Hellobee Boards

I only have an issue with it b/c I was on bed rest until I was "full term." Bed rest til 37 weeks is a lot different than bed rest til 39 weeks! Not sure if this will change though.

Do you think that they will start inducing women who go over 40-41 weeks more so now than before?

@MrsBrewer: no, I think this is just trying to prevent non-medical necessary inductions prior to 39 weeks. It seems like the insurance companies wanted this so that won't have to cover non-medically necessary inductions that lead to expensive complications due to the baby being a little early. Hopefully it will not have an affect on medically necessary inductions.

37-39 is now considered early term due to increased risk of complications.

I guess I thought this was the norm, my doctor's office was already not allowing induction before 39 unless medicially necessary. I was told it was a state law.

I always thought of 39-40 weeks as full term. When I hit 37 weeks, I had a feeling of "it's okay if you show up now, but stay in there and grow more." Apparently there's quite a culture of inducing labor early for certain dates, etc. I remember a "16 and Pregnant" where the girl got induced way too early because she was whining about being uncomfortable, ended up having a hard labor resulting in a c-section. I was yelling at the tv thinking that her doctors were nuts to go along with that.

I have mixed feelings about this...

On one hand I really like that they've separated "early term" so hopefully that will stop antsy moms from medicalized & self inductions for the mere "tired of being pregnant" & "I want to meet my baby" reasons. But on the other hand, I don't particularly like the terminology "late term" and wonder if this will just further the 41 week induction rate even when medical indication is lacking.... the evidence doesn't support this scenario either, but I know many offices already have this as their common practice & making a more solid of a statement I fear more moms will buy into it as well without being fully informed.

I really liked how the Time's article pointed out some of the downsides to such guidelines becoming more than just descriptive terms & becoming strict cut offs.... that it could cause some doctors to be too cautious to deliver early when needed, but at the same time others too "gung ho" to deliver once a mom hits that 39 weeks point.

I really liked & agree with how it summed it up saying, "The best case would be if women and their doctors took these terms as they are intended — as descriptive guidelines, not rules — and got better about letting nature take its course unless there is a medical reason not to."

I didn't realize "full term" had been less than 40 weeks (but it's also not anything I ever really studied up on, either). My OB would not induce or elective c-section for anything less than 40 weeks, minimum.

@yoursilverlining: It's crazy when you get into some other pregnancy forums how literally the day some ladies hit 37 weeks they're "ready to meet baby" and trying a billion & one ones to induce, begging their doctors to induce them, and alot of times almost combative that their baby IS ready b/c they met the magical 37wk 1day marker. Gah! It's sheer craziness.

@yoursilverlining: Yea. In that way I love this new separation, just wonder/worry if it could cause other issues if it becomes too rigidly followed... on either side of ones edd.

@FarmWifeGina: P was 6lb 1oz at 41+5 with no indications of IUGR (always measured on point & our mid pregnancy u/s showed no abnormalities). I know that now we're looking into other issues that could have attributed to that, but I am SO glad that I had a provider that was willing to wait on P & my body. I hate to even think about how things could have been if I was given an earlier cut off, even just 5 days when I hit 41 weeks... how much smaller she could have been! eek!