Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think its a bit weird they are using the name already?

166 replies

LolaBellsAllTheWay · 27/12/2010 06:51

Sil is 23 weeks pregnant with a boy (as told at 20 week scan). The ils were at ours for dinner yesterday and she is refering to the baby by the chosen name, as is mil and other sil.

I just find this a bit weird. When i was pregnant with dds we knew both times and although we had names we didn't use them incase they didn't suit it, or the scan was wrong.

It might be grating on me a little as it was our choice if dds had been ds.

I also noticed that bil wasn't using it but i know he's not entirely happy with the choice so i find it weird that sil is using it before they've agreed on it.

Is it weird?

OP posts:
BearCrimble · 27/12/2010 11:17

Sakura When you have evidence from a controlled double blind trial why don't you come back and quote that? Then there'll be some weight behind your claims.

That site you have linked to also says:

"But it is also true that further review of studies that found problems has questioned their conclusions, their small size, their many confounding factors, and the difficulty others have had replicating the results".

There is no point quoting from flawed data.

Medical practitioners in the UK do not offer ultrasounds without good reason. In fact lots of women who suffer pain and/or bleeding in pregnancy and go on to miscarry suffer more because they sometimes have to wait DAYS for an ultrasound to confirm this.

Curiousmama · 27/12/2010 11:20

Just goes to show by this thread that everyone is different. It's not that one sided is it?

I can't remember if I called dss by their names before birth? I know we kept the sex and names from everyone else until birth but not sure if I used them in private?

I don't think it's 'unlucky' to name and bond with the unborn. Babies and children die but we don't think 'let's not bond too much just in case?' I don't believe in luck or superstition though.

BearCrimble · 27/12/2010 11:21

Edit to previous post: Obviously not double blind as people will know if they're scanning someone or not! But a large scale study that stand up to replication.

sakura · 27/12/2010 11:22

I will have a look for the research.
I haven't pulled the info out of thin air, and I am not trying to scaremonger. That link was just the first one I came accross after being accused of scaremongering. I just wanted to show that nobody knows the effects of scans.

Where the benefits outweigh the risks, of course a scan should be used

BUt some people, even some doctors, don't think there's any problem with lots of scans

I think that women do have an emotional investment in scans, and this is the point I was trying to make. Also, as an aside, I think that scans

sakura · 27/12/2010 11:24

I mean nobody knows how they affect the brain, only that there are correlations [will look for the evidence]. COnsidering the fact that nobody knows, it's worrying that they're used with such abandon

RudeEnglishLady · 27/12/2010 11:28

Trouble is, theres so much stuff "nobody knows" about pregnancy and babies in utero. I was amazed at what Doctors told me they didn't know! They said its to do with the problems and ethics around testing and research on pregnant ladies.

Some people like the natural approach, some people like having a look - you've just got to do what you think is best based on what is available to you at the time.

I am thankful I live where I do and have choices.

pozzled · 27/12/2010 11:30

"I think that women do have an emotional investment in scans, and this is the point I was trying to make."

But I honestly don't get why you think it is such a bad thing for mothers to feel this, or to bond with their unborn babies. Seeing your baby on screen is emotional, it certainly helped me to think of it as real. Becoming a parent is a huge change, a lot of women (and men but especially women) find it hard to cope with at first. Why is it wrong to start preparing emotionally for this change before birth?

It seems as though you are suggesting we shouldn't 'bond' until we know for certain that the baby is going to be with us forever, and of course we will never ever get that guarantee.

RudeEnglishLady · 27/12/2010 11:31

Sakura - The study I found to do with this was in the Journal Epidemiology and was carried out by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, if that helps.

sakura · 27/12/2010 11:32

RudeEnglishLady thank you, yes that's what I think

pozzled I think there's a reason women don't tend to bond with their babies until they've had a scan to "make it real"
The reason is nature: the notorious unpredictability of pregnancy and birth

wewishyouamerrylissiemas · 27/12/2010 11:34

ok, so pregnant women should refuse scans because we dont know the effects? and despite the fact that many children born with difficulties, are products of challenging pregnancies/births and there is no godly way of knowing what the outcome may have been had the mother refused all scans and/or medical treatment (as an aside, what about using dopplers to check for heartbeats?) hospitals are negligent in offering scans at 12 weeks (when most mmc's are detected) or when a woman has bleeding? or just a feeling there is something wrong? (the main reason I insisted on a scan for my EP)

sakura · 27/12/2010 11:35

ANd.. I think capitalism has a lot to answer for. WOmen are bombarded with messages of consumerism and consumption from the moment they conceive. Choosing and painting the nursery blue or pink... You can buy scans to keep as a DVD, and those scans are much stronger than the hospital ones, but there are no government regulations into that industry AFAIK. WHy?

Curiousmama · 27/12/2010 11:35

Sakure life is unpredictable.

Curiousmama · 27/12/2010 11:35

Sakura

sakura · 27/12/2010 11:36

wewish of course not. As I've repeated ad nauseum. Scans have a place.

But multiple scans for no good reason- no, I don't think any good can come of that

wewishyouamerrylissiemas · 27/12/2010 11:36

im out.

Lulumaam · 27/12/2010 11:37

lots of women have maybe one or two scans. some have many more. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that one or two scans or even 10 or 12 scans gives rise to problems..

there are many unpredicatable outcomes in pregnancy and birth.. having a scan at 20 weeks or so is essential IMO, as some of these problems can be picked up on.

some problems will produce symptoms.. i.e bleeding with a low lying placenta. some won't, but can be picked up on with palapation..e/g transverse lie...big/small for dates, too much/too little fluid

nature can be cruel and outcomes can be uncertain, but one or two scans in pregnancy can prevent or predict certain bad outcomes and that is a good thing

Lulumaam · 27/12/2010 11:39

multiple scans without good reason are not given out willy nillly , cetrainly not in the NHS,

multiple scans are usually for issues such as bleeding, IUGR, big/small for dates, placental issues, GD, not just because the woman fancies seeing her baby again

onimolap · 27/12/2010 11:39

the ethical reason for no more studies is the overwhelming evidence of the benefits of scans. To have a further study of large enough size to be statistcally valid would require a large control group of unscanned mothers. There would be preventable deaths and other complications for the babies and mothers in that group.

pozzled · 27/12/2010 11:42

"The reason is nature: the notorious unpredictability of pregnancy and birth"

Yes, but life is incredibly unpredictable. Babies, children and adults could die at any moment- we can't go around trying not to bond with others 'just in case'.

I know that there is a greater risk of something happening before/at birth rather than afterwards but the vast majority of women in late pregnancy will have a healthy baby.

The idea of deliberately 'not bonding' with an unborn child is completely alien to me. If it works for you and others, that is fine, none of my business. But it would not feel right to me, and I'm absolutely sure it wouldn't be in my best interests, no matter what the outcome.

sakura · 27/12/2010 11:46

No, I agree pozzled. I don't think you should deliberately 'not bond'. But I think that there is a good reason why women tend not to bond as strongly before they've had a scan

sakura · 27/12/2010 11:48

onimolap, if you're that confident about scans, you shouldn't have a problem with comparing a large group of women who were scanned twice with a group scanned 20 times, then?

lucy101 · 27/12/2010 11:49

I had a sense something was wrong with my baby at 31 weeks... I took myself off for a scan at the FMC and sadly we discovered major problems (we lost her at 33 weeks) that had either not been present or not been picked up at the 20 week scan.

I am very glad that I live in a time where I could do this and I know of several baby's and mother's lives saved by timely scans.

This pregnancy I have subsequently been scanned a great deal and I also checked out research to see the risk of this and found nothing that would worry me.

As to bonding with the baby, this is so complex. I am still grieving (I am 33 weeks again now after losing my baby above earlier this year) as is my husband but it has been very important to me to love and cherish my new baby, and not let the grief overshadow this, for the time I am carrying him even if the worst happened again.

I think avoiding bonding with him would not make me (me, and not anyone else) feel any less devastated if I lost him too.

The scans have a role to play in this bonding but only as an extension really of how I have chosen to feel about this pregnancy... I know of other people in my situation who have chosen a very different path.

Sakura, I would rather everyone has the choice to do whatever they need to, rather than projecting my experience on others.

Lulumaam · 27/12/2010 11:51

I disagree sakura, that women dont bond as strongly before a scan.. have a look her eon the the miscarraige boards... women who get a + HPT and then start to bleed, consider it as much as a loss of a baby at 5 weeks than at 10 weeks ..or 12 or 14.. the loss of that pregnancy is as much a loss of a baby before the scan as after for them

your hopes and dreams for that particular pregnancy/baby were as real as if you had seen the baby.

if no scans is right for you, great, but for most women, the reassurance is fantastic

i think there are far more harmful things to dally with in pregnancy than scans.. drug /alcohol abuse, smoking for a start

Sazisi · 27/12/2010 11:56

I agree with you OP.
I vaguely knew some people who did this too, and found it odd.
I am very much of the wait-and-see-what-they're-like school of thought though.

onimolap · 27/12/2010 12:03

Sakura: what is the significance of 20 scans?

You seem to know a lot about this: is there a research group awaiting ethical clearance? What is their hypothesis, and what observed effects led to the formulation of the hypothesis?

Swipe left for the next trending thread