> simply does not add up.
>

You're right that the 41w1d study involved median not average. My bad.
Also it was just white women with no obstetric complications, health
problems or unreliable menstrual histories. But it was a review of *17,000*
pregnancies.

[E. 123]

> But it was a review of *17,000* pregnancies.

I know, amazing! But honestly, from your own life experience, do you find
this data reflective?

IRL, I know the details of about 20 first-time pregnancies. Of those, only
*3* went beyond 41w, and only one reached 42w. I simply find it strange,
but, as I said, it is purely anecdotal.

[E. 123]

> My mom had me at 41 weeks.

So, she also does not qualify for the half population that goes
past 41w1d ;-)

> In the overeducated first-timer over-thirty well-insured crowd I run in,
> most of my friends wouldn't be reflected in the data because of
> preeclampsia, breech, preterm labor, elective induction, overzealous
> induction, amniotomy instead of sending her home to develop real
> labor on her own, etc.

That is impressive!

I think we run in the same crowds, but I only know two women
who went through an induction. I do not know where you live, but
maybe the difference is due to the fact that my crowd is mostly
made of Europeans (who live in the US)?

[Larry McMahan]

Just a couple of comments:

Kathy > writes:

: Just to answer a few assorted questions that came up...she definitely
: said "external monitoring" and not non-stress test. She said that she
: would do a non-stress test at 1 week "overdue".

In this case I am even less impress with her. External monitoring has
shown to be of NO benefit an uncomplicated pregnancies. It makes me
wonder what her (and the hospital's policies are for when you present
in full labor. Is she/they going to require a 15 minute strip at admission,
a 15 minute strip every 2 hours, CEFM? This is something you need to
find out. The wrong policy could have a disasterous effect on your
ability to go med free! More on this below where you mention it.

: As for induction, I'm aware that I can refuse that and other procedures.
: I will cross those bridges when I come to them...I was "relieved" to
: hear her say induction at 10 days, as I thought I'd be fighting her at 3
: days overdue.

This is the best part I've seen so far.

: Concerning my plans and how prepared I am, I feel I am fairly well
: prepared, as is my DH. We both had medical check-ups before starting to
: try, we interviewed OBs (and were fooled into thinking this was the one
: for us) and I had a Gyno exam. I changed my diet, gave up alcohol and
: took vitamins before conceiving. I've had prenatal care all along, have
: read many books, read the posts here daily and have taken classes on
: childbirth, childcare and breastfeeding. I attended LLL meetings as
: well.

Well, I haven't seen you reading and posting questions in
misc.kids.breastfeeding. :-) Seriously, I personally think that resource
is worth all of the LLL meetings in, say, North America. Mind you, I don't
have anything (well, at least, not much) against LLL. I just think that
mkb is a better, more responsive, and more positive resource. Go! Read!
:-)

: well. I have a birth plan stating all of our preferences and plan to do
: my best to go pain medication free by using the non-medical coping
: techniques I've learned. I say "plan to go med free" because this is my
: first baby and I have no idea what it will really feel like or what my
: pain threshold will be...that is why I have checked into pain meds and
: have a very specific plan as to what I would start with and what I would
: refuse if necessary.

Hmmm. I don't know how to say this gently enough, but if your plans on
remaining med free are this wishy washy and non-specific, I wonder if you
have done your homework, and know what the real pros and cons are, first
baby or not.

In the first place, your comfort level during labor, and hence, your ability
to remain med free are *DIRECTLY* dependent on your hospital's (and OB's)
rules regarding what you can or cannot do during labor. For example, doing
the 15 minute EFM strip places you in an very uncomfortable position where
it is hard, if not impossible to get relieve from discomfort by moving around.

Next, if your are not allow to eat or drink during labor, it is hard to avoid
dehydration or exhaustion during labor, which intensifies any pain. If they
insist on an IV to make up for the liquids they won't let you have, they again
limit your mobility, increasing the pain.

For pain free birth without meds, it is best to have:
No EFM,
No IV,
Eat or drink when your want,
Labor and give birth in the position you want
Not have limits on labor time

BTW: In general you also want to AROM unless you have already gone through
transition, and are almost complete.

OK. Lets go back and talk about that "Labor and give birth in any position"
line item above some more.

You want to avoid laboring, or especially pushing while lying on your back or in
the semi-sitting position. In particular, you want to have the option to birth
in the position of your choice. How supportive is your OB of this arrangement?

You want to be able to use a birth ball, jacuzzi (if they have one), shower, or
other similar comfort measure during early labor and transition. You don't
what to have to stop and do an EFM strip when transition is nearing and you're
concentrating on remaining relaxed. You also don't want to have to lie down
for an internal in this circumstance either.

I could go on for pages and pages here, but I'll just let you read the Goer book.
:-)

It is not clear from your post that you have thought through these scenarios, or
that you know what your hospital's or OB's policies are. You should. Also,
you have said that your insurance will not let your change providers. In this
case, perhaps you should hire a doula. At $200 or $300, it could be an
inexpensive "insurance policy" that your wishes are respected.

: So, I feel pretty well prepared...and when I compare myself to 95% of
: the women I know who have had babies, I feel like an expert because most
: if not all of them just go along with anything their doctors say...they
: question nothing and end up with all sorts of interventions.

: Just to clarify, I would LOVE to change doctors, however my insurance
: will not allow it. Dh and I tried to change months ago and were told it
: was too late. We could've gone through a hearing at the hospital (OB
: would have been present), but we were informed by several sources that
: it would be highly unlikely that they would allow the change. We didn't
: want to risk being stuck with her after such a hearing figuring she
: would be hostile and even more difficult. So we decided to stick with
: her and just use our power to veto her ideas as we go along. Going to
: another doctor without insurance isn't an option financially, so we're
: stuck. This OB came off as ideal at my initial interview with her, but
: has slowly changed her tune over the past months...I feel I've been a
: victim of "bait and switch".

: Thank you to everyone for responding...this is a great place to go to
: for answers.

: Kathy

Good luck,
Larry

[Ericka Kammerer]

E. 123 wrote:

>>But it was a review of *17,000* pregnancies.
>>
>
> I know, amazing! But honestly, from your own life experience, do you find
> this data reflective?


Of course not...but how many women do you know who are
"allowed" to go much beyond 41 weeks? Most women I know get
induced by then or earlier. I know fewer and fewer women
who go into labor on their own.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Ericka Kammerer]

E. 123 wrote:

>>Ericka Kammerer > wrote:
>>
>
>>There is no medical evidence that all this monitoring
>>helps at all, and it is most definitely not routine.
>
> Post dates?


I haven't seen anything suggesting that the
sort of monitoring she describes is at all useful when
done routinely. Non-stress tests are a different matter,
and those can be useful.


> Depends when monitoring commences. Besides the studies quoted in the link
> Dangy provided, there are *many* studies showing a significant improvement
> in perinatal outcomes when monitoring was used after a certain date (what
> date exactly is a point of controversy, but not the actual need for
> monitoring at some post-date point).


In the link Dagny provided it said that doppler monitoring
hasn't been shown to be helpful at all, presumably at any date.
*Other* types of monitoring may be useful, but sending her in
to be hooked up to an electronic monitor for a half hour (or
whatever) hasn't been shown to be useful in anything I've
ever found. I think it would be commonplace to do NSTs
at 41 weeks.


>>Inductions carry risks! Why accept them without good
>>inducation?
>
> You mean good indication, right? ;-)


Egads. I'm waaaay too tired to be posting, clearly ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

[E. 123]

> Ericka Kammerer > wrote:
> Of course not...but how many women do you know who are
> "allowed" to go much beyond 41 weeks? Most women I know get
> induced by then or earlier. I know fewer and fewer women
> who go into labor on their own.

I wrote to Dangy in another post, I only know *two* women who were
induced (one for being 11 days PD, the other for being 15 days). So, my
surprise at this figure stands.

I wonder what the norm for an induction is in the US. My own doctor, much
like Kathy's, talks about an induction 10 days past the due-date. If this
represents the norm, we still should be able to see 50% of primiparas pass
the 41w1d mark.

[E. 123]

> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
> I haven't seen anything suggesting that the
> sort of monitoring she describes is at all useful when
> done routinely. Non-stress tests are a different matter,
> and those can be useful.

Yes, I think there is a confusion here. From your answer to her and from
the OP, I was under the impression we were talking about NST and AFI
measurements. These are clearly beneficial after a *certain* point past the
due-date in reducing perinatal mortality rates. But as I said, I think 40w
is a bit premature.

Frankly, I am still not clear on what type of "external monitoring" we are
talking about. Simple doppler check? That's done weekly, anyway.

Kathy - what is "external monitoring"?

> *Other* types of monitoring may be useful, but sending her in
> to be hooked up to an electronic monitor for a half hour (or
> whatever) hasn't been shown to be useful in anything I've
> ever found.

But being hooked up to an electronic monitor is a non-stress test (NST).
Monitoring the heart-rate for 20 minutes to watch for at least two increases
of 15-20 HB for 15 seconds.

Confused and also tired ;-)

[[email protected]]

Ericka Kammerer > thought everything was going well until Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:22:10
-0400, when Ericka Kammerer > had this to say about foul mouthed granny Linda
Channell misc.kids.pregnancy :

>E. 123 wrote:
>
>>>But it was a review of *17,000* pregnancies.
>>>
>>
>> I know, amazing! But honestly, from your own life experience, do you find
>> this data reflective?
>
>
> Of course not...but how many women do you know who are
>"allowed" to go much beyond 41 weeks? Most women I know get
>induced by then or earlier. I know fewer and fewer women
>who go into labor on their own.
>
>Best wishes,
>Ericka


I would have gone 42 weeks to the day if my daughter had not been born at 41 weeks and 3 days..

They were going to induce me on Christmas Eve as that was the 42 week mark!

[Ericka Kammerer]

E. 123 wrote:

>>Ericka Kammerer > wrote:
>>Of course not...but how many women do you know who are
>>"allowed" to go much beyond 41 weeks? Most women I know get
>>induced by then or earlier. I know fewer and fewer women
>>who go into labor on their own.
>>
>
> I wrote to Dangy in another post, I only know *two* women who were
> induced (one for being 11 days PD, the other for being 15 days). So, my
> surprise at this figure stands.
>
> I wonder what the norm for an induction is in the US. My own doctor, much
> like Kathy's, talks about an induction 10 days past the due-date. If this
> represents the norm, we still should be able to see 50% of primiparas pass
> the 41w1d mark.


I think overall induction rates in the US have passed
the 30 percent mark, and one would expect that figure to be
higher in primips. Many OBs here have moved to "mandatory"
induction at 41 weeks, but *elective* inductions even earlier
are *far* from uncommon, as are inductions for highly
suspicious causes. There are even quite a few inductions
*before* the due date (mom tired of being pregnant,
suspected large baby, gestational diabetes, etc. in addition
to more respectable reasons for induction). The number of
women who make it past 41w1d is dropping rapidly around
here.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Ericka Kammerer]

E. 123 wrote:


> Frankly, I am still not clear on what type of "external monitoring" we are
> talking about. Simple doppler check? That's done weekly, anyway.


The impression I got was that she was being sent
to the hospital to be hooked up to the electronic fetal
monitors for a half hour every few days, but maybe she
meant doppler check.


> But being hooked up to an electronic monitor is a non-stress test (NST).
> Monitoring the heart-rate for 20 minutes to watch for at least two increases
> of 15-20 HB for 15 seconds.


Kathy posted in another message that her doctor mentioned
a NST separately as something she'd do at 1 week "overdue." So
apparently her doctor at least thinks of these things separately,
and this "external monitoring" is something she does in addition
to the more standard NST and AFI checks postdates.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Circe]

"E. 123" > wrote in message
.net...
> > Ericka Kammerer > wrote:
> > Of course not...but how many women do you know who are
> > "allowed" to go much beyond 41 weeks? Most women I know get
> > induced by then or earlier. I know fewer and fewer women
> > who go into labor on their own.
>
> I wrote to Dangy in another post, I only know *two* women who were
> induced (one for being 11 days PD, the other for being 15 days). So, my
> surprise at this figure stands.
>
And I find it surprising that you know only two women who were induced. Of
those I know (including myself) who've had children over the past 8 years
(and know details about the labors), only 3 of 10 labors (5 mothers) were
*not* induced! Only one of these woman had *no* induced labors (although her
first labor was 20 years before the one I included, and I actually don't
know the circumstances of that birth).

Of those, two were induced for good medical cause (pre-eclampsia) and two
for reasonable medical cause (high BP without pre-eclampsia), but the
remainder (30%) were of the "gosh, you're past you're due date; aren't you
getting tired of being pregnant?" variety. Of the non-medically indicated
inductions, all were past EDD and two (myself and my husband's cousin) were
primips at 41w4d and 41w3d respectively.

> I wonder what the norm for an induction is in the US. My own doctor, much
> like Kathy's, talks about an induction 10 days past the due-date. If this
> represents the norm, we still should be able to see 50% of primiparas pass
> the 41w1d mark.
>
Well, 50% of the primips in *my* entirely anecdotal survey certainly did.
And the two who didn't were both induced well before EDD for pre-eclampsia
(both in the 37th week, if memory serves).

I'd actually be extremely surprised to discover that a sizable chunk of
*all* pregnant women (both primips and multips) don't get past the 41 week
mark. Mean human gestation in normal term pregnancies has been shown to be
283 days, which means the average woman goes beyond her due date by a few
days. Given that there are considerably more days that occur after term
(37w) and before the mean (40w3d), you've got to figure that a fairly high
proportion of women would have to go more than a week past their due dates
to offset those who give birth in their 37th, 38th, and 39th weeks.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Revolute your health" -- spam subject line

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[E. 123]

> Circe wrote:
> And I find it surprising that you know only two women who were
> induced. Of those I know (including myself) who've had children
> over the past 8 years (and know details about the labors), only 3
> of 10 labors (5 mothers) were *not* induced!

As I wrote, it may be a variation in populations. Most of these births
are of Europeans.

> Given that there are considerably more days that occur after term
> (37w) and before the mean (40w3d), you've got to figure that a
> fairly high proportion of women would have to go more than a
> week past their due dates to offset those who give birth in their
> 37th, 38th, and 39th weeks.

And here is where my perplexity intensifies, really. Given that studies
show merely 3% of women actually reach 42w, it means that almost
*50%* of all primiparas will give birth between 41w2d and 41w6d,
if left to their own devices.

That, I claim, makes even less sense.

[Clisby]

E. 123 wrote:
>>Ericka Kammerer > wrote:
>>Of course not...but how many women do you know who are
>>"allowed" to go much beyond 41 weeks? Most women I know get
>>induced by then or earlier. I know fewer and fewer women
>>who go into labor on their own.
>
>
> I wrote to Dangy in another post, I only know *two* women who were
> induced (one for being 11 days PD, the other for being 15 days). So, my
> surprise at this figure stands.
>
> I wonder what the norm for an induction is in the US. My own doctor, much
> like Kathy's, talks about an induction 10 days past the due-date. If this
> represents the norm, we still should be able to see 50% of primiparas pass
> the 41w1d mark.
>
>
>

I'm always surprised to hear about early inductions, too. My first
child was 15 days overdue, and all my doctor said was that he really
didn't like his patients to go more than 3 weeks over. I must have
gotten lucky - or maybe things have just changed a lot in the past 7
years. (My second was 1 day early, so it wasn't an issue there.)


Clisby
Clisby

[Chris Himes]

(Kathy) wrote in message >...
>
> Anyway, she also said that starting on my DUE DATE she would be sending
> me to the hospital every 3 days for monitoring. I found it odd that she
> would start doing this on my actual EDD and I asked her about it...she
> said it was routine and they need to do it to watch out for things like
> stillbirth (thanks, like I needed something else to worry about). She
> seemed a bit annoyed with my questioning this and said that it's no big
> deal, takes 1/2 hour and is non-invasive.
>
> My question: Is this really routine? Any one else out there who has
> had their doctor suggest or do the same thing? Am I over reacting by
> thinking this is not necessary, especally as early as ON my due date (as
> if that date is set in stone)? By the way, in case it matters I have
> had no complications during my pregnancy, and this is my first.

Both of my sons were overdue, with two different doctors in two
different states, and in both cases I went in for monitoring every 3
days past my due date. It was really no big deal, just a non-stress
test, where you pushed a button whenever the baby moved and they
looked to see if the heart rate was accelerating and decelerating as
expected. For baby #1 I went 14 days past teh EDD and was induced
after a stress test with seeing how the baby was handling
contractions. for baby #2 I went 14 days past the EDD and convinced
the dr. to let me go 1 more day since I was having a lot of bloody
show and some small contractions--went into labor that evening.

Good luck, don't stress about it.
Chris

[E. 123]

> Ericka wrote:
> I'll quibble a little with Barbara's stats, in that
> I believe the 40w3d number is a median, not a mean, and therefore
> *all* the births after 40w3d coudl be at 40w4d and they'd still
> "balance out" all the births between 37w0d and 40w2d.

With that figure I have no problem. My problem is with the conclusion
that 50% of primiparas go into labor between 41w2d and 41w6d.
It simply sounds surreal.

> In terms of your 3 percent number, I'd ask how that's
> determined. Is it looking at *only* women who were allowed
> to go into labor spontaneously? Or does the 97 percent who
> didn't make it to 42 weeks include women who were induced
> for various reasons other than being postdates (possibly
> including various elective inductions as well as inductions
> for medical cause)?

No, these women were excluded from the study. Only women
who gave birth spontaneously, at full term, without complications
(pre-e, GD, etc.).

[Circe]

"E. 123" > wrote in message
news:WO17b.291144$Oz4.78643@rwcrnsc54...
> > Ericka wrote:
> > I'll quibble a little with Barbara's stats, in that
> > I believe the 40w3d number is a median, not a mean, and therefore
> > *all* the births after 40w3d coudl be at 40w4d and they'd still
> > "balance out" all the births between 37w0d and 40w2d.
>
> With that figure I have no problem. My problem is with the conclusion
> that 50% of primiparas go into labor between 41w2d and 41w6d.
> It simply sounds surreal.
>
But I thought that the 41w1d figure for primips was a median as well. In
which case, I don't find it hard at *all* to believe that at least 50% of
primiparas go into labor on or after that date. Certainly, in my admittedly
tiny and entirely anecdotal survey, 100% of the primips who didn't become
pre-eclamptic failed to labor before that date! Of course, both of those
primips were also induced, but not until *after* the median of 291 days.

Out of curiosity, I'm polling the mkp population. It's still a small and
presumably anecdotal sample, but I think the results might be interesting.
Here are the questions:

1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?

3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

Thanks!
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Revolute your health" -- spam subject line

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Karen]

Circe wrote:

>
> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

Never

>
>
> 2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?

42w1d (possibly longer but that's the official date)

>
>
> 3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

Post-dates

[Mary W.]

Circe wrote:

> "E. 123" > wrote in message
> news:WO17b.291144$Oz4.78643@rwcrnsc54...
> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

39w4d

Mary

[E. 123]

> Circre wrote:
> But I thought that the 41w1d figure for primips was a median as well. In
> which case, I don't find it hard at *all* to believe that at least 50% of
> primiparas go into labor on or after that date.

It was certainly a median. What I find surreal is that 50% of primiparas
spread between 37w and 41w1d, then 47% are between 41w2d and
41w6w, and 3% are at or after 42w.

.. . . Gaussian model having a fit ;-)

> Out of curiosity, I'm polling the mkp population.

Excellent idea! Should we put it in a separate thread so everyone can see?

[Circe]

"Circe" > wrote in message
news:t327b.22772$n94.7454@fed1read04...
> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never"
if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?
>
Never

> 2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?
>
41w4d

> 3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?
>
Officially for being post-dates; unofficially, it was just more convenient
for everyone to induce on that Tuesday than to wait a few more days and have
to induce on a Saturday (which would have marked 42 weeks).
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Revolute your health" -- spam subject line

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Anne Rogers]

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?
never
>
> 2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?
37+4
>
> 3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?
ruptured membranes, 4 day latent phase, never made it to active labour
despite contracting every 3 mins when the induction started

[Robin T.]

Circe wrote:
> Out of curiosity, I'm polling the mkp population. It's still a small
> and presumably anecdotal sample, but I think the results might be
> interesting. Here are the questions:
>
> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer
> "never" if your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?
>
41w1d

Robin T.
mom to Katherine, 12/25/00

[Larry McMahan]

Kathy > writes:

[some valid criricisms of me] :-)

Kathy,

I am sorry I jumped to so many conculsions. I'm ever sorrier
that so many of them were wrong! :-) Especially when I now
actually remember responding to one of your posts on mkb. :-(

I am glad you have done your homwwork and knew what I wrote
already. I can only hope that someone who did not know it
read it and was able to find it useful, and that all that
detail was totally useless.

Good luck,
Larry

[Nikki]

Circe wrote:

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby

39w2d

--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

[Ericka Kammerer]

Circe wrote:


> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?


Just to skew the numbers lower, I went into labor with my
first at about 38w1d (but he didn't arrive until two days later ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Truffles]

Circe wrote:

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

36w2d - twins

--
Brigitte aa #2145
edd #3 February 15, 2004
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/j/joshuaandkaterina/

"Readers are plentiful; thinkers are rare."
~ Harriet Martineau

[[email protected]]

41w 4 days and she weighed 8 pounds 12 ounces.



(Joy Belle) misc.kids.pregnancy :

>1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer
>"never" if your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?
>
>41w 2d
>
>2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?
>
>n/a
>
>3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?
>
>n/a
>
>My labor was going to be induced at 41w 4d due to hypertension, but I
>fortunately went into spontaneous labor.
>
>Joy
>
>
>http://community.webtv.net/joybelle15/ROSESCLUBFOOTPAGE

[sher]

"Circe" > wrote

> Out of curiosity, I'm polling the mkp population. It's still a small and
> presumably anecdotal sample, but I think the results might be interesting.
> Here are the questions:
>
> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

40w4d, the longest 4 days of my life!

~ Sher, due with boy #3 9/27/03

[Nina]

> (Joy Belle) misc.kids.pregnancy :
>


Never
> >2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?

42 weeks

> >3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

Because I was 42 weeks

[Kathy]

Larry wrote:

>Kathy,
>I am sorry I jumped to so many
>conculsions. I'm ever sorrier that so many
>of them were wrong! :-) Especially when I
>now actually remember responding to one
>of your posts on mkb. :-(
>
>I am glad you have done your homwwork
>and knew what I wrote already. I can only
>hope that someone who did not know it
>read it and was able to find it useful, and
>that all that detail was totally useless.
>Good luck,
>Larry

Hi Larry--

I already sent you a response to this to your private email, but I just
wanted to take a moment to post here and thank you for what you've said
above.

As I said in my email to you, you really did present a lot of
information that could be very helpful to new, soon to be parents...you
gave a lot to think about, and that's good. It's great that you're so
willing to share your knowledge and help others out.

I'm sure you'll be seeing me around mkb a lot more in the weeks to come.
For the time being I've mostly been reading and have only posted
occasionally with a question or two...soon enough I'm sure the questions
will be rolling in like crazy, once I start to actually breastfeed.

Thanks again for this post, and good luck to you too--
Kathy

[Alphawave]

Barbara asks:

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer
> "never" if your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

41w2d

-- Alpha
alphawave at earthlink dot net

[Taniwha grrrl]

Circe wrote:

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please
answer
> "never" if your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

42w4d (18 day's over)

> 3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

I wasn't induced, but I was going to be that day just for
being post term, I went into spontaneous labour first
though.


--
Andrea

If I can't be a good example, then I'll just have to be a
horrible warning.

[Ericka Kammerer]

H Schinske wrote:

>>It was certainly a median. What I find surreal is that 50% of primiparas
>>spread between 37w and 41w1d, then 47% are between 41w2d and
>>41w6w, and 3% are at or after 42w.
>>
>>. . . Gaussian model having a fit ;-)
>>
>
> Why are you expecting a bell curve? It doesn't sound an unreasonable
> distribution to me -- a longer rise on one side than the other, that's all.
> It's still pretty curve-y.


That was my thought as well--why would there be
any expectation that length of gestation was normally
distributed? Many things in this world aren't...

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Cheryl]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:26:02 -0700, "Circe" > wrote:

>Out of curiosity, I'm polling the mkp population. It's still a small and
>presumably anecdotal sample, but I think the results might be interesting.
>Here are the questions:
>
>1) When did you go into labor with your first baby

39w3d

For my own small sample size, here's some other answers for first
babies:
sister in law, spontaneous labour at 39w1d
sister, spontaneous labour at 38w4d
neighbour #1, spontaneous labour at 39w
neighbour #2, induced labour on due date (wasn't happy being pregnant
anymore, regrets the induction immensely)
neighbour #3, induced labour at 41w5d as was approaching 42w mark.
mother, induced labour at 41w3d to take a babe in arms to brother's
wedding rather than worrying that she would go into labour 8hrs from
home.

--
Cheryl
Mum to DS#1 (11 Mar 99), DS#2 (4 Oct 00)
and DD (30 Jul 02)

[Laurie]

(Joy Belle) misc.kids.pregnancy :
>
>>1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer
>>"never" if your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?
>>

Never


>>2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?

8 days past edd

>>3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

Baby hadn't engaged, concerns about size (being too big) No real necessary
reason, but they kept brining it up and I finally gave in :)

2nd baby came spontaneously at 6 days past edd.

laurie
mommy to Jessica, 29 months
and Christopher, 4 months

*This email address is now valid*

[Circe]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:26:02 -0700, "Circe" > wrote:
> >Out of curiosity, I'm polling the mkp population. It's still a small and
> >presumably anecdotal sample, but I think the results might be
interesting.
> >Here are the questions:
> >
> >1) When did you go into labor with your first baby
>
> 39w3d
>
> For my own small sample size, here's some other answers for first
> babies:
> sister in law, spontaneous labour at 39w1d
> sister, spontaneous labour at 38w4d
> neighbour #1, spontaneous labour at 39w
> neighbour #2, induced labour on due date (wasn't happy being pregnant
> anymore, regrets the induction immensely)
> neighbour #3, induced labour at 41w5d as was approaching 42w mark.
> mother, induced labour at 41w3d to take a babe in arms to brother's
> wedding rather than worrying that she would go into labour 8hrs from
> home.

Just had to report that it's currently running 50/50 for those before 41w1d
and those on or after 41w1d. And that includes one set of twins, one
induction for ROM, and one c-section for pre-eclampsia. Looks like the 41w1d
median is holding up pretty well.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- sign in hotel parking lot

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Erin Marsh]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:26:02 -0700, "Circe" > wrote:

>1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
>your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

41 weeks and six days.

--
Erin (nz)
Mummy to Cassidy Angela 18/11/99
Charles Roger ("Roo") stillborn 14/12/00 (22wks)
& Riomh William 14/01/02

http://marsh.orcon.net.nz/

[Joanna Kimball]

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never"
if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

39w1d, was born at 39w2d.

> 2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?
>
> 3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

--
Joanna
Meriwether, 6
Honour, 4
EDD May 04

[Lucretia]

Erin Marsh wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:26:02 -0700, "Circe" > wrote:
>
>
>>1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
>>your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?
>
>
> 41 weeks and six days.
>
41 weeks 3 days

And Hi Erin if you remember me :)

Lucretia
and Kaia 18-jan-02! Man, she's almost 20 months old!!!

[Sharon Bailey Glasco]

"Circe" > wrote in message news:<t327b.22772$n94.7454@fed1read04>...

> Here are the questions:
>
> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

Never

> 2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?

41 wks 5 days

> 3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

Low amniotic fluid


Sharon
Mom to James 6.2.00
EDD #2 5 December

[The Shannons]

"Alphawave" > wrote in message
...
> Barbara asks:
>
> > 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer
> > "never" if your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

41w6d. I would probably have been induced, but ds was born the Tuesday
before Thanksgiving. I was pretty opposed to induction in general, and
definitely didn't want to spend either Thanksgiving or the day before in
hospital having a baby. I'd agreed to come in the day after Thanksgiving
for an induction, if I hadn't had the baby by then.
Grace

[Valerie Rake]

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

> H Schinske wrote:
>
>>> It was certainly a median. What I find surreal is that 50% of
>>> primiparas
>>> spread between 37w and 41w1d, then 47% are between 41w2d and
>>> 41w6w, and 3% are at or after 42w.
>>>
>>> . . . Gaussian model having a fit ;-)
>>>
>> Why are you expecting a bell curve? It doesn't sound an unreasonable
>> distribution to me -- a longer rise on one side than the other,
>> that's all.
>> It's still pretty curve-y.
>
>
> That was my thought as well--why would there be
> any expectation that length of gestation was normally
> distributed? Many things in this world aren't...

Well, yes, but I'm always amazed at the number of things that people
_expect_ to be normally distributed but then get into fits about when
they aren't (grade distributions in college classes being a particular
bane of my existence...)

Valerie

>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka
>

[Vicki S]

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

i went into labor at 39 weeks and 4 days.
--
-- Vicki
Married DH May 21, 1995
Ima shel DS, born 11/16/99; and DD, born 5/19/02.
"Stay-at-home" Ima since October 2002.
An ounce of mother is worth a pound of clergy. -Spanish proverb
I may not currently be pregnant, but I look pregnant, does that count?

[Michelle J. Haines]

In article <t327b.22772$n94.7454@fed1read04>,
says...
> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

On her due date for #'s one, two and three. One week before for #4.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00) Zachary Mitchell
Theona Alexis (06/03/03) (01/12/94, fostered 09/05/01 - 07/23/03)

[Larry McMahan]

Taniwha grrrl > writes:

: 42w4d (18 day's over)

Damn you! You beat Monika by a day!

Just kidding,
Larry

[Larry McMahan]

Anne,

Are all of these listed inductions? Any spontaneous labors?

Larry

Anne Rogers > writes:
:> For my own small sample size, here's some other answers for first
:> babies:
:> sister in law, spontaneous labour at 39w1d
:> sister, spontaneous labour at 38w4d
:> neighbour #1, spontaneous labour at 39w
:> neighbour #2, induced labour on due date (wasn't happy being pregnant
:> anymore, regrets the induction immensely)
:> neighbour #3, induced labour at 41w5d as was approaching 42w mark.
:> mother, induced labour at 41w3d to take a babe in arms to brother's
:> wedding rather than worrying that she would go into labour 8hrs from
:> home.

: adding some more from my local knowledge

: friend 39+6
: friend induced at 40+4, bleeding, I don't know the cause
: friend 38+2 (induction/c-section threatened due to severe IUGR)
: mum induced 42+2, postdates (some disagreement over dates as she got
: pregnant straight after coming off the pill, her estimated date would put
: that at 40+4)
: gran 39+4
: someone from antenatal group 38
: another person from antenatal group 39+6
: another person from antenatal group 41+1
: yet another person from antenatal group 41 (though she may not have
: established active labour, she stalled and induction failed and ended with
: a c-section)

: that's all I can remember now

[Sophie]

>1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never"
if
>your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?

Never.


>2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?

Exactly 38 weeks.


>3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

Baby's heartbeat didn't sound right, ended up with a c-section, cord was
around her neck.

--
Sophie -
TTC #4

[Iuil]

"Circe" wrote
>
> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never"
if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?
>

39 weeks 6 days. EDD was determined by u/s on a day when I was deemed to be
9 weeks 5 days. A second u/s 8 weeks later gave the same EDD.

> 2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?
>
> 3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?
>

I would have had a c/s at 40 weeks 2 days had I not gone into spontaneous
labour. Reasons: rising b.p, +1 protein, oedema (those were good enough
reasons for me) and an ob who was scared I'd sue him over potential c.p.d
and dystocia (that wasn't good enough imo).

FWIW, my own edd was July 9th and I was born July 19th (ie 41+3) much to
dismay of my mother who thought that she'd wake up on the edd pregnant and
have a baby by that night. She's learned :-).

Jean

--
"And he said:
Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of
Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, and
though they are with you, yet they belong not to you." Khalil Gibran

Return address is unread. Replies to <firstnamelastname> @eircom.net.

[Em]

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:26:02 -0700, "Circe" > wrote:
>
> >Out of curiosity, I'm polling the mkp population. It's still a small and
> >presumably anecdotal sample, but I think the results might be
interesting.
> >Here are the questions:
> >
> >1) When did you go into labor with your first baby
>
> 39w3d
>
> For my own small sample size, here's some other answers for first
> babies:
<snip>

I haven't had my first yet, but I'll add two from people close to me:

My mom: spontaneous labor with #1 beginning at 39w2d and ending with my
birth at 39w3d.

My best friend's first baby: water broke spontaneously at 39w6d. Labor
wasn't "progressing" much though and was augmented with pitocin until she
gave birth the following morning (at 40w exactly). Don't know if that counts
in the spontaneous or induced category!

--
Em
edd 9/23/03
(38 weeks today!)

[Daye]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:07:27 -0700, "Circe" > wrote:

>I got the impression that all were spontaneous labors unless she noted
>otherwise.

More for you... my sister:

#1 -- 39w6d
#2 -- 40w1d
#3 -- 41w4d

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

[Circe]

"Daye" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:07:27 -0700, "Circe" > wrote:
>
> >I got the impression that all were spontaneous labors unless she noted
> >otherwise.
>
> More for you... my sister:
>
> #1 -- 39w6d
> #2 -- 40w1d
> #3 -- 41w4d

Only #1 counts for purposes of this survey. (My data is starting to skew
downward at this point, but there are quite a few inductions in the earlier
batch!)
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Daye]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:50:08 -0700, "Circe" > wrote:

>"Daye" > wrote in message
...

>> More for you... my sister:
>>
>> #1 -- 39w6d
>> #2 -- 40w1d
>> #3 -- 41w4d
>
>Only #1 counts for purposes of this survey. (My data is starting to skew
>downward at this point, but there are quite a few inductions in the earlier
>batch!)

Okay... sorry, it is the pregnancy brain and these dang sinus/allergy
problems! #3 was induced, and my sister said she wouldn't wish
induction on her worst enemy.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004
See Jayan: http://jayan.topcities.com/

[Ericka Kammerer]

Valerie Rake wrote:


> Well, yes, but I'm always amazed at the number of things that people
> _expect_ to be normally distributed but then get into fits about when
> they aren't (grade distributions in college classes being a particular
> bane of my existence...)


I hear you there! It seems to me intuitively obvious
that grades probably *shouldn't* be normally distributed--
at least in a well run class.

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Phoebe & Allyson]

Circe wrote:

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby


41w0d (11:30pm). She was born at 41w2d (3:30am). You get
to choose whether she falls on the pre-41w1d side or the
post-41w1d side. :)

Phoebe :)

[Circe]

"Phoebe & Allyson" > wrote in message
...
> Circe wrote:
> > 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby
>
> 41w0d (11:30pm). She was born at 41w2d (3:30am). You get
> to choose whether she falls on the pre-41w1d side or the
> post-41w1d side. :)
>
Well, maybe the question should have been when did *active* labor start. Of
course, that's still pretty subjective. I suspect, however, that length of
gestation in studies like these is determined by when the baby is actually
born, since you're still gestating while you're in labor <g>! In which case,
I think I probably should count you on the 41+1 side of the equation...
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Erin Marsh]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:06:48 GMT, Lucretia > wrote:

>And Hi Erin if you remember me :)

I'm sorry, who are you? ;-) Of course I remember you. How are things?
Drop me a line sometime. My email address is real.

--
Erin (nz)
Mummy to Cassidy Angela 18/11/99
Charles Roger ("Roo") stillborn 14/12/00 (22wks)
& Riomh William 14/01/02

http://marsh.orcon.net.nz/

[Mary Ann Tuli]

sorry for piggy backing.


>>>1) When did you go into labor with your first baby

me: 40 weeks

my sister: 40 weeks

Another sister is due in Jan, I wonder whether her baby is reading the
text books too ;-)

Mary Ann

[Allie]

10 pm on 38w0d water broke, 4 am 38w1d contractions started

"Circe" > wrote in message news:<F5K7b.24689$n94.6065@fed1read04>...
> "Phoebe & Allyson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Circe wrote:
> > > 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby
> >
> > 41w0d (11:30pm). She was born at 41w2d (3:30am). You get
> > to choose whether she falls on the pre-41w1d side or the
> > post-41w1d side. :)
> >
> Well, maybe the question should have been when did *active* labor start. Of
> course, that's still pretty subjective. I suspect, however, that length of
> gestation in studies like these is determined by when the baby is actually
> born, since you're still gestating while you're in labor <g>! In which case,
> I think I probably should count you on the 41+1 side of the equation...
> --
> Be well, Barbara
> (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
> See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln
>
> This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
> "No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign
>
> All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
> Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
> other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
> fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

[Cathy Weeks]

"Circe" > wrote in message news:<t327b.22772$n94.7454@fed1read04>...

> 1) When did you go into labor with your first baby (please answer "never" if
> your labor was induced and answer #2 instead)?
>
> 2) When was your labor with your first baby induced, if applicable?
>
> 3) If you answered #2, why was your labor induced?

I went into labor at 40 weeks exactly. My water broke at 2:45 am, and
I went into labor spontaneously by about 3:30am. Kiddo born 8 hours
later.

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

[Shannon]

I would say that it isn't routine at all and it isn't necessary. Not sure
where you are though. Every city, province, country has different routines.
I am in Ontario, Niagara falls. Even in cases where there are complications
I haven't heard of this unless the women was hospitalized for the
complications. I would say if you don't want to don't go. I went over due by
exactly 10 days with my first and I was 16 years old. My doctor didn't even
mention inducing and I didn't have any monitoring until I was in labor(which
is routine). Don't be offended or upset that your doctor was a bit annoyed
with your questioning. Although she shouldn't have been(it is her
job)annoyed with your questions, maybe she was very busy that day and
stressed out because of it. If you think you don't want to do this then tell
her. It isn't something you have to do. Don't let any doctor ruin your
experience with this.
I think I would do it anyways. It isn't that big a deal even though it isn't
routine(although it is possible it is routine for your doctor). It is to
make sure your baby is ok. Maybe your doctor does this to keep the chance of
serious complications low and it probably does work. Because she does this
doesn't mean you should worry, it doesn't mean you will have complications
it is just a precaution.

Goodluck!

Shannon 39 weeks