Sunday, September 23, 2007

March 16th, Part II

After talking with Christie, she said:
  • Ultrasound is only week-accurate (at the time of our ultrasound), so if we think we had a good idea of the date, we may well be right. As long as the ultrasound estimate isn't radically off, there's no sense in changing our own understanding of the time.
  • Later ultrasounds will be even less accurate at predicting baby age, so we've got all the information we're going to have.
  • Our date was five days later than the Ultrasound date. Doctors will choose to induce if the baby is ten days late, so if we go with the ultrasound date, we may end more likely with an induced birth that wasn't necessary.
So we're sticking with the March 16th date. Obviously that doesn't necessarily say much about when the baby will come, but it does at least predict the date at which induction becomes more likely.

No comments: