Not having scans

[squirrelnutmeg]

If you choose to not have scans during pregnancy, does that have an implication for the paperwork you have to give to work does anyone know?

It didn't for me. The midwife just filled in the form with the due date as calculated from my last period.

No, it makes no difference. They just revert the earlier ways of calculating EDD (LMP plus size on clinical examination, if any take place) and the MAT B1 will be issued on that basis.

(I shall refrain from commenting on the advisability of refusing all scans)

I'll take any perspectives Edith, I'm undecided re tests and scan
Got many non medicalisation vs Science saves lives wonders whizzing in head!
Thanks for your replies

MIL's neighbour refused scans. She ended up with a very sick little boy who had a serious heart complication that could have been picked up at the 20-week scan and his care planned for in advance. He ended up being very poorly indeed because of the delay in treatment.
Luckily, he is on the mend but will never be fully cured. Although that isn't the fault of not having the scan, more to do with the actual condition.
Hoping you're not thinking about refusing the scans. The anomoly scan is vital to ensure your baby is healthy but also to ensure that you and baby are capable of going through childbirth. E.g. scans pick up the posiiton and health of the placenta.
Please don't read this as judgemental. Just I know from neighbour's experience howe harrowing life can be following the refusal of pregnancy scans.

What are your concerns about having scans? They aren't invasive.

My friend refused testing but not scans on the basis that she would always have the baby. I don't understand this. Surely it's better to ne prepared? And if the absolute worst happens and Edwards or Pataus is found, surely you wouldn't put another human through the sort of pain that they involve?

Ok! I wasn't sure if you had already decided not to for sure, and I didn't want to rile. But if you're still undecided I'll stick my tuppence ha'penny in.

I think it would be utterly foolhardy to reject all scans. You can decide to refuse other tests if you wish, but I think you should have the 29 weeks anomaly scan, if nothing else. Nobody wants to think of bad outcomes but it does happen. Whatever you decide to do, I think the important reasons are because of the following possibilities:

a) low lying placenta. If you have one of these, you need a C section. No two ways about it. It cannot be diagnosed other than by scan. If undiagnosed, the first sign can be bleeding in labour and even with a crash section it can compromise a baby's health (worst case fatally) and cause massive bleeding for the mother (again, worst case fatally).

b) can diagnose conditions that are treatable in utero, but have poor outcomes otherwise.

c) if a condition that requires immediate specialist intervention on delivery is diagnosed, you can arrange in advance for delivery at a centre that offers the care needed, which can make a permanent difference to outcome.

d) if an untreatable condition is diagnosed, you can make decisions in advance (whatever your personal views might be, to let nature take its course or get it over with).

I hope none of those ever apply to you. But if you think you'd rather make informed decisions before labour, rather than immediately on delivery, I'd urge you to get at least one scan.

PP-I refused blood tests as I wouldn't have an amniocentesis and therefore being 'high risk' for something would just lead me to have an awful, worrying pregnancy. I did have the anomally scan and would recommend as if there were any conditions that would require specialist delivery/surgery e.g. spinabifida, gastoschisis then I would want to know to prepare and to deliver in the most appropriate setting.
The blood tests aren't conclusive (only an amnio is), and I have seen many times women who have been told they are 'low risk' have a baby with down syndrome/patous (very recently a good friend). I don't think the information given to most women is explicit enough: most I speak to interpret 'low risk' as 'no risk'.....even if your risk is 1:20000, you can still be that 1.

x post....meant pp as confusedandunemployed

I second edith and up posts. I've refused testing but agreed to scans. Scans are noninvasive and for most women a nice experience, rather than 'medicalisation'.

Just a side rant, I think there does need to be some medicalisation of pregnancy and birth. It is the riskiest thing that we as women do and carries a small but definite risk of mortality. Yes, we have been giving birth for eons but we have also been dying in droves doing it! Women should fight for better care and treatment during pregnancy, not just hoping everything will be fine.

Do you mean the blood tests that look for genetic problems UpUp? Because there are other blood tests during pregnancy that are probably worth having because they can pick up on problems and allow you/your baby to be treated accordingly e.g. Rhesus factor. Not having some of the blood tests could mean having an avoidably ill baby when it is born.

Thank you for your replies. It does make me think avoiding scans in persuit of 'non intervention' may not be sensible.
And as you say medical involvement has a positive impact on survival of mother and baby.

DD2 was born at home and it simply wouldn't have been fair on the lovely MWs who delivered her, to give them avoidable, nasty surprises .

Actually, although she was born in hospital, the same applied to DD1, as it wasn't the biggest and best equipped of maternity units.

There is a high rate of mortality both for mother and child where medical intervention isn't involved. Life's too precious and things like scans are simple and non-invasive. Blood tests for some things are important.

As pps have said scans pick up things that may require intervention whilst baby is in womb or immediately after birth, in order for them to survive. They also show if the placenta is blocking the cervix, meaning a c section is necessary to safely deliver baby.

I personally didn't have the downs screening though, as I would never have an amnio-thingy and would never abort a baby for it, so getting a bit of paper with high risk or low risk would do nothing but worry me if it said high risk.

If you don't want to have multiple scans then at least have the 20week one (it could literally save you and your babies lives), although 12week dating is pretty important too.

I feel very strongly about this.

Without a 20 week anomaly scan, ds would've been born in our local hospital or at home, sent home with me and passed away within 48 hours with little or no warning.

With the anomaly scan, his heart defect was picked up and monitored throughout pregnancy, he was born in a specialist hospital, operated on within 12 hours and again a week later and is now, in essence, fixed.

An anomaly being picked up doesn't necessarily mean the choice between termination or continuation, it can just give you or or child a greater chance of survival.

My friend has a happy healthy two year old. If she had not had scans no one would have known about or been able to treat the problems he had in utero and he would not be here today.

I had placenta previa with no symptoms whatsoever. My son and I would have both died if I had gone into labour without knowing this. It was found on a scan.
(Just in case anyone is still unconvinced).

A scan picked up a problem with the functioning of my placenta that led to my baby not growing properly. This led to an early c section as she was in a bad way and not growing properly. I wonder whether it would have been picked up at all with out scans. I had no other indications that anything was wrong. I felt great, my bp was normal, her heartbeat was good, my bump was measuring slightly small but not more than the 3cm out that would usually trigger further investigation. The problem I had carried a 50% stillbirth risk, so I am very glad that a scan spotted it, even though it meant my plans for a lively waterbirth were scrapped in favour of the section that was absolutely my worst nightmare. I wanted a pregnancy that wasn't overly medicalised (and did in fact refuse a referral to consultant care which is standard in my area for ivf pregnancies) but never would have turned down scans as I think they are so valuable.

Well of course I urge any pregnant women to have the routine scans, it is my job after all. However, I do understand that that some people are very sure they would never terminate for any abnormality however severe or incompatible with life it may be. It is easy to conclude therefore, that there is no point having any scans. But perhaps they have not considered other important reasons for carrying out routine scans, for example...

We check your placenta. If you go into labour and you have undiagnosed placenta praevia, you could have a severe haemorrhage which is life threatening to both you and your baby.

Your baby may have a condition that will require immediate treatment when he or she is born. If we know about this in advance we can prepare for it and give your baby the best possible care.

If you are carrying twins it is so important to know what kind of twins, MCMA twins need to be monitored VERY closely, they are so fragile and scans undoubtly mean more of these twins survive now than before the days of ultrasound technology.

I could go on and on....

I hope the replies on this thread encourage you to reconsider. I am all in favour in a natural pregnancy and birth when appropriate but please, do not be a martyr in persuit of this and take unnecessary risks to yourself or your baby.

I understand the OP's fear of medicalisation of pregnancy, but I think it's important to strike the right balance.

I am having my antenatal care in the Far East and I personally think it has gone too far here re overmedicalisation. They insist on ultrasounds at every appointment, with most women ending up with 5-10 scans. I like how in the UK there are two routine scans both with specific and important purposes. You can ask medical staff what the purpose is and this is easily explained. In countries like where I am, the patient has little voice and asking why they are doing something will not be met in the same way.

So I am aiming for two scans as per standard NHS care, plus potentially more on return to the UK if there are any problems, but only if the reason can be explained to me.

I think we're so luck to be scanned, o,en all over the world would walk miles for the privilege.

I know several people who have had serious complications picked up on scans. For two this mean researching and understanding disability. For others termination. These terminations were less heartbreaking than waiting for the baby to die. ( no chance of life)

Your being selfish not having a scan, you increase risk for yourself and baby.

Jen9988 I think 'you're being selfish not having a scan' is pretty unfair. I think it's good to consider your feelings on these things as a mother to be. I agree that childbirth is natural thing and I also would love to keep things that way. However, I will be choosing to have scans, as it feels right to me to be able to take any opportunity to 'see' my baby and check everything's ok. I see this medical intervention as being a useful and non-invasive tool to help plan for baby's delivery.
Good luck with your planning squirrel

My friend had a DD who had an abdominal cyst picked up on her 20 week scan. It was monitored through pregnancy, and she was quite poorly when born (by C/S), but had surgery at a day old and is now absolutely fine. Had they not known about it, I would imagine the outcome could have been quite different. I'm all for minimal intervention, but scans could save your baby's life. Rare, but these things do happen.

I don't think pregnancy is too medical in the UK. You have the two scans, the odd midwife appt (where bp and urine are checked for you safety, heartbeat/growth for baby's) and that's about it. Blood tests are optional, but they do need to know your Rhesus status and blood group, immunity to various diseases etc. Honestly, it will feel fine!

We are so lucky to have access to decent medical care. You can go into hospital to have your baby, expecting to come out alive, with a live child - and the alternative outcome is so rare as to be newsworthy. In so many countries, women still die in childbirth on a regular basis, babies are stillborn or die shortly after birth, and the whole process is incredibly risky. The 'medicalisation' we have here, gives you and your baby the best possible chance. Why refuse it?