As for scans diagnoing multiple births, I would be very worried if my mw could not pick that up! Also, just to comment, if I went on to have a multiple birth, I would be having scans to screens for twin to twin transfusion syndrome. As a healthy woman who has only so far produced singletons, I plan to decline them next time as well.

I chose to decline scans (and all screening).

I knew my dates were correct.
I would not intervene if a fetal abnormality was discovered.
I have had a mmc before. I didn't get over it until DD1 was born. But being scanned ould not prevent another.
There are no long-term follow up studies detailing efficacy and safety that I am aware of.
I am inherently wary of intervention.

TThere's an AIMS publication called "Ultrasound, Unsound?" by Beverley Beech which I found very interesting.

I got a lot of strange looks but my mw fully supported my decision. Only negative comment I got was from a --arrogant twit-- man at church.

Incidentally, DD2 was born with the cord wrapped 3 times around her neck. We were scanned fortnightly in the last trimester and that wasn't picked up.

It's a deeply personal choice and one that I mmade after a lot of research. I wouldn't dream of criticising another's choice; it's up to each individual woman.

I will have the dating scan, I need it for a few reasons, I had irregular periods (last one 4 months ago, only just had +ve test) so I can calculate due date, because I'm considering flying home to have my baby NZ and obviously need to know when I am due to have that plan in place ha ha!!

Other than that I may decline the other scans. I'm low risk, and wouldn't intervene anyway, so I don't see the need.

Wow, what a bizarre thread. Sorry, but it is. Whilst there seems to be a small amount of new research to show LOTS of scans (ie, scanning almost daily, like Tom Cruise did) could POTENTIALLY cause concern (no specific issues, just general concern), how can you think scanning is dangerous? It is STANDARD in Europe, ie Germany, France etc to have a MONTHLY scans, which is what I receive. In the last month, I get a weekly scan. I'm on my third baby, and those scans have been very, very helpful and reassuring. They have told me that my first had placenta prevae, so I took it easy and didnt strain myself or travel too far. They told me about potential breaches, cords around necks, size, weight, general health, and just to see my babies grow was a wonderful thing. They showed that the babies didnt have spinae bifea (sp?) or potential downs, that their neck folds/spine had closed correctly, that their hearts and every single organ (at the 20 week scan, where everything is checked)was working correctly. How you could possibly turn down the utter derisory amount of scans offered in the UK is incredible. Be grateful for what is offered, and remember its not being offered to provide a random job for Drs - it's an important health check which our mothers and grandmothers (as mentioned previously) would have loved to receive.

I had an extra scan as part of a research project at 34 weeks pregnant with DD1. I was shocked to learn she had ventriculomegaly. We were even offered a termination at 34 wks! Thankfully she was healthy but I was heavily Monitored in the labour and ended up with an emergency section. Whilst I agree with the sentiments of a lot of the posts here, I do feel that more people should consider some of these sort of worries from scans. A lot more common is people being told their baby is very large on the scan and then worrying about vaginal delivery , only to find the baby is perfectly average sized after delivery. Scans are not perfect and still miss a lot of heart problems for example. I am expecting dc3 and will be having a 12 and 20 week scan only .

In my opinion I think you are worrying over nothing, worrying isn't good and it's one reason we have the scans - for peace of mind.
What if you are carrying more than one baby? Would you not like to find out so u can be prepared?
I would say if you are unsure whether to have both scans just have the 20 week scan as the 12 week scan is only really to confirm the dates and to have a nosey.
I'm a true believer in not reading too much in to these 'reports', often the people who write them have a hypothosis and then go about proving it, you can read one report that states one thing and another that states the opposite.
I don't know of any babies that have been harmed from having a scan but I do know of babies that have had problems detected on scans, one of which would have died within minutes of being born if it hadn't have been detected on the scan.
Personally I believe that the benefits far out weigh any 'risks'.

Hi,
I too had the same worries as you after reading lots of various articles and newspaper reports on the supposed 'dangers of scanning', I decided to go ahead with the 12 week scan and will also go for the 20 week scan. I decided not to have the nuchal scan. Good luck with your pregnancy!

OP's gone quiet. Don't tell me we've fallen prey to another journalist .

Almost everything we do is a risk/benefit trade-off. Based on what we currently know, women in Britain, USA and pretty much everywhere else are advised that the benefits of USS outweigh the risks. I am pretty happy with the credentials of the people who have made this judgement.

On a personal note, I have had loads of scans in my second and third pregnancies. In my first pregnancy an accurate dating scan may have prevented my DD's stillbirth, but one wasn't offered. In my third pregnancy the 20 week scan picked up a potentially serious fetal anomaly which will require surgery, and further scans were used to keep very close checks on my DS2's health. Decisions were made based on those scans. They were clinically necessary and I have had no qualms about having them.

I cant help feeling annoyed by this thread, I am sorry. There are so many things to worry about when pregnant and I have found all of my scans so reassurring. I am 34 weeks pregnant and last week I found out that due to the babies position I am at risk of a cord prolapse. If I hadnt had this scan I wouldnt know anything about it. I have been told that if my waters break I have to get to the hospital asap in an ambulance if necessary. So for me the risks are so much greater if you dont go for your scans.

Years ago a friend's mum was pg and her baby died in the womb but I don't think scans were readily available then because nobody knew until it started to smell ... All very unpleasant.

In the past, women would have sold their souls for the medical treatment we have available to us these days. I certainly am extremely grateful for it.

I was pregnant with my fourth child last year and at the 20 week scan they discovered he had died a couple of weeks before. If I hadn't had the scan there's no telling when my body would have ended the pregnancy naturally - and there are risks in carrying a dead baby over a period of time. For me, emotionally, it was so much better finding out at the scan that he had died than unexpectedly going into labour, assuming that happened, especially with 3 small children to worry about.

I am now pregnant again and nearly 24 weeks. I have had many more scans than usual eg to check blood flow in the placenta. And this has been hugely reassuring after a devastating loss.

I am very, very grateful for the technology. I also agree that if there were a problem, even though I'm pretty certain I'd never terminate, I'd want us to know as much as possible as early as possible so we could plan in advance, particularly if the baby needed medical intervention early.

I had problems with my first pregnancy because of a poor functioning placenta, thanks to my 32 wks scan they found out that my DD was not growing properly anymore. I was monitored and DD was delivered at 36 wks. She would not be here or be who she is now if I hadn't had the scan. I am pregnant again and having the same problem, I have already been scanned 5 times (I am 26 wks) and probably will be scanned every 2 wks until delivery, this could save my baby's life, so I do not have and will never have any seconds thoughts about having a scan or not.

If my sister hadn't had a scan, my two nieces would have been dead by the time she was 7 months pregnant. Fortunately they got them out and saved them. Their cords wern't working properly from 24 weeks.

Well, it would be a rum old world if we were all the same .

Going outside your front door while pregnant isn't 100% safe, life is a matter of calculated risks. Actually, I slipped down the stairs the other day so even staying at home is a bit dodgy. I feel that the risks to me and my baby of not diagnosing something like a low placenta or fetal kidney problems is greater than having an ultrasound. With this pg I've had a 7 week scan (bleeding) and a 12 week dating scan. I'll have a 20 week anomoly scan, as well as scans at 30 and 34 weeks as I have a history of recurrent miscarriage. I'm quite happy about all of these scans.

I wonder what life will be like in this no-risk utopia of the future .

Spare a thought for those of us living in areas where we don't get offered two scans - I am in the Scottish Highlands and am not offered a 20 week scan

I've found it quite depressing reading all about everyone's scans and the abnormalities / problems they can detect, knowing that I am not offered the scan to find out.

We are considering paying for a private scan for peace of mind but are on a tight budget so haven't decided yet.

Just one more thing. An article in my local paper today says 'scan could have saved my baby boy'.

Despite bleeding at 28, 37 and 41 weeks (in 2002) no scans were performed; although the baby was monitored. She then haemorrhaged catastrophically due to an undiagnosed VP (problem with the blodd vessels in the umbillical) chord and had an emergency section.

Sadly, her son did not survive depite being resuscitated and given a transfusion.

I agree that the decision to have an ultrasound should be down to personal choice. I think people just need to consider carefully the known benefits against unknown risks.

Each to their own...free world and all that!

I was scanned once a month with DS in first 6 months. Then more frequently as the pregnancy progressed.

Why was I scanned?

To check that bean is ok.
Check that blood flows are ok
Check whether baby is in correct position. My DS had been resolute breech from 28 weeks, when a senior MW felt my bump at 35 weeks, she said, 'ohh that baby is the in perfect position'. To which my response was unless he turned in the last 24 hours, I really doubt it. They didnt spot that my nephew was breech when SIL was pregnant, tried delivering naturally - his delivery was a code red c section!

Scans save lives, give safer options for childbirth and for the majority of people are a godsend!

and...

Don't you think pregant women have enough to worry about without having 'scans are dangerous' thrown at them too?

I'm glad I was offered an early scan at 7 and a half weeks. Had I not been then I wouldn't have known so early that my pregnancy was not viable. heartbreaking as it is I dread to think of how I would have felt had I got to 12 weeks and had my routine scan only to be told the baby had been non-viable since week 6.

I think scaring women by saying scans are dangerous to the foetus is just unhelpful.

Hi, I had the usual scans with DD 1 and and a lot more with DDs 2 and 3 as there were worries about how big they were.

With DS I had the 12wk which was fine and then 1 at 21 weeks which was bad - it suggested he had no renal system and subsequent scans confirmed this. I was induced early and he was stillborn last November. He was really squashed and I think it would have been unkind to keep him inside longer than necessary.

I have just had another scan which revealed I was corneal ectopic and I was rushed to surgery.

I accept that there are only problems in the minority of cases but the last scan may well have saved my life and the one before prepared me for a dreadful outcome and helped me to take some control of the situation and make all the plans I needed to.

DDs are 9, 3 and 1 and are showing no ill effects: If I was able to have any more pregnancies, I would not hesitate to scan again.

I know of a woman who refused all scans with her 2nd pregnancy and she had a torrential bleed at 31(ish)weeks. Her and the 2 babies she was carrying did not survive. IMO the benefits definately outweigh any percieved risks.

Thanks for starting this thread, it's interesting reading. I think it's all a matter of personal choice.

All being well I'll be having 11 scans during my pregnancy as I'm involved in a research study on blood flow to the womb before and during pregnancy and fetal growth restriction. It did worry me at first, so I looked into it and found the studies on left-handedness, which extrapolate to possible epilepsy and dyslexia, and another on repeated scans and fetal growth restriction (ironically). But these are very old studies and my clinic has reassured me that they and the ethics committee do not feel that repeated scanning is an issue. I would feel happier if I could read some specific research contradicting the stuff I found, but have decided to put my faith in my clinic and stay on the study. My scans are all doppler ones but they don't put the doppler over the baby on the early ones. They are at 7 days passed embryo transfer, 7 weeks, 12-14, 16, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 37-38 and I think I also have the NHS ones at 12 and 20 weeks. I'm really nervous about the 7-week scan, which is on Wednesday, as I've had 2 early mcs before, but will be so reassured afterwards if everything's OK and if it is bad news at least I'll know now and not have to wait until 12 weeks to find out.

Good luck in your pregnancies everyone. Really sorry to hear about the mmcs some of you have had.

amyboo.

av had 4 scans in this preg wan at 8 wks to see how far gone a was wan at 14wk wan at28 tht was to c if baby was growin ok then wan today 32 5days to see if growin ok a gen

asuwere MustHaveaVeryShortMem

I said In My Opinion.

No offence was intended - if I didnt have a scan I would feel guilty if something was wrong at the end of the pregnancy. I would feel like I failed to give my unborn baby the attention it needed for whatever condition to be picked up.

Until evidence against ultrasound scanning outwieghs the benefits of it I will continue to have my scans.

Tnaks very much for reading...it's been an interesting post.

Food for thought:

www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasound.asp

Having recently had a mmc at 13 weeks (baby died at 12 weeks), I'm damn glad I had an ultrasound. Heaven knows how long my body wold have taken to stop thinking it was pregnant. This way I found out, had an ERPC and am now almost ready to start ttc again. If I hadn't had the ultrasound I might still think I was pregnant

Loopylouise - The statistics about having weekly scans and how they improve outcomes for women who have had recurrent miscarriage is in the book "Miscarriage - what every woman should know" by Professor Lesley Regan. I can't remember the exact statistics, but it's something like weekly scans in the first trimester lead to a 70 - 80% chance of a successful pregnancy, compared to only a 50% chance normally. I think this is based on women who attend her clinic at St Mary's hospital London. I don't know if these results have been published in medical journals, or if so, where they have been published. However, the national guidelines on for obstreticans on how to treat women with recurrent miscarriage seems to take these results on board as currently advice is that this group should be offered early reassurance scans.

What I'm saying is - just have a late scan for praevia.

musthaveaveryshortmemory If you dont have a 12/20 week scan that raises the possibility of placenta praevia then you wont be offered a scan later on to check the placentas position, because no-one will know it is a problem.

Picking up a placenta praevia is an excellent reason to scan. But as the placenta has the potential to move out of the way until 32 weeks (or thereabouts, this is when they definitively say "you need a section") this isn't a reason for a 12/20 week scan. In fact you could argue that being told your placenta is low lying at 20 weeks is really unhelpful. In the absence of bleeding it is meaningless and just gives us something else to worry about...

Having said that - the scans gave me enormous peace of mind which outweighed my concerns that their safety has not been thoroughly ascertained.

Kaylo - some people may say it is negligent to have a scan when the potential side effects (esp long term) are unclear.

gorionine no scans are not the same as x-rays. I think OP was just pointing out that x-rays had been considered safe during pregnancy then it was realised years later that they weren't. It is possible same could happen with scans. (correct me if I'm wrong, OP)

I find this quite interesting. I have never had any scans in any of my 3 pregnancies. Not because of safety issues (although I don't believe there have been sufficient studies to say they have no ill-effects) but because I personally found them unnecessary. I knew my dates and I didn't want any screening as I would continue pregnancy regardless so knowing anything wouldn't effect me.

What I find interesting is that people can have such a debate about this decision. it is the same as any other decision as to what people want to accept or decline. There wouldn't be the same attitudes if discussing 'routine' amnio!

Just to pick the first I noticed, Kaylo states that it is "negligent" to decline a scan! That is a very weighted word to use for someone else's decision.

To OP - I didn't regret it at all. And I was not supported...the first MW I saw was in total agreement with me but after that I saw a cow different mw who could not understand my 'refusal'.

deslamer: stupid question alert but...

Are scans the same as X rays?I have never thought so and might have misunderstood Op.

Wrt the "abortion scan" personnaly, I had the two offered scans for all my Dcs and would not have considered an abortion even if something had been "wrong", but I agree with LaDiDaDi that it would have helped me in my choice of delivery (hospital or home for example).

neolara - I would love to see some evidence that regular scanning in the first trimester reduces risk of recurrent miscarriage?

I really think that calling a 20 week scan an "abortion scan" would be a gross misrepresentation. I know of several individuals who had 20 week scans which picked up significant anomalies that meant that their babies were delivered in specific hospitals so that they could be attended to by neonatal and surgical teams experienced in those anomalies.

Really you wouldn't want a baby with [[ http://www.med.umich.edu/fdtc/images/art_gastroschisis.jpg gastroschisis]] delivered at home (not knocking hbs btw) or anwhere other than a tertiary centre with access immediately to an experienced paediatric surgical team. I think that USS scan make a very significant difference to outcomes in certain situations.

At the end of the day you can do whatever you like. However if you start googling anything you will scare yourself half to death.

It is definitely true that the potential benefits outweigh the risks (apart from nuchal which seems to frighten many on here half to death and I am quite about). It is also true that most of our mothers never had them and survived.

i'm glad i have had scans. my previous pregnancy to this one showed a missed miscarriage at the 12 week scan, never had any bleeding or pain or anything. this turned out to be a molar pregnancy which could have turned very very nasty had it not been caught early. so i'll keep having scans thanks. 3 so far in this pregnancy, and i'm 17 weeks.

There are loads of things that are picked up on a 20 week scan that require monitoring and may need extra help during or after birth but would not lead people to have an abortion.

I cant believe anyone would decline a scan - they have a purpose...

What about people who have placenta previa? They have weekly scans because the condition is life threatening to both mother and child.

It is negligent imo. It's the first step of being responsible and wanting to check the baby is healthy without problems.

What if there wasn't enough water? Or too much water? Or the placenta had broken away? Or there were more than one baby?

I found out my baby had died at the 12 week dating scan. There had been no sign whatsoever that anything was wrong. In addition, the foetus showed no sign of coming away by itself. If left to it's own devices, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have miscarried naturally for a few more weeks. Having also had earlier miscarriages, I can categorically say that for me it was massively more traumatic to find out about the loss of my baby so late. Finding out at 12 weeks was pretty crap. Finding out at 15 or 16 weeks would have been been absolutely devastating. A scan wouldn't have altered the outcome, but it did dramatically make a pretty shit situation much better than it could have been otherwise.

Incidentally, there is evidence that regular scanning in the first trimester on women who have experienced recurrent miscarriage can lead to a much higher rate of live births.

loopylouise

You are incorrect about the purpose of the 20 week scan. It can also identify a need for further monitoring of the baby while the pregnancy progresses or that treatment may be required shortly after birth.
Calling it an 'abortion scan' would be misleading.

I'm opting for as few scans as possible. The 20 week 'anomaly scan' should really only be done if the parents are willing to abort if there is something wrong. If not then the scan is pointless. However, calling it an 'abortion scan' is likely to upset a lot of parents, hence the euphemistic title.

A scan won't make an unhealthy pregnancy healthy, it won't stop a miscarriage. All it can do is put the mother's mind at rest, though there is evidence that the false-positives found in nuchal scans can increase the risk of late miscarriage through stress. Conversely some women find that scans ease stress, and that is their perogative to choose to have scans. I do think women should be informed that there may be risks attached, but maybe it is up to us to inform ourselves. Medical staff and scientists are not infallible, though we often treat them as though they are.

I am opting to have no scans at all as long as my pregnancy progresses healthily, because a scan won't make any difference at all to the pregnancy outcome.

hmm, I have always worried about this a bit, as there are no large studies about the long term effects of scanning as far as I know. I was scanned as a fetus and I seem alright as do my children and most of my friends children, but for me until there is a big study, there will always be a niggling doubt.

I didn't have scans because I don't really go in for lots of appointments etc. With number 3 I didn't tell the doctor I was expecting until she caught me in the supermarket at 7 months. Number 4 wasn't scanned till 42 weeks to check the placenta.

redted - do you really need to check size and dates?

For me this is the weakest reason for a scan - especially as I'm pretty sure the scan I has a 13 weeks with DS2 incorrectly dated him/me (us?), IMO.

This would be the U.S.A who CT everyone rather then X-ray them, giving them all whopping doses of x-ray because they don't have a bloody clue??

Well I was looking at the statement from the WHO and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report (on the unhindered living website) which ends in

"the potential for delayed effects has been virtually ignored".

I take this to be fairly unbiased as I can't see the financial benefit to anyone of not doing ultrasounds.

Still looking for a large study looking at long term effects of US and demonstrating its safety. Can't believe there doesn't seem to be one easily available.

How can you take a piece of research seriously when its been done by a company or someone with an interest in the outcome (e.g. unhindered living society or whatever it was). I was always taught that useful research should have no bias.

Ive had 3 scans already, one at 8 weeks, one at 11 weeks, one at 12 weeks and still have another 2 to go.
I love looking at my baby and would rather know of any problems, and of anything I could do to save my babies life with regards to placenta or inutero surgery

BTW I was scanned (as a feotus) weekly from 20weeks ish to term and I seem OK.

DTDs were scanned fortnightly from 18wks to 26wks (when they were delivered) and they seem fine (at 8). one of DTDs is left handed - which I have heard associated with increased scanning. but she is a monochornic diamontiotic twin - which again is another risk fator for left handedness - so which US not necessarily relevant.

DD3 was scanned - with US directed at her head via a trnas-vaginal scan every fortnight from 18wks to 32wks. Again no harm.

I'm having scans because I need to see my baby and know that its really there In fact I had an extra scan done privately because NHS couldnt get me an appointment until I was 15wks and I was so anxious about the whole thing. Yes, the pics all look the same - but theres nothing like the moment you actually see that little body and its wiggling - it really exists!
I also find it reassuring when everything looks 'normal' during the scan. I'm not naive enough to think that this means there will not be problems, but it puts my mind at rest for the time being.

This is what I found yesterday, which admitedly is quite old. here

Some people have said that babies can be saved if certain things are known about them before the birth, this article definately suggests that the overall outcomes are not better even if this is the case. In fact I have read in the past that babies actually do worse because they are induced early, have sections etc if problems are known, so not an actual side effect of ultrasound but a consequence. Can't find that one now though.

Someone said that my 2 are ok after having been scanned but I had quick ones with them to check dates and size. They took all of a few minutes each, not like a 20 week scan where there is alot more exposure to ultrasound. It is true that they are fine, but they are only 2 and 4.

I tried to get a copy of the midirs informed choice leaflet from their website but it didn't work so maybe I will be able to get one from my antenatal clinic when I am a bit further on.

Thanks for all your replies and helpful suggestions.

MustHave - I think that last abstract is a little mis-leading. Based on that abstract (and TBH there could be alternative interpretations of it) it looks as though the "harm" is not from the ultrasound itself but from the unnessary interventions that a non favourable observation may lead to.

Haven't read any of the other stuff in detail to comment.

It's like x-rays though (not the same exposure), there needs to be a clinical need for it. In antenatal screening there is a need. If the baby is in need of urgent medical attention immediatly after delivery then this can be planned as the team know. A dopler ultrasuond isn't the same as a foetal ultrasuond IIRC, a dopler looks at the blood flow through the placenta and umbilical cord rather then at the fluid levels, size of the baby and internal organs. The link that you have posted did say that further studies are needed to establish whether problems found in pregnancy were due to the use of the doppler or some other reason and the paper is from 1999, so it's 10 years old. I'll look for some up to date research in the morning.

Yes I've just been looking for the other side of the story but not finding what I expected.

For eg www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001450.html

Going to bed now but will have another look tomorrow.

BTW redted - I know one person who declined all scans because of concerns about safety. At the time I thought this was a bit OTT but perhaps her caution was justified? You could just ask them to check for a heartbeat at the 12 week scan???

People have scans to check for abnormalities. It is (obviously) not just a way of seeing your baby early. Sometimes things are picked up on that might save your baby's life. And the 20-week scan they check for EVERYTHING.

I can't understand why you wouldn't take up this offer of checking up on your baby. I don't think it could be that risky - for years and years people have been having them and there have been no ill effects. I had to have several in both pregnancies and will not hesitate this time around either.

I bet if you looked hard enough you'd find things on the web telling you that x-rays are safe! I'll have to get back to you on that one, although the site uses studies from the Lancet there are bits of info missing and it's not a credited site so I'm unsure whether this info is legitimate or not. They are all old studies aswell so I need to look for some up to date info. Sites like this are biased so only tell what they want, not the rest of the story.

"Ultrasound uses sound waves and has been extensively researched and there are no effects"

Interested to read this as like redted I had heard differently. Didn't have to look far to find this article which is referenced at the bottom
www.unhinderedliving.com/pultra.html

Is this out of date FluffyBunny? Have there been large, long term follow ups of the effects of US?

I had an US to check the position of the placenta, confirm there was just one and at 12 weeks make sure there was a heartbeat.

Hi
They use ultrasound for alot of reasons, size, to look at the fluid, blood flow, baby's internal organs. I'm a student radiographer and have looked into the effects of ultrasound and radiation via x-rays, as far as x-rays go, the scientists in the early days of it's development were getting health problems from the radiation so it has been known since x-rays became widespread that there are risks involved, it's not a new thing, it's been known since the late 1800s. Ultrasound uses sound waves and has been extensively researched and there are no effects.

You can decline the scans if you wish but they are used to check on the development and to make sure everything is how it should be. No one will force you to have them if you don't want them. They are very useful though and like all other medical tests, you wouldn't have them if they were not necessary.

Umm, I had nuchal screening at 12 weeks, plus the 20 week one, and one at 37 weeks when i was admitted for too much fluid and transverse lie, and one at 39 weeks when they sent me home again...The last one was particularly lovely. A full grown baby just waiting to come out! I don't understand why you are so worried about this....?

I'll be having the NHS scan at 12 adn 20 weeks and possibly a private at 8 weeks.

Multiple reasons:

It's our first baby and we want a peek at our baby.

Because of the risk of a mmc and not knowing for however long it took for nature to take it's course.

To check for twins etc.

The prepare for any 'issues' that can be spotted during a scan.

To check the position of the placenta.

Not saying that scans are the only way of checking these things but the level of risk to which you refer to no higher than a number of things I do on a daily basis so I'm happy to run the risk.

Also, you've had scans with your first two, has anything happened to them that has indicated the scans were risky?

redted because it is for screening. Most will have no better outcome because the outcome is a well baby regardless. But for those who have a poorly baby, the knowledge can save their child's life.

Why does anyone do anything?

Numerous reasons.

Also they check the position of the placenta and it can be dangerous if its low at birth but if they know you can avoid doing things more likely to cause a rupture, You find out if there is more than one baby, dates.

Because if there is something wrong, then you can be prepared - eg some babies need surgery immediately after being born, or even in utero - this can be detected by ultrasound and then the necessary care arrangements can be provided.

You could always look at someone elses picture, they all look the same to me!!

Er....becuause we really, really want a peak at our baby, and maybe find out the sex?

I am in the very early stages of pregnancy and not sure yet whether or not to have an ultrasound scan. In the area that I live two are offered, one at 12 weeks, one at 20 weeks. I definately won't have two but may choose to have one, probably at 20 weeks.

The thing is I have looked in to it a bit and found a few things that suggest that it may not be as safe as everyone seems to think it is. It has only been around since 1955, it used to be thought that x rays were safe in pregnancy, but now no one would do one due to the risks to the fetus.

There is also a large research study that suggests that women who were scanned routinely as opposed to those who were only scanned if there were problems had no better outcomes than those who were only scanned as indicated.

Anyone else declined scans? Did you regret it, did you get supported in your choice?

It is my third baby, I did have scans with the other two, with the first because I bled a bit and with the second because I was worried after the first one. Thankfully they both seem ok.