To be irritated by what this sonographer said?

[maja00]

I recently had my 12 week dating scan. I declined the nuchal translucency scan, so was just going for the standard dating/measuring.

As soon as we got into the room the sonographer confirmed that I had declined the NT scan. The scan went as expected, baby looks fine etc.

At the end of the scan the sonographer said "I know you declined the NT scan, but I had a quick look at the baby's neck and it all looks normal. I would tell you if there was an obvious abnormality there".

Now, is it just me or is this not really in the spirit of us declining that test? If the sonographer had said it looked abnormal, then we would have been in exactly the position we wanted to avoid

I understand that the sonographer was trying to be helpful, but AIBU to be a little annoyed by this?

well.said mrsdevere

and this thread yet again shows up the 'put up and shut up' attitude towards women in maternity and ante-natal care. every woman has the right to make an informed choice about the care they recieve and that includes the right to refuse treatment including ante natal tests. that should be respected, not just told oh shut up you got 'good news' so it doesnt matter. ffs

MrsdeVere don't get pulled into name calling. Leave applewhatsit to their views xx

Can I just say anyone who thinks scan results etc means their baby is not disabled needs a serious wake up call.

My older two were clear on every test, one is disabled.

The bloods for DS said my third son had a higher risk; scan reduced that. He does not have DS. He has autism. Strangely a form of autism that manifests much like stereotypical DS.

I had only scans with my youngest son. He's also autistic. Scans were also clear, although he was rushed in aged 1 day with a heart murmur- thankfully one that resolved itself. No test would have shown his disability.

Screening and diagnostic tests check for specific conditions NOT disability as a whole. Disability can occur at any stage in a life, birth itself being a risky time for that.

As for worst / best news, well disability varies. I imagine 'your child has a condition incompatible with life' is the worst. Not disability (such a wide term) in general.

True Peachy. My ds was fine for 38.5 weeks and incurred brain damage for unknown reasons a matter of days at most before labour. He is now disabled. And wonderful. And awesome. Oh, and HEALTHY and ALIVE.

Choice every woman's choice to test or otherwise should be respected. End of.

Hopefully my unnoticed post highlights at times the lack of choice one can have.

That's it Madmouse my DS was fine until 39 weeks, had the tests was low risk etc etc, resuscitate at birth highlighted his irreparable heart condition, then queried Down syndrome which was positive, now autistic with PDA and still something else not yet diagnosed, nothing from scans or tests which really should of been picked up on due to the structural issues of his heart.

hmm ironic much that a post showing that the NHS accept that there is an issue in information being available and hence informed consent has triggered a tidal wave of ignorance.

OP can accept or decline any part of any screening made available. (it isn't all or nothing...why should it be?)

OP should have been fully and properly informed of what the 'dating scan' was actually going to screen and wasn't - hence fault on the part of the midwife - not the OP.

The OP is showing a far more respectful and unprejudiced approach to disability by saying she does not want to be informed of potential disability as she will not act on the information then the people saying that hearing a baby is disabled is the worst possible news. By a fucking country mile.

Oh dear I think all sorts of folk with all sorts of axes to grind have jumped on this thread and are using it to get all indignant about things that they THINK people are saying. I'm backing out of this one. Yes are right the news that your baby is fine is bad news.

appletarts the OP didn't say it was bad news that her baby seems ok. I'm sure you know that.

As the Mother of a son who has Doens Syndrome and having declined screening for DS in subsequent pregnancies, I too would be annoyed in the OPs position and for exactly the same reasons. If screening showed my unborn baby might have DS (because that is all screening can ever tell you) I don't want to know thanks.

The issue is..the scan at twelve weeks is for abnormalities and a brief look at the unchallenged area is included in that, although not with the measurements and calculations etc to give chromosomal abs risk.
The OP is annoyed because she was given appropriate information and for that she is being unreasonable and also promoting a culture of litigious complaints and blaming for no reason..,someone simply doing their job...do we want to go the US way and no one will speak to you until a booked in appt with a named consultant at a later date in case someone says the wrong thing? That we blame workers in the NHS for doing their jobs? Sonographers are skilled technicians who can read and report at the same time... But I can guess they will no longer report if this is the response received. That job will be left to the antenatal appt.

Unchallenged area

appletart - missing the point muchly?

I'm sure the OP will be delighted if she finds at the birth of her child that she does not have to see her child struggle with an illness or a disability and that she herself will have not have to fight that particular battle of getting the support your child needs.

However this thread is about having your wish not to be screened completely ignored.

I would also like to point out that she was in her own word 'irritated'. No indication that her world had just fallen apart, or indeed in your words that she was 'bleating'. She was keeping all well in proportion.

Nobody said your baby is fine is bad news, just that a baby being imperfect is not bad news either, necessarily- and that a scan can't actually tell you your baby is fine, because there are far more possibilities than can be checked.

But back to the thread premise- of course the OPs wishes should have been respected. I am astounded anyone thinks otherwise, or that it's not a huge issue.

Nuchal area

She was told her baby appeared to be in good health, MrsD.
There was no hallelujahs and rejoicing that this wasn't another special needs child about to enter the world; the sonogropher thought she would react well to the news that everything seemed fine.
But no, her choice not to know that was taken away from her..
As my Dad would say, she needs a real problem to focus on.

The lack of seeking informed consent during pregnancy and birth is a MASSIVE issue.

Women are being violated and left we long lasting mental health issues as a result.

The fact that the result of failing to gain informed consent in this specific case was not earth shattering doesn't make the issue any less important.

Floggingmolly the problem is that the sonographer would also have told her if there was a problem.

From what I have seen with friends (I declined screening myself and was respected) screening can lead to being told you have a very high (20% ) risk of DS and then being pushed and pushed to have more risky and invasive tests to know for sure.

If you have already decided that you will keep your baby anyhow this is unwanted, unnecessary stress.

Many, many women on this site will have had devastating news at this scan- no heartbeat, another fatal anomaly.

Count your blessings, OP.

And take it easy. Congratulations on your pregnancy.

And still my point is overlooked, regardless of the choices and decisions we make.............sonographers still miss some they shouldn't!

FWIW OP it is your opinion if you want further tests etc and I feel you have a fit to complain about what was said and how you feel as it is not what you wanted hence declining.