Huggies Forum

Meh Lock Rss

I would go with the first scans, I think dating scans are only accurate up unitl nine weeks after that babies start growing and different paces and it it hard to get a good idea of conception. If you had a scan before nine weeks stick with that due date. With a bit of luck bubby will come a week before anyway! smile



Your dating scan is the most accurate.
After 9 weeks the baby takes on your genetic traits and grow at different rates, so the measurements are less accurate.
I'd stick to the 23rd, if that's the date you were given at your dating scan.

And let's face it - your baby will be born when it's good and ready smile


Go with the date furthest away! Trust me, 7 days difference is a long time when your bigarse pregnant and people are saying "what? you haven't had the baby yet? i thought you were due on the 16th!" Grr! This way you've got the extra week leeway and if bubs comes around the 16th, well you'll welcome that too!

As others have said; dating scans are most accurate in early pregnancy as bubs will have growth spurts throughout the pregnancy.


Your mind is a garden, your thoughts are the seeds,
You can grow flowers or you can grow weeds.

I would go by the scans.

I knew i was due on the 29th of June but the scans said 4th of july and i said no but midwives said they go by the scans done. I ask my normal doctor and he agreed with the scan date.

Little man was born on the 29th of june.




Coopee wrote:
Thanks ladies I'm just a little bit upset by the day getting pushed back as I am still a little paranoid something is going to go wrong with the pregnancy so the sooner bub is due in my arms th better I feel and it means an extra week of work as well which I really a, not enjoying at the moment. Guess I will just have to be patient and wait and see what the dr decides on.


Could you leave work when you planned.




~kitty~ wrote:
I would opt for the later due date... You're less likely to be hassled about inductions because your body will have more time to do its thing in its own time, maybe even before your EDD smile


totally and utterly agree.

There is no benefit whatsoever for you to go with the earlier date. Your baby will come when its ready. Just because you want it to be earlier, it doesn't mean that it is. More problems occur when people try to rush by inducing as they think there will be problems if their baby is overdue. In actual fact more problems occur because people are induced due to an early date. If your later date is actually correct and they go with the early one and decide to induce you because it fits in with their policy, not only could your baby be dragged through labour before its physically ready but it could also be premature.

Basically whatever your edd is.....your baby could be born 2 weeks on either side of it. People rely way too much on the edd because they want to know when their baby is coming. Relax, it will get here when its ready.
Just to confuse things more for you, I don't have a lot of faith in the theory the dating scan is the most accurate. With my first I thought I was due based on LMP the 3rd June, first scan I had was the NT at I thought about 12 weeks, scan put due date as 27th May, DS1 was born 26th May. With DS2 as I had had a miscarriage in between I had a dating scan around 6 weeks which said he was due 14th Dec, Lmp said he was due 2nd and I said from the beginning he would be born on the 3rd, interestingly the anatomy scan at 18 weeks agreed with my dates (but in NZ they will not change your due date) he was born on the 3rd Dec like I said weighing 8lb 12.5oz. This time I had an early scan due to bleeding, which said he is due 19th July, my dates say the 14th, my midwife is happy to go by my date this time as she is the same midwife I had with DS2. I have a nagging feeling that this wee man will be here early though, hoping if he is that I at least make 37weeks, purely for selfish reasons around where I would end up birthing and the fact I haven't even started getting ready.

I only have one child and the dates i was given were only 2 days apart so I honestly don't know and oh boy i feel dumb asking lol but I was under the impression it become dangerous after 10 days overdue which is why you're usually induced by then if you haven't already had baby on your own?? Or is that information wrong??
~whatwasithinking!~ wrote:
I only have one child and the dates i was given were only 2 days apart so I honestly don't know and oh boy i feel dumb asking lol but I was under the impression it become dangerous after 10 days overdue which is why you're usually induced by then if you haven't already had baby on your own?? Or is that information wrong??


Once you are over 14 days past your due date, the risks are slightly higher. Only very slightly though. usually every ob/hospital has its own policy as to how far over they are prepared to let women go. Public hospitals tend to want to induce somewhere around 42 weeks, whereas some obs feel safer doing it within 4 days of the edd. Some even do it between 38-40 weeks! (run a mile if you get one of them!) This has nothing to do with risk to mum or bub, but is purely to lessen the risk of them being sued. They say there are signs if bubs is over due such as dry skin, low amniotic fluid, placenta shrivelled, no vernix, however these are also seen in babies born at 38 weeks. It has nothing to do with how long gestation has been. Some mums gestate for 43 weeks every time. Others at 38. Basically, if you go over 40 weeks, before opting for induction they should be monitoring mum and bubs before they even think about it.

The thing is.... if they let mum gestate over 42 weeks and there is a problem, mum can turn around and say "why didn't you induce me" and can try to sue. To prevent themselves being sued, they induce early so it looks like they did all they could. The risks of induction are actually higher then a woman genuinely being overdue. Mainly because not that many women go overdue. Given the time, they go into labour naturally. Being induced gives you a greater chance of needing a c/s. The risks then skyrocket. Just the risk of mum or bub being injured or dying are much greater then any potential risk of going overdue. Its purely to cover themselves. So women need to be aware of it and take control over themselves.
OC1246 wrote:
~whatwasithinking!~ wrote:
I only have one child and the dates i was given were only 2 days apart so I honestly don't know and oh boy i feel dumb asking lol but I was under the impression it become dangerous after 10 days overdue which is why you're usually induced by then if you haven't already had baby on your own?? Or is that information wrong??

Once you are over 14 days past your due date, the risks are slightly higher. Only very slightly though. usually every ob/hospital has its own policy as to how far over they are prepared to let women go. Public hospitals tend to want to induce somewhere around 42 weeks, whereas some obs feel safer doing it within 4 days of the edd. Some even do it between 38-40 weeks! (run a mile if you get one of them!) This has nothing to do with risk to mum or bub, but is purely to lessen the risk of them being sued. They say there are signs if bubs is over due such as dry skin, low amniotic fluid, placenta shrivelled, no vernix, however these are also seen in babies born at 38 weeks. It has nothing to do with how long gestation has been. Some mums gestate for 43 weeks every time. Others at 38. Basically, if you go over 40 weeks, before opting for induction they should be monitoring mum and bubs before they even think about it.

The thing is.... if they let mum gestate over 42 weeks and there is a problem, mum can turn around and say "why didn't you induce me" and can try to sue. To prevent themselves being sued, they induce early so it looks like they did all they could. The risks of induction are actually higher then a woman genuinely being overdue. Mainly because not that many women go overdue. Given the time, they go into labour naturally. Being induced gives you a greater chance of needing a c/s. The risks then skyrocket. Just the risk of mum or bub being injured or dying are much greater then any potential risk of going overdue. Its purely to cover themselves. So women need to be aware of it and take control over themselves.


Ah i see, thanks for that smile
Supermummy wrote:
OC1246 wrote:
~whatwasithinking!~ wrote:
I only have one child and the dates i was given were only 2 days apart so I honestly don't know and oh boy i feel dumb asking lol but I was under the impression it become dangerous after 10 days overdue which is why you're usually induced by then if you haven't already had baby on your own?? Or is that information wrong??

Once you are over 14 days past your due date, the risks are slightly higher. Only very slightly though. usually every ob/hospital has its own policy as to how far over they are prepared to let women go. Public hospitals tend to want to induce somewhere around 42 weeks, whereas some obs feel safer doing it within 4 days of the edd. Some even do it between 38-40 weeks! (run a mile if you get one of them!) This has nothing to do with risk to mum or bub, but is purely to lessen the risk of them being sued. They say there are signs if bubs is over due such as dry skin, low amniotic fluid, placenta shrivelled, no vernix, however these are also seen in babies born at 38 weeks. It has nothing to do with how long gestation has been. Some mums gestate for 43 weeks every time. Others at 38. Basically, if you go over 40 weeks, before opting for induction they should be monitoring mum and bubs before they even think about it.

The thing is.... if they let mum gestate over 42 weeks and there is a problem, mum can turn around and say "why didn't you induce me" and can try to sue. To prevent themselves being sued, they induce early so it looks like they did all they could. The risks of induction are actually higher then a woman genuinely being overdue. Mainly because not that many women go overdue. Given the time, they go into labour naturally. Being induced gives you a greater chance of needing a c/s. The risks then skyrocket. Just the risk of mum or bub being injured or dying are much greater then any potential risk of going overdue. Its purely to cover themselves. So women need to be aware of it and take control over themselves.

That's not entirely true OC. I work in the neonatal unit and we can tell what gestation a baby is by examining it. It's normally fairly easy to tell when a baby is "overcooked" or "undercooked".

As for the original post, as others said, dating scan is best and as this is the later date for you also means you aren't counting down to too early a due date and getting upset when you then go "overdue". smile


Which bit isn't entirely true?
ta! i have never really worked out the quote stuff on my ipod either... lol

what factors do you use? i have heard plenty of people be told that their baby was "overcooked" when their dates through last period and u/s tell them their baby was only 38 weeks. i had the longest gestation out of anyone i know 41, 42 or 43 weeks depending on whose date you go by. (mine, the midwife and u/s all 1 week apart midwife being the most accurate.) she was anything but overcooked! (even though i had people telling me how crap she would look when born if i didnt get her out soon. sad )
Sign in to follow this topic