Declining all ultrasounds?

[DoubtOfTheOrdinary]

Hi all, I have my dating scan at the end of this month but I've been reading about 50 studies that recently came out of China questioning the safety of ultrasound scans, and wondering if anyone's gone through their pregnancy without having any?

The studies were done on Chinese women who were already planning to terminate their pregnancies for non-medical reasons. They exposed some of the fetuses to additional scans prior to the termination, then compared the fetal tissues post-termination with those who hadn't had any additional scans. The fetuses that had been exposed to additional ultrasounds had higher levels of cellular damage than those who hadn't. The suggestion is that routine ultrasounds could be a factor in things like autism, learning disabilities, childhood cancers, and immunity issues like eczema and allergies.

There's more info at
www.birthpracticeandpolitics.org/single-post/2019/04/03/Ultrasound-Unsound and www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/50-in-utero-human-studies-confirm-risks-prenatal-ultrasound/ for those interested. I need to do more reading around the topic before I make any drastic decisions, obviously, but atm I'm curious about the experiences of women who've declined all ultrasounds in their pregnancies. Did you have any trouble from the midwives/obstetricians? Were you happy you made that choice in the end?

Sorry, I'll try and do clicky links...

www.birthpracticeandpolitics.org/single-post/2019/04/03/Ultrasound-Unsound

www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/50-in-utero-human-studies-confirm-risks-prenatal-ultrasound/

Whilst I haven't ready those studies, I personally think the risk is absolutely minimal and the benefits (in terms of being able to identify anomalies, dangerous situations etc) far outweigh any hypothetical risk. US have been used for many years without any issues and the UK (presuming that's where you are) uses them a lot less than other countries. I know my mum declined scans while she was pregnant with me in the 80s so it's possible and - at the end of the day - you can refuse to consent to whatever you don't want even during pregnancy (which some people don't seem to realise). I wouldn't do it myself though - I couldn't go the whole 9 months without knowing if, for example, had a condition that wasn't compatible with life.

You do understand the purpose of an ultrasound? To check baby is developing well and identify any issues e.g. with the placenta? On the NHS in a low risk pregnancy you will only get 2 scans anyway, both for health reasons.

I didn't decline any scans op , but do consider that in not having an anomaly scan you risk the possibility of giving birth to a disabled or unwell child and being completely unprepared to care for them and have their medical needs met immediately due to being in the wrong environment/hospital.

There was a Uk recommendation based on a study only this week that for the safety of the baby that the NHS should offer 1 extra scan later in pregnancy as studies had shown it would save a number of babies every year....

I'd go over a Uk study over a Chinese one....

I would speak to your Midwife. For what it's worth my understanding is that countless studies have been undertaken that have established the safety of ultrasounds.

Even if there were a very small risk I would suggest that it would be outweighed by the clinical benefits associated with having the 2 recommended scans. For example, knowing that your baby has a heart condition prior to birth endured that they get the best possible care both before and after birth.

I had both my children in the early and late eighties, in totally different parts of the UK. Both times was told by medical staff, scans were only carried out if there was a medical reason. I was told by one doctor as there had been no research into any effects of scans they were not done in that NHL’s authority.

That's all fine but I had high risk twins and had about 8 scans during the pregnancy and they're perfect now at 11 years.

However they would be dead if I hadn't had those scans.

Makes you think, eh?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-47939934

Scans save babies lives.

Yes the NHS has countless money to offer things that are statistically and scientifically proven to be harmful and change birth outcomes 🧐 think of the potential outcomes if you don’t

I spent most of my 2 pregnancies in hospital and had many, many scans, probably every other day. This was in the late 90's and I have 2 perfectly healthy DS's

It seems like these studies are not available in journals, and the findings only published in English in one book, which is itself not from an academic press but seems to be self-published? I’d take that with a hefty pinch of salt if I were you.

You have the right to decline all scams of course. As the above poster said though you should balance whatever you think the risk of ultrasounds is against the risk of not having them and missing some diagnosable condition, like placenta previa. Also consider how you’d handle it if an ultrasound was recommended for specific reasons, like bleeding during pregnancy or measuring small for dates.

I think that someone would be very naive and would be risking the lives of themselves and their baby not to have scans as advised. We actually had extra scans for DD as growth scans were recommended from 32 weeks. Without them we wouldn't have known that she had a short chord, needed extra monitoring and flipped to breach at 38 weeks. All external feel arounds said was head down and engaged. Women like to think of themselves having a lovely healthy and uneventful pregnancy but a lot do not go to plan and scans are part of the checks we have to keep baby and mum safe.

I would have at least one scan if you want to minimise the risk.

I had 5 in the end as the anomaly scan picked up placenta praevia. It is a fairly common condition which often resolves itself. Mine did not and I had to have an ELCS. DS and I could have died if it hadn't been seen on the scan.

If I had had a third child I would have declined scans, they made a mountain out of a molehill, told me something was a marker for all kinds of abnormalities and ... nothing was wrong it was simply (American) drs making money out of worrying women. But I was low risk (under 30) and knew I wouldn't terminate for disability - however we never had a third.

I live in a country where scans are offered at every single appointment, and on demand as well. For DS1 this means I probably had about 15 and for DS it was more like 20. I’ve had several different Obstetricians including ones trained in the UK, Denmark and Germany. Not a single one seemed remotely concerned by the amount of scans I was having. However the scans did pick up on things like excess fluid and transverse lie (so risk of cord prolapse)

As pp have said, scans serve a very important purpose. They could save your life and the life of your baby. I have just looked on the WHO website and every day over 800 women die from preventable complications in pregnancy and childbirth, mostly in developing countries. We are lucky enough to have access to some of the best medical care in the world which means that unfortunately people can become complacent about risks. Pregnancy can be life-threatening. Think very, very carefully before turning down scans which are proven to improve outcomes for pregnant women and their babies.

A scan picked up an issue with blood flow to the baby. As a result she was delivered early by c-section. If she had not been, brain damage or death were the likely outcomes.

I had daily scans towards the end. I was concerned and looked for studies on the safety of so many scans. I couldn't find anything published in any reputable source indicating any proof of harm. One study showed a higher tendency towards left handedness. My daughter is left handed. In my view a lifetime of awkward writing is a price worth paying for avoiding brain damage or stillbirth.

I also find the notion that the NHS tells women to avoid, eg, soft cheese because of the risks but would be happy to perform dangerous ultrasounds somewhat ridiculous...

How many extra scans where given? How long between each scan? At what stage were the pregnancies terminated?

2 scans, 2 months apart in the second trimester, to look for specific issues are not the same as a first trimester foetus being given 4 scans in 2 weeks.

Ultrasounds are carried out using sound waves. Like as in what causes you to be able to hear - albeit it at higher frequencies. Until someone can show me sound waves cause genetic damage I'll be over here having scan number 10 or whatever I'm on now. If you find anything let me know and I'll make sure to turn down my radio too. My quick Google hasn't revealed any peer reviewed or journal published work that supports this article. I'm not convinced.

The Chinese studies are interesting but flawed, which is why they haven't been covered much in general news. They also took place in a completely different environment to ours, and they have very different incidences of cancer and environmental conditions to us. There is nothing at all to suggest that the results would be replicable here.

Hm, that seems pretty unanimous!

I am aware of the benefits of scans, not only for identifying problems with the baby but also maternal issues like placenta praevia or fibroids. I should confess I work in the NHS and should probably know better than to mistrust their services 😳 But I'm also aware that they're sometimes subject to conflicting political or financial pressures that can impact on the recommendations made. While the studies themselves may be of poor quality, it is true that it's not considered ethical to robustly test the effects of things like pregnancy ultrasound in the UK, so we wouldn't necessarily know of the effects until later generations. It's also true that the strength of ultrasound waves are considerably stronger now than they were when Western studies were carried out, so the evidence saying it's safe may not apply quite as strongly to the current technology as it did to the technology of the 80s and 90s.

That said, I think there can also be non-clinical benefits to the scans, e.g. in terms of bonding. My DH is looking forward to seeing the baby and I think it'll make it feel more real to him.

I'm sure I will go ahead with the scans. On balance the benefits are probably worth any small risks that exist and I was just having a moment of madness / paranoia! I also don't want my midwives or obstetricians to think I'm a "problem patient" or put them in a difficult position as I'm having my care in the same trust where I work.

Thanks for talking sense into me, all :) And for the points about the quality of the Chinese evidence, lack of peer review, different environment etc. Going to blame my sudden inability to effectively weigh up research on the pregnancy hormones! 🙈