# Failing placenta?



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

I hear this a lot as a reason to induce, even when the mother's not overdue. But past the due date, this is REALLY pushed. So what does it really mean? How does a placenta "fail"? Is it transmitting oxygen less effectively? How is this measured? What is the proof that the placenta is not acting as effectively as it once was?


----------



## SublimeBirthGirl (Sep 9, 2005)

My midwife with my first said they like to induce at 41 weeks because the placenta starts to break down. IMO it's usually a load of BS. I know that placental issues do happen, but there's no reason that a healthy woman's placenta starts to deteriorate at some randomly assigned date.


----------



## xleary (Nov 9, 2007)

You could get an ultra sound and they could look at the plaenta. YOu could get an NST and see how the baby looks on the monitor. You could keep an eye on the babies movements during the day. Does the babies behavior change? Is the baby moving less ?


----------



## linzogonzerelli (Jun 30, 2005)

I knew that mine was dying because I could "feel" it. I fell a couple months before and had a minor placental abruption though, and it started hurting A LOT where it hurt when I fell, towards the end of the pregnancy.

When the placenta was delivered, there was a whole section of "old placenta".


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

IMO, the 'failing placenta' is just a card played by HCPs to emotionally coerce women into induction--inductions prompted far more by Dr. convenience and fear-of-litigation factors, than by actual safety issues. No, placentas do NOT die off in a certain time frame, not generally speaking. The pp's remarks are a good example--she had a partial abruption due to a fall, and so part of her placenta stopped functioning (or stopped functioning efficiently). But the rest of it continued to work! I have seen a few placentas in my day that looked like they were starting to 'fail'...but I saw them after births which started spontaneously. So I'd have to say that women and babies know what to do when the placenta stops being efficient. By the way, of this handful of deteriorating placentas I've seen, all babies were healthy--and about half were born between 39-42 weeks, the other half after 42wks (have *more often* seen perfectly healthy placentas after 42wks). And considering each woman individually, I have to assume that their placentas were impacted *more* by the mom's general health (nutrition and/or stress factors, for instance), than they were by 'expiration dates'. I do add that this small number of births/placentas hardly constitutes a 'research project'....but it is at least true from my experience.

this craziness about due dates and fear of 'post dates' is fairly new in Obstetrics--even a generation ago, there was not so much fear surrounding this. Up until the 70s, women might gestate up to 44-6 weeks without much worry from their docs. I know a woman who birthed in 1977--finally induced at 46wks to a fat healthy baby. It is since then that Obstetrics has gotten so militant on this issue. Yes, statistically speaking, more babies experience troubles after 42 weeks gestation than up until that time, but that rise in risk is NOT much! And each case is individual anyway....some families just gestate longer than others....so the statistical data must be compared to personal data to be of any use at all.


----------

