to make the hospital consultant laugh out loud...

[Babieseverywhere]

Consultant was expressing her surprise that I didn't have any growth scans in previous pregnancies and asked me why I didn't want any in this pregnancy and I replied

"Why does it make babies smaller"

She laughed a lot and I gave her my real answer, which is I prefer to avoid scans unless there was a medical need for one. Happy to stick to 12 and 20 weeks scans as standard. As my first three babies were reasonable sizes, my current baby won't be tiny, I don't need a scan needed to tell me that !

Kayzr Of course, you are aware that you don't need to do anything including growth scans or extra tests or keep anyone happy in order to tell them that you are planning a home birth and expect to be supported in that, don't you

I know Flisspaps, but I had a terrible time with DS2 and the consultant who tried everything he could to scare me into changing my mind. In the end DS2 was born at home very easily despite his size.

But I don't have to see a consultant with this one and MW is very happy so should be ok.

I just don't want any one to have a reason to try and stop it.

I thought the growth scans were also to indicate whether baby was likely to need any postpartum care, I thought big babies (over 10lb) were more likely to have low blood sugars.... from long distant memory.

But realistically, they can do that after birth when they weigh the baby... I agree they aren't necessary (or accurate).

i think they like to check the size mainly for concerns for delivery, but the scans really arent accurate, they thought my 2nd and 3rd babies were small, which they clearly werent.

ds4 had his blood sugar levels tested after birth as he was 10lb 13oz and had some breathing difficulties, his levels were fine tho, we stayed for 24hrs observation until he stopped 'grunting'

i did have an extra scan at the end of my pregnancies with 4 of mine but that was because i wanted to go more than 10-14days overdue so i agreed to have a scan to check fluid levels and placenta function. they did estimate the size of the babies at the same time and got it totally wrong!

Growth scans can detect problems - at 32 weeks both my twins were a healthy size, at 36 weeks twin B had not grown at all in the past 4 weeks so they were whipped out quickly and she was sent to SCBU for feeding up.

I often wonder why many pregnant women argue against the advice of medical professionals, who train for many years to become experts in their field yet have to justify every medical procedure/test- not just talking about growth scans, I found at NCT classes there was a lot of talk about how to avoid various tests/interventions against doctors' advice as if they want to do these things for their own amusement....

yes but the reason you would have extra growth scans for twins is because you are higher risk for problems, like the one you describe.

for a normal pregnancy with no risk factors there is no need for extra scans, other than 12 and 20wks unless other indicators show a reason to need to scan.

having a scan purely to check on the size of the baby as they 'think' it may be big is pretty pointless given that sizing scans of babies are generaly at least 10% out. they can show if a baby has stopped growing etc, but they have no concerns over that they are just thinking the baby may be big, which given the size of the ops previous babies is likely and having a scan isnt going to change that.

When I was pregnant with (eventually 10lb 5oz) DS my consultant (who had trained for many many years) tried to move my due date in by a whole month because of the size he was measuring. I pointed out that I'd had a scan at 6w2d so DS couldn't really be a whole month ahead of where his EDD currently had him; she airily said "but early scans aren't terribly reliable for dating purposes". I then further pointed out that, yes, when you were trying to fine tune dating down to a few days that was the case but that for her suggested date to be correct DS would actually have been nearly 11 weeks at that point and an 11 week foetus looks nothing like a 6 week embryo. She said "hmm, good point" and left my EDD where it was. So, yes, glad I argued against her advice there (and could only do so because (a) I happened to have had the 6 week scan and so the evidence was there, and (b) I was well-informed and articulate enough to know what it meant and to stand my ground -- otherwise things could have gone very differently).

If you are measuring big then surely a large baby on the scan is what they are hoping to see - if it was a small baby that would indicate a fluid problem and be important to know. Do you know why they were recommended?

To be honest they can be a bit of a waste of time.

Had to have an extra scan with DD2 after having a third degree tear with my previous pregnancy (For 2nd I was under consultant care).

They said baby was average size so it was recommended that I could go ahead and have another natural delivery as chance of a 3rd degree tear happening again was less than 10%.

But that did not make any sense to me anyway as my 1st was only 7Ibs 12oz. Reason for the tear is she came outfacing upwards (back to back baby) but also had her arm above her head.

So come 2nd who again was another back to back, was a difficult delivery and yes I got another 3rd degree tear. She weighed 8Ibs and 1/4oz.

So for me the scan did not help me in anyway!

My sister in law had a growth scan and they estimated her baby would be between 6-7Ibs.

He was born weighing 9Ibs 10oz by emcs after she caught an infection and he would not come out. He has always had a bigger head and shoulders though!

what does your feet size have to do with anything? they used to believe feet size is an indicator of pelvis size, but no longer. my feet are also a size 3, sometimes a 4 and i have had big babies, largest 10lb 13oz. interestingly i have never been huge in any of my pregnancies and if anything my bumps measured small! so my babies just 'hid' in there somehow!

I had a couple of extra scans with dd as I was measuring really large.

The last scan at (if I remember correctly) 38 weeks determined that it was all fluid and that she would be less than 8lb.

She was born at 42weeks (induced) weighing 11lb4oz.

Ds I was told to have extra scans all the way through, he's going to be huge.

He came at 41+4 weighing 11lb4oz.

Different hospitals and consultants. Sadly neither was a vaginal birth - DD refused to descend at all. Literally she was still floating around when they did EMCS - not engaged at all. DS was too big for the incubator in the c-section room.