Sep 2

“…You Could Be Two Whole Weeks More Pregnant Than You Thought!”

“There’s been a new study released that ultrasounds can be inaccurate for dating. You could be TWO WHOLE WEEKS more pregnant than you thought!” – OB suggesting an induction at 39 weeks.

68 people dislike these words.

There are 28 comments to this post.

Heather P had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 10:36 am (Quote)

Or two weeks less pregnant.

[Reply]

Nicole Reply:
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:52 am Nicole(Quote)

exactly..

[Reply]

Lisa Reply:
September 2nd, 2011 at 11:31 am Lisa(Quote)

Of course if that’s the case then THANK GOD you had the induction in the hospital where they’re equipped to deal with preemies…

[Reply]

Margaret had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 10:43 am (Quote)

Oh, *that’s* a new one.

Admitting u/s inacurracy in order to manipulate a patient into early induction.

Good one, doc.

[Reply]

Margaret Reply:
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:44 am Margaret(Quote)

And two weeks still wouldn’t put the pregnancy into the “danger zone”–which according to ACOG starts after 42 weeks.

[Reply]

first time mommy had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 10:47 am (Quote)

That’s fine. my MIL went FOUR WHOLE WEEKS refusing inductions with DH and guess what?! THEY BOTH SURVIVED. AND was ALL NATURAL!
i know, i know. it’s a miracle, doc

[Reply]

Allie had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 10:53 am (Quote)

funny how all of a sudden the U/S is not accurate, but it’s accurate when they’re telling a mama the baby is too big to be born vaginally.

[Reply]

JoAnna had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 10:54 am (Quote)

“Regardless of the dates, doc, why don’t we let my body decide when the time is right?”

[Reply]

Sheva had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 11:00 am (Quote)

It’s not a new study.
So then why did you do the dating ultrasound?
If I’m sure of my conception/ovulation/LMP dates is that good enough, or is research showing something about that, too?
I could also be 2 WHOLE WEEKS LESS PREGNANT which makes my baby just barely ready to face the outside world.
“Two whole weeks more pregnant” is not a medical indication for induction.
Induction carries a whole list of its own risks, both medical and emotional, both for me and the baby.
So tell me, why are we rushing things here?

[Reply]

Alyson Miers had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 11:06 am (Quote)

Didn’t we have Dr. F in here one time telling us how he could predict due date so accurately based on ultrasound?

[Reply]

Mama Wrench had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 11:09 am (Quote)

1: That’s not a new study, doc — unless you’re caught in a time warp from 1982. 2: According to the ACOG, “overdue” isn’t till AFTER 42 weeks, so I’ve still got at least a week before any risks of being overdue *start* to increase — you can talk to me *then,* k?. 3: Why assume that the inaccuracy only works in one direction? I could me 37 weeks pregnant! 4: Since you apparently did bother to read a medical journal once in a while, it probably also mentioned that U/S dating is very accurate when done before 10 weeks. So how’s about we look at my earliest U/S, instead of you changing my date every time you start to get antsy?

[Reply]

Z had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 11:21 am (Quote)

Or 2 weeks less…? And omg, ultrasounds are inaccurate! Such shocking NEW info. *barf*

[Reply]

Jane had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 11:29 am (Quote)

So everything is inaccurate. My chart is inaccurate because you don’t believe it works. My LMP is inaccurate because it doesn’t give precise information about when I ovulated. My ultrasound is inaccurate because it could be two weeks off.

The only one who seems to know what’s going on here is the baby, so let’s let the baby decide when it’s time to be born, Doctor When, since you admit right now that YOU don’t know when that time is.

Oh, and I’m fascinated by studies. Can you give me a copy of this study to read while I’m going dangerously overdue? Thanks.

[Reply]

jenni Reply:
September 2nd, 2011 at 7:05 pm jenni(Quote)

yes, the baby sure does know whats going on way better than you do!

[Reply]

Vanessa had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 11:34 am (Quote)

This makes me so grateful for my OB. When I had my first prenatal appointment, she said, “This is your estimated due date, based on your LMP and the ultrasound we did today. You could give birth 2 weeks before that date, or 2 weeks after, so don’t get too attached to that date. We’ll only worry if your baby starts showing signs of distress.”

[Reply]

Rach had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 12:16 pm (Quote)

I’m sorry but can I just say:
Dick.
Ignore that man. In fact run away from him very fast.

[Reply]

Caryn had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 1:19 pm (Quote)

OK, so I could be 41 weeks instead of 39. You’re point, Doc?

[Reply]

laura grace had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 1:51 pm (Quote)

OR LESS PREGNANT. DUMBASS.

[Reply]

Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 2:55 pm (Quote)

You, sir or madam, are a complete dumbass. And you’re fired.

[Reply]

Cindy had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 3:30 pm (Quote)

Great! I’d like to read the study. I’ll have to order it. Don’t worry, it should be here in 2 weeks…

[Reply]

TraceyT had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 5:49 pm (Quote)

*face palm*

When my cousin was pregnant they were absolutely POSITIVE about her due date, given the ultrasound. She went a week and a half earlier than her supposed due date and the baby was born extremely wrinkly, which is apparently a sign that you’re well past 9 months. Afterward they admitted that she was almost a month further along than they’d predicted. Nice reliance on inaccurate technology.

[Reply]

Layla19 had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 7:21 pm (Quote)

See, the the direction this is going scares me. I feel like by the time I get preggo, they’ll be wanting to rip a baby out of me by 35 weeks at the latest. I’m going to have to go on the lam, aren’t I?

[Reply]

C.Pratt had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 8:11 pm (Quote)

…But it’s far more likely that you are 2 weeks *less* pregnant, since most people don’t ovulate while they are still menstrating… Just sayin.

[Reply]

Miranda had this to say, Sep 2, 2011 @ 10:09 pm (Quote)

OP here (can’t pink from my phone)

This is slightly mis-quoted, the OB was suggesting repeat c-section when I told her I would wait as long as it took for my VBAC. Her attitude was “well it’s going to fail anyway, so you might as well save your energy and book in now” using 2 whole weeks as an excuse, ignoring my LMP and ovulation dates also gave me the same edd.

I asked if that 2 week margin of error went the other way and was it possible I was only 37 weeks. “Oh no, your fundal height and descent station are far more consistent with 39 weeks!” She abruptly ended the appointment after I smiled and said “so my original due date is pretty accurate then?”

Ironically Liam was born by VBAC exactly 2 weeks later!

[Reply]