to be fed up with hospitals changing due dates from scan results?

[Bogeyface]

Partly my own annoyance and partly someone elses.

I had mine changed by one day, just one day! But the hospital MW after my 12 scan insisted on changing it on the system and in my notes, why for the sake of one bloody day?! I have a school mum aquaintance that asked me if mine had been changed because hers has been changed 3 times in the same pregnancy, putting her at up to 2 weeks less pg than she knows she is at one point. It is now back to roughly (well within a week) to what it should be and she is really fed up with it.

I asked my lovely community MW about it and she said that no ones takes a mothers word for it anymore! She said that there have been several cases that she knows of anecdotally that have caused DNA tests after the baby has been born because the father wasnt around when the scan decided conception took place. She dealt with one personally where the father left the mother because there was no way on this earth he could have made her pg when the scan said he did as he was out of the country. She said that she often wonders how it worked out long term and her heart went out to the mother involved :(

I understand that technology has its uses but why the hell are these dates changed for every woman with no consideration of the fact that alot of us (not all, I know!) have a very good idea when we got pg? I know the exact day we had pg sex because we only did it once in 4 weeks thanks to illness and work! But if the scan decided it was actually a week before then my EDD would be changed regardless and that isnt right surely?

So AIBU to be pissed off at hospitals using scans to totally over ride pg mothers knowledge or am I missing some important fact?

PG insomnia has led to me lying awake pondering this and other things, so I may be back with some more AIBU soon! :o

Why have the scan in the first place if you know when the baby was conceived? I knew the date of conception for this baby and so declined the dating scan. Didn't see the point in wasting mine and the nhs' time/money and then ending up with an inaccurate date so argue over.

but lunafire, I didn't have the 12 week for dating purposes. I had it for nuchal fold testing etc. The dating is by the by in my opinion.

But if you don't need/want the dating bit why accept it and the consequences? You could ask them not to do that bit and just look at the nuchal fold?

I think it's a problem between the general and specific. Scans are generally accurate to within a few days. To provide appropriate care for a woman, they scan and go from there. Because vast swathes of women don't know when they conceived, have had periods when in fact pregnant, don't know their own cycles etc. So they have a standard procedure. And in cases like IslandLady describes where the dh sadly died, it's more than possible that the woman conceived 5 days or so after she had sex as sperm lives inside you for that long in the right environment.

There will be individual cases where it is right for the woman to pursue the dates not being altered but for the vast majority it's not a problem. If care is affected then by all means scream and shout about it, I would too, but the procedures are in place for the majority, not the minority.

And I knew when I conceived but still had the dating scan as it was combined with the NT scan.

You can't look at the nuchal fold without looking at the measurements/gestation lunafire. That's where they calculate the risk from.

'Why have the scan in the first place if you know when the baby was conceived?'

I know when I conceived because DP works away but I want the scan because I want to know there is a heartbeat. I don't want to get to about 20 weeks and find out it is not viable and something could have been done earlier. Thereby putting me at risk of infection and possibly snookering my chances of conceiving again.

OK I am a time waster, I'm a money waster. What the hell I am a neurotic selfish bitch, but losing 3 babies does tend to have an effect on you.

I don't think 'I know I was right as the baby was born on its due date' is a good argument either. Normal gestation is 37-42 weeks. 5% will be born at 40 weeks. Different mothers and different babies require different gestational periods. If your baby arrives at 42 weeks it is not 'late' but within normal parameters.

Ah didn't know that SOH.. Not had one myself as the nuchal wasn't around with my previous LO.

xstitch - I didn't say anything about you or anyone else being time/money wasters. Just me. I'm fully aware of the need to see a healthy alive baby at a scan as I wanted that myself in my previous pregnancy and had all the scans I was offered as a result. But for some reason though I didn't need it this time around...but I'm odd I know

lunafire. I understand that. The needing scans the first time round and not the second. I've had a difficult road to having children in some ways. Few problems, couple of losses but while with dd I wanted everything going for reassurance I think having her and knowing the magnitude of the end result, it's almost like I now know that scans and tests don't change that. Does that make sense?

I always thought my EDD was wrong (I think it was 3 weeks early). Then from about 28 weeks I was having to be scanned all the time cos I was measuring too small (by 3 weeks). Then I was induced at what the hosp said was 39 weeks and had a rather small baby (5lb 11). Go figure!

Unless you are charting your temperature - and see a clear temperature rise indicating ovulation I dont understand how anyone can say for sure they "know" when they conceived. You may think you know when you have ovualted based on other signs but you dont know for sure. Plus you will obviously know when you had sex but since sperm can live for up to a week - then the date you have sex will rarely be the date you conceive.

Perfect sense SOH . With my DS I was nervous all the way through after losing my first to an early m/c. But with this one, despite having another m/c a few years ago I've felt more at ease with. Some of it is me just feeling more laid back and wanting to enjoy the pregnancy (in ignorant bliss really LOL) and accepting of whatever happens at the end...but the lack of technology has actually helped me bond more with the baby and rely on my own instincts. It's made for a rather nice relaxed pregnancy so far

newgolddream - we dtd once in my 40 day cycle so used that date. Obviously the actual conception date is unknown due to the time it takes for the sperm to travel relative to when the egg released etc...but that's partly why term is a wide 5 week window, plenty of room for that difference

I can't believe how relaxed people can be. I told myself I would relax and enjoy it next time but can't.

libellule, if the 'moaning about the medicalisation of pg' stuff was directed at me, i don't think i mentioned a pov either way. merely indicated the op in the direction of someone who has spent some time thinking about it.

and as i've already got a 7yo daughter with brain damage, i think if there's any eating of words to be done, you'd best crack on.

but my apologies for not mentioning the other end of the viability spectrum. dd2's first sn baby group (her 'first friends', aw) contained little ones born from 23 weeks onwards, with varying levels of disability as a result.

but the fact that medical professionals attempt to date a 22ish weeker doesn't actually mean that they get it right - it just means that make a guess on relative development and maturity based on a number of factors.

best wishes to all the pg ladies - sending healthy and safe vibes x

YANBU OP - my dear friend had her dates put back by over 2wks. She woke up one morning at around 41 weeks by new dates - 43 + by hers - and couldnt feel her baby moving. She has to go through the trauma of a stillbirth and the resulting post mortem which concluded that the baby had died due to suffocation from not enough oxygen getting through the placenta. Her her doctors words - it is not designed to sustain a life in utero for that many weeks She has now gone on to have a wonderfully healthy little girl who was delivered by elcs at 37 weeks.

My sister works in a neo-natal unit and she has always said to me that there is a high percentage of overdue babies in special care with brain damage from lack of oxygen.

I am now pg with my 2nd and had my dating scan which moved my date by one day - that I am not bothered about. If it was anything more than 7-10 days I really would be.

EDD is not calculated from the day of conception. The first day of your pregnancy should fall approximately two weeks before you conceived. Actual gestation is 38 weeks but pregnancy is medically measured as 40 weeks. That's because before dating scans the only way to estimate due date was from the date of the last period which is approx 2 weeks before conception. Even though scans can date pregnancies pretty accurately now, day one of pregnancy is still measured as being two weeks before conception. Do most people realise this? Is there the confusion is arising from?

no, writer, the confusion is that between three scans, the same professionals can change your due date by weeks. it's only a (very scientific) guesstimate based on averages and general foetal development. afaik, mothers don't change their date of lmp each time they go for a scan...

meh, it's all worked out by a computer programme anyway. which amazingly comes out with a different answer each time. imagine!

You can't have a scan and ask them not to do the dating bit. They do measurements with every scan you have, they can change it every time if they decide they want to.

I think show of hands has explained it well. I didn't go for dating, they don't even call it a dating scan in my area. Its nuchal fold and for me, to make sure there actually is a baby in there.

Digital ovulation testing is pretty accurate. That's what I used when I was TTC. Your egg will pop within 12-24 hours of the LH rise, sperm takes 12 hours to become able to fertilise (it has to melt or something bizarre as well as swim) so when you get the smiley face, you will have conceived within a 48 hour window of that smiley face as an egg only lasts 24 hours before it dies.

Generally it doesn't matter but if its weeks not days, if nothing else its patronising and infantising to be told you obviously dont know your dates when you obviously bloody do.

madwoman I apologise, particularly given your personal experiences. I used your phrase about medicalisation but actually I was aiming the comment at the general feeling in the thread up to that point that much of the medical oversight (such as scans) that you get in pregnancy is somehow a waste of time. For most people, it is, but the whole point is that you can't tell that in advance!

In terms of prematurity, obviously a scan is not going to change how mature your baby is when he/she is born. But at the threshold of intervention, at 23-24 weeks, any indication that your dates are out (either way), even by a matter of days, becomes enormously significant in decision-making, both by doctors and parents. In our case, we were asked outright how much effort we wanted them to put into saving our child at birth. Given that at 23-26 weeks, the (high) chances of death and serious disability drop appreciably with each extra day spent in the womb, knowing that a scan puts you a week further on than you thought is pretty bloody significant. This brings back very traumatising memories, obviously, and I did react quite viscerally to the flippant 'oh what does a few days matter either way' comments. If you've spent days and nights flat on your back in hospital, waiting for your baby to appear three and a half months before he should, then each passing hour is a victory.

But on the other hand - the mistrust of mothers highlighted in the OP is a definite issue. When my son was born, he was bigger than expected for his gestation, and I was asked repeatedly if I was sure my dates were right - despite it being their date, sealed by at least 8 separate scans!

I agree they do mistrust mothers I know a girl who's husband is in the navy. She was sure she was about 10 weeks maybe slightly less. However as her husband had only returned from being away at sea for six months 8 weeks previously it was impossibly for her to be any further on than 10 weeks IYKWIM. At her scan they insisted she was definitely 12+2 and must be mistaken. Her husband was very upset for a while after the hospitals insistence and questions. She gave birth at 10 days over by scan date with the baby showing no signs of being 'overcooked' . DNA also showed that her husband was the father. They stayed together but his mistrust of her did affect them.

I know for some woman they will be untruthful but many will not.

Also most people know when the deed was done. Even if fertilisation takes place a few days after this, the mother therefore knows 'her date' is the earliest it could be. Therefore if they move the date to an earlier one, then they do indeed know it is not possible.

libellule - no worries.

without overt medicalisation dd2 wouldn't be here at all, tis a fact. and yet with dd1 i had already had an elcs because they assured me after a series of scans that she would be 10lb 13oz, and because i am petite, it would not be safe for either of us for me to labour naturally under any circumstances. she was 8lb 6oz.

in the intervening period between dd1 and dd2 i'd had ds1 by vbac, which was a nightmare for all sorts of other reasons.

so on the one hand i am extraordinarily grateful to the medical interventions that saved dd2, and yet remain sceptical about unnecessary interventions as a result of scan data after the dd1 saga...

i'm not a natural childbirth nazi by any stretch of the imagination - but i'm an interested observer perched precariously on the fence. and had just come across robbie davis-floyd before and found her interesting - and without knowing i've been getting invites for a conference she's at next month - i only realised when i was reminded after this thread yesterday and checked out her webpages again.

Agree with xstitch and penguin - you can't have conceived when they say if the date they give you as conception, so when you're supposedly 2 weeks pregnant, is before you actually had sex that month....

I got a scan on the 1st of September saying i was 8 weeks and 4 days.. I got another scan yesterday which said I was 11 weeks and 5 days. So its 4 days more than my last scan. My conception date is between the 13th and 17th could it be possible to have concieve on the 18th of july