Are scans potentially damaging to baby?

[Jptb]

Newly pregnant and have been offered an early scan at seven weeks. I was doing some research and came across chriskresser.com/natural-childbirth-iib-ultrasound-not-as-safe-as-commonly-thought this article, and similar, which have got me panicking a bit. Any opinions please, especially from any midwives or sonogrammers here please?

No. Scans can be used to pick up abnormalities, some of which need to be dealt with immediately after birth. It would be more dangerous not to have one

I must have baby brain, can't believe I wrote sonogrammer instead of sonographer in the OP! :)

I totally get that scans are good for 12 and 20 weeks for detecting any issues, and anyone needing extra because of issues. I was mainly wondering if extra for no big reason is worth the potential risk? Or if there weren't really any concerns.

I've had 8 scans this pregnancy and everything seems to be fine. I've never heard of anyone have any problems caused by ultrasound.

No they are perfectly safe. When pregnant with DD I had an early ultrasound, one at 10 weeks, one at 12 weeks, and one at 34 weeks. Due to me being ill I also had an MRI scan and CT scan and I have a perfectly healthy little 17 month old now

Actually thinking about it, I had an independent midwife for ds years ago. She was very much anti scans (she was anti anything medical actually, we didn't get on very well, I am totally he other way, so in hindsight she was a bad choice!).

Anyway, I remember her giving me leaflets about the danger of scanning and telling me to think hard about having the 12 and 20 weeks scans. I thought she was fucking loopy tbh, they are so important for the mother and babies health. She was also veu disapproving when I booked another scan for gender.

Can't remember what the leaflets said, I chucked them straight in the bin!

I remember reading this when I was pregnant last time. I can't dredge up all the info now, but I didn't feel concerned about the scans because weighing up the odds I would rather have them and check the baby was OK visually than not have them on the basis of unproven and small risks.

I think it's to do with the heat it can create? (Sorry, trying to remember facts and failing here!)

What I did find out was that some people think that the doppler they use to listen to the baby's heartbeat could have more of an effect because of the type of waves used - continuous instead of pulsed I think.

I read a bit about it and it's controversial of course, but as it wasn't as big a deal as the scans for me, I chose to only have the doppler used on me once, the first time I went (really wanted to hear the HB!). After that I asked the midwife to use her manual ear-trumpety type thing. She was quite pleased I think! She told me that she didn't often get chance to practise with it. In fact she had a student midwife there to do it once.

Just do whatever you feel most comfortable with, OP. Pregnancy is full of opportunities to worry yourself sick, so wherever possible do what seems best to you.

I had 12, yes, 12 scans during my pregnancy. DS is 7 weeks old and perfectly healthy as far as I can tell. Enjoy your pregnancy :)

Step away from Google...

There was a Swedish study in the 90s that showed that ultrasound scanning is associated with an increased proportion of left handedness, especially in boys. No studies have provided evidence of longer term neurological or development effects that I'm aware of. It is not known whether the association with handedness is causal. Some have suggested it may be and could indicate that some scanning has the potential to cause very subtle changes to the brain of the developing baby. However, we are not overwhelmed with any supporting evidence of that . Nevertheless, some people advise caution about scans for purely 'social' reasons, eg to ascertain the sex or for 3d images. Generally, any potential risk has to be balanced against the advantages offered by going ahead and scanning.

I had an early scan at 7 weeks, found out it was twins, had the usual one at 12 weeks, scanned every two weeks until I had complications at 19 weeks and was scanned at least once a week until 31 weeks when they decided to put in an early appearance. I think I had about 20 altogether, maybe more.

Chris Kesser has a very strong agenda. (I also read his stuff and spent weeks needlessly panicking about having had a scan at 7 weeks)

What agenda, Julietee?

I would not have DC2 had I not had my anatomy scan like missmedusa. Incompetent cervix is only discoverable by ultrasound. I had nearly 20 scans with her following the life-saving surgery to check on things and so on. She's a little bit bonkers at five years old but I am pretty sure it has nothing to with the scans and everything to do with who she is

Currently one of my friends is on bedrest in hospital with placenta accreta. If she had gone into labour and was unaware of it, she could well have died along with her baby. Thanks ultrasound!!

I have another real life friend whose IUGR was only discovered thanks to a growth scan at 28 weeks - she may not have her DS if it hadn't been spotted.

There are so so many dozens more examples I could give you too..

It's surprisingly common to find something on ultrasound that is threatening to the life of the baby (and sometimes mother) if it's not known about. It's not just about abnormalities with the baby and deciding whether or not to terminate as the author of the link suggests!

I remember reading all these things a while back and being concerned, but ultimately the benefits outweigh the not entirely proven risks so many hundreds of times over that it's a no-brainer really. Massive benefits.

Although I disagree with people (uh, Tom Cruise) who buy their own machine and check every day as there's not enough research into safety at those levels. But funnily enough most of us don't do that!

Scans are important and useful. However they do know for sure that soundwaves affect the baby in some way, make them jump around etc. for this reason using home dopplers etc is not recommended as they don't know what the baby is experiencing so I would say do the important scans but keep unnecessary Doppler and ultrasound use to a minimum.

Thanks, dr.

Crispy, of course. I would have the 12 and 20 week scan, as the benefits outweigh any possible negatives. It was just whether I should have any extra.

Anyway. Have decided to have the seven week scan now. Unless anyone comes up with anything enlightening as to why we should be more cautious, between now and next week!

You won't be offered any extra to the dating, 12 and 20 week scans on the NHS unless they suspect there is a problem. And if there is- I strongly imagine you'd want to know as much as poss.

Bah, sorry - I read the article and didn't read your post properly and assumed you meant all scans as the article seemed to be suggesting!

Personally I've had plenty of early pregnancy scans because I have a history of first trimester loss (3 so far) and I feel I need them for my sanity. However one could argue that technically you don't actually need them as they don't affect the outcome. Short of checking for ectopic (and symptoms/bloodwork can indicate if a scan is a good idea or not) or confirming a loss so there can be intervention, there are no other benefits. You can't save a failing first trimester pregnancy with the results of a scan as far as I know.

I personally don't believe there is a real risk associated with scans (goodness knows ultrasound has been round long enough now!) so I'm happy to have them, but if you wanted to be extra cautious I can see why people would turn down a first trimester scan. But generally, most people take them if offered as I do think the lowering of stress is probably more beneficial than the skin is risky if you see what I mean.

There are far more provably riskier activities after all that people do every day e.g. was that shopping trip (driving there) strictly necessary? There has to be a line drawn somewhere!

interesting thread. iv had 7 in this pregnancy i think, and similar in my last.

i must admit, i've never really ready up about potential effects of ultrasound radiation even though other types of radiation are known to be damaging to tissue.

despite my lack of actual scientific evidence on the subject i am of the opinion that pregnancy ultrasound has undoubtedly saved the lives of many women and children, and to date there is not a single piece of compelling evidence to suggest it has done any harm.

there are always going to be suggestions that various factors cause autism etc etc but until we actually understand the biochemical/neurological/genetic etc mechanisms that cause autism/etc its going to be very difficult to establish a correlation let alone anything causitive. and to be honest, even if there were any type of link, its highly likely benefits would outweigh level of risk.

Hi OP. Generally we only have two scans in the UK, unless there is a problem or we need extra reassurance. In Greece and Cyprus, pregnant women have scans every month. I'm sure this happens in other countries too. If there really were safety concerns, I don't think that they'd do this...