Advanced search

Would you like to be a member of our research panel? Join here - there's (nearly) always a great incentive offered for your views.

Are scans potentially damaging to baby?

(45 Posts)
Jptb Mon 20-Jan-14 11:41:53

Newly pregnant and have been offered an early scan at seven weeks. I was doing some research and came across this article, and similar, which have got me panicking a bit. Any opinions please, especially from any midwives or sonogrammers here please?

MyNameIsWinkly Mon 20-Jan-14 11:49:35

How unsafe can it be? Its sound waves, the exact same thing that bounces off and through your stomach when you speak, just at a slightly different frequency. In the nicest possible way, you're going to have a very long and stressful pregnancy if you look for danger from every unqualified 'alternative practicioner.'

UriGeller Mon 20-Jan-14 11:51:20


Scans are a vital tool to help diagnose potential problems with your baby.

In 30 years of them being used as standard diagnostic tool in the NHS on almost every pregnancy there have been NO instances of damage to the unborn child or the mother.

Congratulations on your pregnancy! Please take care of yourselves.

puddleduck16 Mon 20-Jan-14 11:58:18

If you read this closely and look at the studies then the words "not significantly different results" crops up a few times and also "proves there MAY be a correlation but not a causation". This author has highlighted choice words and phrases to turn these studies to his point of view.
I also notice that this article is all one sided and he hasn't pointed out what good can come of getting scans. (for example how many mothers may have bled to death with placenta praevia giving birth vaginally as opposed to this being picked up on the scan and therefore getting Csection.)

scaevola Mon 20-Jan-14 12:00:04

Even the article you link down't say there is a causal link between number and type of scans and poor outcomes.

As pregnancies where potential problems are identified are the ones which receive most scans, there's a huge confounder simply with that.

One of the most recent papers the author of the article links is to a 2009 WHO analysis, which finds no association with poorer outcomes.

And when you consider the life saving potential of scanning, I think it would be highly imprudent to decline when there is no known association to harm and millions of safely scanned PGs.

Jptb Mon 20-Jan-14 12:00:56

smile ok, thank you so much for putting my mind at rest. smile

I just wondered if it could be attributed to things that are hard to find a cause of, eg add, aspergers, etc.

And thanks, uri, I will do my best!

ChicaMomma Mon 20-Jan-14 12:01:17

I had 4 between 9 and 13 weeks too (2 were scheduled, 2 werent due to a bleed) and it was only afterwards i read that it could possibly be linked to things like autism. Thank you google. Atlhough i doubt there's anything to worry about, I think i'll avoid any more unnecessary scans though to be on the safe side, such as the 4D scan that you get offered later on. i will have the 'big' 20 week scan in a few weeks and then i'm happy to wait until closer to my due date i think..

Jptb Mon 20-Jan-14 12:08:15

That's what concerned me, chica. I am being offered 7 weeks, then all being well, just 12 and 20. It's so hard!

ChicaMomma Mon 20-Jan-14 12:10:00

definitely have the early one, it's such a great relief to see the heartbeat! although i was advised to wait until 8-9 weeks if i could, as you see more, 7 is quite early. as an aside!

Jptb Mon 20-Jan-14 12:11:44

I will feel relieved to see a heartbeat and know embryo is in the right place, though you never feel relaxed, do you! Must just try and enjoy the pregnancy. Are you due soon?

LaVitaBellissima Mon 20-Jan-14 12:12:50

I had identical twins was wS routinely scanned every two weeks. I'd never even heard of any risks. They are now 3 btw and seem NT x

ChicaMomma Mon 20-Jan-14 12:15:20

i am only 19 weeks so quite some time to go yet!
You do relax more though after the 12 week scan- but already now i'm up the walls about the 'anomaly' scan at 20 weeks.. but as my mum said, i've signed up to a lifetime of worry now, welcome to motherhood smile

MyNameIsWinkly Mon 20-Jan-14 12:17:16

Pregnancy is a huge worry, in general it's best to step away from Google and just stick to MN and the NHS websites if you need to know anything, by the second page of Google you can get horror stories for just about anything.

Jptb Mon 20-Jan-14 12:18:06

Thanks, lvb, and congrats on twins!

Half way, chica. This is my second. I am six weeks. And yeah, you do relax as it goes on. But yes, the concern is always here. smile I think I'll be even more stressed when they are teens! smile

Jptb Mon 20-Jan-14 12:18:48

winkly, you are right! Mustn't Google!

SaggyOldClothCatPuss Mon 20-Jan-14 12:26:00

God I hope there isn't an issue! confused
By the time baby gets here, we will be up to around a dozen scans!!!

MissMedusa Mon 20-Jan-14 12:32:03

There is a 100% chance I would have lost this baby by 20 weeks if I hadn't had an ultrasound to check the length of my cervix. I have found no statistically significant verifiable evidence that ultrasounds cause any damage to the fetus.

highlove Mon 20-Jan-14 12:37:07

I really hope not - I've had ten so far and another one next week. All for medical reasons.

Seriously, step away from google - voice of experience here.. You will find advice from every kind of random nutter claiming that almost anything you care to think of will damage your unborn baby and making spurious cod-scientific claims to back up their crazy ideas. Avoid, avoid, avoid is the best advice.

Best of luck with your pregnancy.

ChicaMomma Mon 20-Jan-14 12:39:37

Google really can be your best friend and worst enemy. It is so informative but can be so dangerously scary too. When i had my 'bleed' at 10 weeks google led me to believe that i had a 50/50 chance of miscarrying- which of course is a ridiculous statistics, the sonographer laughed in my face when i told her i'd seen it online. She said it's more common to bleed than not yet google was telling me i'd probably lose the baby..

Jptb Mon 20-Jan-14 13:07:37

Many thanks, everyone.

Good luck to everyone who is pregnant.

loopylouu Mon 20-Jan-14 13:10:44

Due to pian/bleeding etc I have had around 12 scans so far from just 6 weeks (30 weeks now). Due another in 2 weeks.

stopgap Mon 20-Jan-14 13:16:46

I've had two scans a week from week 30 (GD) in addition to the twelve-week scan and the twenty-week scan. I've vaguely heard of this before re: sonograms, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of evidence to suggest it's the case.

livingzuid Mon 20-Jan-14 14:32:05

Six scans here so far at 20+2. Which started at six weeks. 20 week scan was amazing to watch! Will have at least another 3 before birth.

livingzuid Mon 20-Jan-14 14:33:10

I think one of the recons they don't want to scan you too often at the start is the uneccesary angst it can cause if nothing much shows up. It's best to wait and see what happens, hard though that is.

livingzuid Mon 20-Jan-14 14:34:11

Reasons nor recons

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now