Can an untrasound be dangrous?

[emsy5000]

right so my friend is 12 weeks and I asked her when she was going to or if she had had her first scan yet.
her answer was 'I am not having one, as there is a risk with getting a scan, particually when you have a history of Dyslexica'
now I think this is complete nonesence that someone has fed her. can you lovley ladies help me out.
the particalar thing that makes me think its nonsense is the mention of Dyslexia.
she has had two misscarages though so am being diplomatic with it.

I've not heard of a specific link to Dyslexia, although the 'risk' of ultrasound to an unborn child has been debated.

This article on the AIMS website points out there's was actually no specific research done on the impact of ultrasound scans on babies.

Ultimately, scans, like ALL aspects of antenatal care are optional, and whatever her reason for declining scans, it is her right to do so, so it's not your place to be 'diplomatic' about it.

I would be asking here where she got this impression from as I have never heard of any research that suggests this link. I would also, in the nicest possible way point out that there are real risks in not having the scan.

As Flisspaps said it is ultimatly her choice but scans are not just done for the fun of it. They can pick up potential problems and abnormalities that would allow for action to be taken in advance to stop something happening to the baby, or make sure appropriate action was taken to minimise the risk. I think the 20 week is particularly important in this respect.

For example when my SiL was pregnant with her 3rd DS they picked up a heart problem at the 20 week scan, becuase they knew about it they could make sure that she was carefully monitored throughout the pregnancy and that treatment was ready and waiting when he was born. If she hadn't have had the scan there is a real chance that I would not now have a gorgeous little nephew running about.

That sounds bizarre - I'm assuming she means that there is a risk of the baby being made dyslexic through some effect of the ultrasound (not there being a link between dyslexia and miscarriage).

As Flisspaps says, from what I know there isn't a huge amount of info on the risks of ultrasound, but they've been doing it for so long now that the assumption is that it is low, and the benefits (i.e. identifying any problems early) outweigh the potential risk factors. I know that doctors in the UK avoid scanning more than 'medically indicated' (i.e. they are reluctant to do it just for reassurance unless there are special circumstances) as they err on the side of caution. The cynic in me would say that it's also to do with cost...

I agree with Flisspaps that it's her choice to accept or decline the scan so I wouldn't be trying to convince her. But, I'd be a bit worried that this sounds like complete bunkum (I have never heard this and I'm someone who looks into every aspect of pregnancy health related stuff before I do it), and that she's declining it for a spurious reason, for example thinking that dyslexia and miscarriage risk are linked (they certainly aren't).

Can you ask her again what she was told and then delicately suggest that she asks her GP or midwife about it before declining all scans? I'm also really intrigued to know what it is that someone's told her!

I think she's been reading THIS ATRICLE and THIS ARTICLE. Or similar.
If she doesn't want the scan, for whatever reason, then fair enough.
The studies she may have looked at look into a correlation between diagnoisis of dyslexia and the use of ultrasound on the child/participant as a foetus. Not causative, correlation. They also look into things like left-handedness, speech delay etc. But these are all correlations and not causative.
Ultimatly, if you don't need to know the results of the scan then, maybe she's right. Not scanning is better?!

Hiding - don't think I'm not for scans - I've had both the 12 and 20 week scans in both of my pregnancies, and instead of induction would opt for expectant management, meaning more scans later on :)

I just thought that as the OP was specifically asking about risks from ultrasound, I'd show that the risks (although they may be tiny) are not necessarily not there.

And there are people who have had scans which appear to show abnormalities/problems which are not actually there - causing much stress and worry to the parents, especially if those parents then have suggestion of termination of the pregnancy presented to them as a result of the scan.

No medical procedure is done for the fun of it, but I do think it's important that we are reminded that they are all optional (from scans and blood tests through to induction). We're not obliged to undergo any of them if we choose not to, and it's then no-one else's place to comment on that decision, diplomatically or otherwise, regardless of whether we agree with it or not!

Ultrasound has been in use for about 50 years. In that time there is no proof of harm. In that time there is no proof of no harm. It took 50 years for it to become accepted that antenatal X-Rays were linked to an increase in childhood cancers and for their use as a routine diagnostic tool to be discontinued. The man who did the original research into antenatal ultrasound did put a caveat that he felt machines would become more powerful (which they have) and that outcomes should be monitored/research continued to ensure benefit still outweighed risk (which hasn't happened in any formal way). IIRC he's also stated he would have reservations about any female relative of his having early scans and would actively advise them against having 4D scans.

If it were me, I'd ask the friend as to the source of her data because I'm interested in things like that. But ultimately I'd support her in her decision. AFAIK the main reasons for having the 12 week scan are to date the pregnancy (if she knows when she ovulated during the cycle when she conceived that's unnecessary - and arguably its still unnecessary even if she's using LMP), to measure the nuchal fold and to check for gross abnormalities incompatible with life (but if she and her partner have already decided they'd decline further testing and/or would not terminate regardless, how beneficial is that knowledge?). The reasons for offering the scan as standard are valid - but IMO too many people (public as well as HCP's) can forget that just because something is offered it doesn't mean you are being negligent if you don't accept it. There's often a lot of emphasis on "these are routine, your scan is on this date" and not enough consideration to what you will do with the information gained.

I'd be more concerned if she also chooses not to have the 20 week scan - but even then I've seen arguments for an against and as long as people are making an informed decision I wouldn't try to change their minds.

(I'm also not against scans as such - I had 3 with DD1 and have already had 3 with this one, and set for more. With each and every one, though, we've thought through what we might find out and whether that information would change our next course of action - if the answer had been "no" then we'd have declined.)

I would have thought the main risk to the baby was the drive to get to the hospital.

Hmmm, slightly alarming having read some of those articles. I would always like to see the actual research though - quite often when you look at these studies you realise there is some other factor involved, i.e. it's not a totally randomised control experiment and that there will be some other potential 'selection effect' involved, such as the women who were at risk of pre-term labour AND had scans were at higher risk any way (hence being offered the scan rather than nothing or manual examination). I'm not saying that is the case, but I try not to get worried too soon over some of these things, which can be reported with a particular bias.

There is other research that shows women who have suffered repeat miscarriages in the past actually have a better chance of live birth when offered regular reassurance scans (I was told this by a specialist after suffering repeat miscarriage myself) - although it's only indicated for that particular group.

I had a higher than normal number of scans in early pregnancy, although they were all pretty quick. I really don't like the idea that it could have increased risk for problems for the baby (which I didn't know at the time - the assurances are always that there is no evidence of harm), but if I hadn't had them I may have worried myself into a state also not great for the LO (or me). I guess it's for each of us to decide...

Tangle 12 weeks scans also pick up major, fatal deformations such as anencelphaly.

I'm glad I had my 12w scan and it was picked it up as otherwise I would have been facing having a vaginal delivery abortion after I'd felt my baby move or waiting it out for a stillbirth or a live birth at term, only to watch my baby die within hours.