trans-vaginal ultrasound for no medical reason - Virginia, anti-choice

Ectopic pregnancy is a serious medical condition that is very painful, leads to the loss of a fallopian tube and sometimes the ovary and can lead to death if not detected sooner. How very dare you!

I have had two miscarriages and believe me the amount of blood lost lead me to believe that it was so. Despite that I did have to have a scan, very distressing, to ascertain that there was no longer a baby. I was lumped in with pregnant mums at the time.

As for miscarriages fewer than 8 weeks, all those I know who had them have said that it wasn't the same as a 12 week or more miscarriage. They knew they had lost the baby, but the blood loss was not the same.

I've seen women being adamant they're 7 or eight weeks only to have a scan and find they're more than 13 weeks and our hospital won't do termination at over thirteen weeks. They have to be referred to a different hospital.

So they either have got their dates wrong or they're lying in order to not have to go to a different hospital/town.

Or those unfortunate women who believed that total breastfeeding was a contraceptive measure.

How is that being treated as a child? Sometimes people are mistaken and are a significantly different gestation from what they thought. Sometimes the foetus isnt in the uterus at all. I dont know how women are meant to magically be sure that the pregnancy isnt ectopic.
The woman may have had a missed miscarriage. It could be helpful for people in that situation to be aware of that.

But those that do want to see the images should pay for it privately?

Dating scans are for those who are on contraception and get pregnant. In my day that was the case.

So women are being treated as children, they don't know their last period and so therefore should be subjected to scans, transvaginal or otherwise, because of their infantile brains. Women simply don't understand their cycles and have no idea of how long they are gone? I can't believe this. Are we simply going to to be treated in this manner?

Brainless women of the world unite!

I suppose at least they have the option of looking at the scan or not. I wonder if it's a back covering exercise for the clinics? So women can't turn round and say that they feel they should have been offered the option of seeing the scan. In our compensation culture the clinics maybe are worried about being sued.

A study in the uk found that 24% Of women having a termination said they'd have liked to have seen the ultrasound pictures with a further 13% having seen them.

So the majority of women don't want to see the images which is fine. But there are some that do and if some do shouldn't they be offered this option?

Dworkin

Its possible to be wrong about gestation though - thats why people who are intending to carry on with the pregnancy are also routinely offered dating scans.

When I had my abortion in the late 90s (married with two children at the time, which seems to be the norm), I was treated as a human being who knew what she was saying. I can't believe that ultrasounds are now the norm in the UK. This is a disgrace.

The wording on the bill just says about determining gestation, not capturing detailed images, so I imagine that the proportion of people who need a transvaginal scan will be the same as in women who are having dating scans for other reasons.

viva is spot on with her info

forum.sofeminine.co.uk/forum/f61/__f439_f61-Cant-see-baby-on-scan-so-cant-have-medical-abortion-yet-but-i-am-pregnant.html

Marie stopes insist on ultrasounds as well, ironically the woman here is upset because they won't do a vaginal scan.

Viva - I don't think it's a case of people not realising that scans are used in the UK to additionally confirm the pregnancy and also its placement - from the bpas website it's made very clear what a woman would be told when seeking a termination.

It's the attitude and wording of the Bill that's at issue:

"Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat."

That isn't about ensuring best medical practice - if it were, the wording of the bill would be very different and be aimed at doctors.

Abdominal scans sometimes won't work due to high bmi.

Or won't work if the gestation is too early, normally prior to 6.5 weeks I think. Though if they can't see anything they won't just say that's ok, you must be earlier than 6.5 weeks so let's book you in for a termination. They'd be concerned that it's an ectopic they're missing, or someone who isn't even pregnant. So they will want to actually see the fetus.

I can't see in the article where it says it will definitely be a trans-vaginal ultrasound, am I missing it? I also read the link to the bill itself, where I couldn't see it either. However, what gives this away as a totally anti-choice bill, and ideologically based rather than about the women's health, is that the person doing the scan will be required to get the woman to sign a certificate saying she has been offered the opportunity to see the 'fetus' and hear the heartbeat and that this certificate must be kept in her medical notes. Since this is clearly irrelevant to the health care professional's need to see how far along the pregnancy is, it's clearly a move to persuade the woman to change her mind about the abortion. Terrible.

Mitchie so do i. Its so hideous i can barely comprehend it. And yet apparently there is no need for feminism anymore. We ve got our equality already. .
Its still a long way away.

Why do you feel that there is a problem with scanning though? The specific procedure used to abort the pregnancy depends on gestation, so that needs to be determined.

Same here in France: you need to have a scan to determine gestation and if nothing is visible on the abdominal scan, you need to have transvaginal one. There is also a compulsory one week wait between going to the doctor and going to the hospital to sign up for termination (which is then performed within next few days).

It makes sense to me that it is better to be certain of gestation and to make sure it isn't ectopic pregnancy etc, but I agree it shouldn't be the lawmakers deciding and it is clearly a politically motivated decision.

I think the law where you have to look at the scan is active only in Texas.

Well in the 90s it certainly wasn't a requirement, at least not in the places I lived. I am quite shocked by that.

I'm just surprised that people don't seem to realise that it happens here already.

No I'm not saying that vaginal scans are standard. I'm saying they are used in this country prior to a termination if an abdominal scan doesn't work. Women do have to consent to it and if they didn't consent then it wouldn't be done, but then neither would the termination. I never saw anyone not consent but I would guess if they didn't consent they'd have to come back a week later to see if another abdominal scan would work.

But the article is saying that vaginal scans in Virginia aren't standard. Just to be used in cases where an abdominal ultrasound doesn't work, so the same as here.

I do take the point that in Virginia it isn't the doctors who want this and I agree it ought to be up to a doctor and decided on an individual basis if they feel a scan is needed. But I really don't think that happens here, if it's hospital policy that every woman must be scanned prior to termination then the doctors still aren't getting a say in treatment of individuals.