Hospital refusing to tell gender but will at a separate gender scan for a fee!

[thecakeisalie]

We had our 20 week scan for dc3 yesterday and found our hospital have a non disclosure policy for gender. Fair enough some hospitals don't for various reasons including moral ones - however to then be told they do gender scans at a cost of £50 seems like a bit of con! So they will sell out on their 'morals' for a fee!

I'm not bothered about needing to find out privately as I know the nhs are scanning for health reasons, are limited on time and so on. So is it just us who think it's out of order for them to be charging?!

[Pearlsaplenty]

This is an interesting discussion.

If the reason is not to waste time seeking out the sex because that is not the purpose of the scan then fair enough, parents should have to pay for a gender scan.

But does this mean the sonographer will continue to respect the wishes of parents who want a surprise? I know when this is the case they avoid the genital area (particularly if it's a boy)because you could also argue that going out of their way to avoid this area is also unnecessary/waste of time etc.

[NancyOsbourne]

I think if the sonographer has seen during the scan and parents wish to know then they should be told. However time should not be wasted looking specifically for the sex of the baby IMO.

With both DD's it was seen during the scan and we were told. I'm now 29 weeks and again we were told as seen during scan - however we also have a medical issue with this baby which has different severity based on sex so they would have specifically looked anyway.

Should they charge? What's the harm if they have to spend extra time looking for pure curiosity reasons. I would have paid.

[Pearlsaplenty]

So maybe the sonographer should just do the scan and make no special allowances for hiding the sex or finding out. Parents have to sign a form saying they are aware that they may discover the sex inadvertently during the scan and that the sonographer is under no obligation to reveal the sex.
The scan happens and it's up to the parents to work it out.

Can I also say that there is some really interesting information on the Internet and youtube about the heartbeat and gender. Boys are trains and girls are galloping horses. At around 16 weeks I correctly guessed ds sex and at the scan if the sonographer hadn't avoided the genital area like she did I would have been able to confirm the gender for myself. (My hospital had a policy of avoiding the genital area and then only at the end parents were asked if they wanted to know and only then did the sonographer reveal, although they did say it may not be possible to confirm, the gender may be incorrectly determined etc etc)

[SoonToBeSix]

But my scans are routine they have found no evidence of twin to twin so far.

[Xmasbaby11]

Wow, not heard of that! My 20 week scan was very quick, they did tell us the gender (we wanted to know), but as far as I could tell, it was very quick (30 secs or less). In some cases it may take longer, but I think after a couple of minutes, if it's not clear, they call it a day. That seems fair enough.

I think it's reasonable for the sonographer to tell parents (if they want to know) if they can tell easily.

Perhaps they charge because they know how much many can be made from private scans. I'm amazed how many people pay for extra scans for no particular reason.

[BranchingOut]

I know that there are some gender-related conditions, and sorry to hear that affected you Naturegirl. I meant that there are no medical reasons around knowing the gender that apply to the population at large eg. if, for example, boys were harder to deliver vaginally then of course everyone should be told the gender, rather like you are told your blood group or Rh status.

[urtwistingmymelonman]

cant understand the time argument.
it took my sonographer all of about ten seconds to tell us the gender so that's a non-issue imo.

[TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy]

No they aren't, soontobesix, routine scans don't happen fortnightly - every woman is not given fortnightly scans routinely as part of pregnancy regardless of their background, pregnancy, or medical history, you are being given the scans specifically because of risks that twins raise. As I and the medical journal I linked to said, it is routine scans given to every woman do not improve rates over the whole population, NOT that they don't improve things for INDIVIDUAL women with circumstances such as twins, weight loss, and other major risk factors.

[OhGood]

Don't they check genitals and gender as part of this 20-week scan anyway?

[SoonToBeSix]

The sport my i know fortnightly scan are not routine. My point was had I not had a routine scan at 12 or 20 weeks I would never have known I was carrying twins.

[SoonToBeSix]

The sport my i know fortnightly scan are not routine. My point was had I not had a routine scan at 12 or 20 weeks I would never have known I was carrying twins.

[TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy]

Except for when they found two heartbeats during normal antenatal checks, which is how it is done in areas where the 12 week dating scan is not routine (it was not routine when I had my first two and it is not routine in many places) and before scans were routine at all.

The meta-analysis is there, I already linked the British Medical Journal where the basic information is there for all to see, and it says as I have said repeatedly that this is for the population as a whole, NOT individuals. I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue your individual circumstances with me when I keep repeatedly saying that the study is about how routine scans do not increase number of live births or perinatal mortality in a population - that has nothing to do with your individual case of twins. I was simply defending someone who was being told they had an extreme ideology, when really they were discussing current medical knowledge for populations as a whole as we currently understand and analyse it which should be common knowledge to allow proper informed consent but is rarely put out there.

[thecakeisalie]

The population is made up of individuals and individual circumstances affect figures as a whole. It is stated it doesn't influence the live birth stats but what about post natal care for newborns with additional needs? Knowing a baby has heart problems for example can be addressed once born. So they may be born alive but not knowing they had a health problem may mean they died shortly after delivery without the extra care. I really can't see why scans would take place at great cost to the nhs if there was no benefit to mother, baby or the care offered by HCP's.

[Stevie77]

Erm, to all those saying it's an anomaly scan and that's what the hospital should focus on. Anomalies in the genitals are just as important, so the fact they skip that part of the body is rather negligent as far as I'm concerned.

[SaggyOldClothCatPuss]

IMO, gender isn't an important part of the anomaly scan generally. Back when I had DD you HAD to pay privately to find out. Nowadays they will tell you, but have a declaration up saying it could be incorrect. I think this is the main reason why hospitals were always reluctant to say. Being sued for the cost of a complete pink nursery when you deliver a boy must be a nuisance!
Hospitals are under funded. They always need something. If charging £50 to provide a non essential service helps raise funds, then why not.

[TheSporkforeatingkyriarchy]

That is a malformation that is addressed in the link from the British Medical Journal that I already provided: routine scans are useful in finding malformation, but the false positive rate needs to be communicated for informed consent. Scans can help individuals and improving the way individuals are targeted would be of greater help to families than routine scans for all women regardless of medical history, background, or risk markers.

Seriously, I only brought it up because someone said that it was extreme ideology to think that routine scans didn't improve outcomes, I was showing that the British Medical Journal and most international health care follow this evidence, bringing up individual circumstances (that have nothing to do with finding out what genitals a baby has) doesn't change the data.

Populations may be made up of individuals, but in a study of the population, it the numbers as a whole, not individual circumstances that are being looked at to determine the best policy for the population as a whole. It may help one person and harm another, which individual should we look at? That's why the effect over a larger population is important and the recognition that this information be stated for informed consent.

Maybe a better look at the genitals - regardless of whether parents are told - would help in the recognition and awareness of intersex people and genital abnormalities and could be argued for as could the ethics of charging to get around a policy meant to protect women from domestic violence.

Personally, I think that routine scan have now become a normally expected part of maternal care that any thought of removing them would cause a backlash that would lead to people trying to get scans of other reasons which would have more of a cost and currently, midwife care is so underfunded that scans are required to make up for the examinations and observations that would normally take place and be better for women and their babies. They are a catch-all for a broken system even when they do not improve things for the population as a whole. Scans are expensive but cheaper than a well running and well funded midwife system.

[Julietee]

TheSpork What are the examinations and observations that would/ should normally take place? I'm very interested in this.