Just as "news"...nothing really to discuss I don't think (if anyone has anything, that inspires them, go ahead...).
She got pg, had a miscarriage early on (which she assumes was probably twins she m/c'ed one of) and assumed she got pg again really quickly. She was sure her due date was about 6 weeks past what it really was (since she had remained pg). She was sure her body was going into labour EARLY, and kept *willing* herself not to deliver "early". Well, she delivered a large baby who was beet red and peeling and VERY mature for a newborn. She is positive that he was very late and all b/c of thinking she had miscarried when she hadn't.
On top of that, babies mature at different rates and some that are *past due* seem "preemie" for some people. No two menstrual cycles are the same, and no two people "cook" the same length of time. I know others who have gone to 42 weeks, who are ABSOLUTELY 100% sure of their dates, and yet the babies seemed more like 36-37 weekers as per their maturity. I'm sure the opposite is possible.
For my 2nd daughter, I was 3 days over my due date. I had been charting when TTC her and knew exactly what day I ovulated, and ON TOP OF THAT never bled and kept charting for 6 weeks after she was conceived, well into the time when I was getting pgcy symptoms. I was definately NOT pg before the time i know I conceived her, as my temps were not up, and I did menstruate the month before. Despite being "only" 3 days past her due date, she looked well overdue. Her amniotic fluid was still clear and fine, but she herself was very red and peeling, held her head up WELL at birth, and was very alert (ever see a 4 day old awake for 3 hours' time just being content and taking in their environment for a while?).
My first child was born on her due date, and while I was not charting, I do know the weekend she was conceived, because DH and I were not together any other time but then (hadn't been for 3 months previously, and weren't again for another 2 weeks afterwards, by which time a pgcy test was +!), and ON her due date she looked fine, but was not obviously overdue like DD2.
So, I think it is probably a very hard thing to accurately judge when a baby "should" or "shouldn't" be born. Errors happen, more often than we may think, and while "overdue" isn't good, neither is "undercooked" as anyone who has had a preemie would tell us.
I agree that she wasn't getting the best medical care to allow her to go so far past her EDD. Good point.