AIBU to feel uneasy about the safety evidence for pregnancy ultrasounds?

More chronic conditions today compared to when? And which conditions?

One reason that non-communicable diseases are more prevalent now than say, 150 years ago, is because far fewer people are dying from communicable diseases and life expectancy is longer. Thanks to advances in medicine and technology.

Unless you are conducting a formal systematic review on some aspect of the safety of particular ultrasound technology, you really, really do not have the full current picture. You can't just read a few random articles to understand the whole picture.

My husbands left handed. He's by far a more competent adult than I am 😂

Please get some support for your anxiety. How do you possibly have time or headspace for this research when you have a baby. It's higher risk to drive to your scan that it is to have a scan.

Women have been having ultrasounds in pregnancy for decades without any side effects. I really wouldn't worry about it.

And surely this is something where the benefits outweigh the risk. Ultrasounds and scans are vital for the health and wellbeing of the unborn baby and mother. How else would any vital concerns or issued be picked up?

Didn't they used to routinely x-ray pregnant women up until the 70s? It's got to be a better idea to use ultrasound, surely.

It’s obviously difficult to work out at a population level as by definition the higher risk pregnancies are going to have more scans. I had a IUGR baby on background of a lot of scans - but it was an IVF pregnancy with an early vanishing twin and significant bleeds in mid pregnancy - so the IUGR was due to the reasons for the scans not the scans themselves.

I was anxious in my early pregnancy due to it being ivf and having a physical job, I honestly think I got about 6 private scans before 12 weeks! I also read afterwards about the potential harm but my son is absolutely fine, no side effects, but he is left handed ... as was his grandmas, his nana, his uncle and more in the family.

One of mine had 21 u/s, and most were not short either and had u/s tech do it, then fetal medicine specialist come in and have a quick go and chat (so I have included all those as 1, not 2). They are an adult, nothing wrong with them apart from the issue that they needed the intensive monitoring for in the first place. Not left handed but who cares.

All seems very hysterical.

Mine was because they weren’t readily available. It was an ultrasound that picked up my bloke’s cancer. Be grateful for modern science @Nc4dis.

Nothing in life is risk free.

Every time you breathe you are taking a risk. Every time you eat something. Every thing you do.

Ultrasound scans have been researched and used for decades and the risk is minimal, so obsessing over something like this makes you sound neurotic.

Or are you the type of parent where not so much as a spec of processed food passes the lips of your child? Because quite frankly feeding children biscuits is likely to have a far more profound affect on them than an ultrasound in the womb...

The combination of 'reassurance scan' and alllllll the thinking about scans. Anxiety at all OP?

Not a left handed child! I’d much rather have one born with a life threatening condition personally.

exactly, I don't think thread was posted with good intentions.

When were you pregnant?

Just go for the medically recommended nhs scans and don’t go for extra private scans as per “alara” principle.

I understand how this could concern you, but I do not think it is worth worrying about this. If there were significant impacts of scans that would be pretty clear by now, given that they have been part of the process for every pregnant woman for so long now.

If you are pregnant again I urge you not to skip any scans. My child’s serious disability was picked up at their 12-week scan, and was not noticeable on later scans.

We are so lucky to have access to the medical technology we have in this country. Women in many parts of the world, and their children, suffer greatly because they don’t have access to the same.

Realistically, your baby was in much more danger on the drive to the scan than from any potential harm from the scan itself. We weigh up risks all the time, as a previous poster said.

Most other countries scan women far more often than we do in the U.K. and pretty much every baby gets those scans. If there was actual harm it would be obvious at a population level.

NIPT is expensive and not a viable option for the NHS. It also doesn’t confirm the location of the pregnancy or the placenta.

I don’t see how ethically they can do a trial where one group is scanned and the other group isn’t.

Ultrasounds identifies babies that are struggling or have structural differences in their anatomy that require attention. They also tell us how many babies are in there, baby’s position and how well the placenta is functioning.

I had a pregnancy where I bled horrifically during the first and second trimester. Ultrasound was the only way to know if the baby was even still in there or alive.

Pre-natal care is optional. You can decline the parts you don’t want. There’s a whole movement of women who have ‘wild’ pregnancies where they don’t engage with standard prenatal care but when you do that you also have to take ownership of the risks/downsides.

The whole world present a risk. You weigh up the risks and benefits. And do you know what? In this case, you dont even have to do that because medically trained professionals have done it for you.

From the age of 3 until around 12, I had regular xrays on my head. There was no thoigh of the damage that they could cause and actually I'm in my 60s now and ok! CTs and ultrasounds are ridiculously safe in comparison

It’s all a balance of risks vs benefits. Benefits of ultrasounds outweigh the risks. Just don’t have any of those 4d unnecessary ones

I understand your worries. It is a medical test with very clear advantages. The risks probably do need looking into a bit more, but the benefits are so strong, they outweigh the potential risks.

Spend a minute thinking about other tests that are done and what risks they might have. X-rays use radiation which we know is dodgy. But the benefits are worth it. A blood test can cause bruising, haematoma or infection. Contrast during radiological tests can cause anaphylaxis. Allergy testing is pretty risky.

Pretty much everything in healthcare carries a risk. The decision to test is always balanced against the risk/benefit. This is why extra scans to just ‘have a peek’ or the 4D scanning is frowned upon. There is no medical benefit to these, so they should not be done.

These are vital diagnostic tools that save lives, but perhaps best not to have those high street ones just because you can pay