did you refuse iron tests, urine tests, bp checks, doppler checks etc?

[nappyaddict]

if so why? i can understand refusing tests that find out abnormalities if you wouldn't terminate anyway but i can't understand why people refuse those mentioned above.

seeker, they don't even offer pregnancy testing here without sending it to the lab.

they don't even believe you are pregnant here without your submitting a urine sample, which they send to a lab over 30 miles away and across a fecking sea loch.

so how's it they can be trusted to test you properly for FA, not to mention treating you for it, given that there is no treatment to be had without a 35 mile journey over water and A roads?

i will be purchasing dipstick tests to do myself at home.

if there is any problem, i will go back to Edinburgh, camp out with SIL and pretend we live there again.

I did have most of the tests I was offered including tests at 12 weeks as I was 37 when I got pregnant. The test I refused was to take was the one involving drinking Lucozade, for diabetes - although I didn't always get it together to give urine samples for testing, I did enough for a problem to have shown up. But I continued to feel/be sick and suffer from horrible acidic heartburn right up to the birth, and I couldn't face the Lucozade thing.

I should put in here that I am a midwife in NZ - so I know quite well the risks associated with pregnancy. And no I didn't do any self-testing or poking and prodding either

I also know the uselessness of being weighed and peeing on a stick! Even our diabetes specialists say that it's pointless, and protein on its own is nothing.

As far as low iron pph's go I don't mean to imply that it's any kind of marker - just anecdotal evidence that myself and many of my colleagues have seen repeatedly in the women that we care for. We work in a low socioeconomic area, where women are poor and often 'non-compliant' (I hate that term) and certainly don't look after themselves well. It's just an observation.

We are all independant midwives here, caring for women from conception to 6 weeks postnatal - except obviously for those staffing the wards! So our style of
care may be different and I sincerley hope no-one is as out in the cold as expatinscotland.

We have women consistantly turning up at our local unit (staffed only by midwives, so no epidural or sections etc) in labour with no previous care at all, they come to have a baby then they go home. Just part of what they did that day!

iron tests: no I would not refuse this test as I hlost a lot of blood giving birth and that is potentially very dangerous.

Urine tests: Urinary tract infections can cause unusal symptoms during pregnancy and it's important to diagnose an infection. It's also important to measure protein as that can be a sign of pre eclmapsia. I find this a particulalry important test.

Bp checks: I'm not refusing these exactly, but I'm thinking about hiring a blood pressure machine and checking my bp at home as I don't like having it taken by a medical professional.

Doppler checks: I wouldn't refuse these.

I do however refuse to be weighed

Interesting that so many of us put so much stick in listening to the baby for what - maybe a minute? It tells us only what is happening in that moment nothing about what may happen 2 minutes after you walk out the door. This is why continuous monitoring in labour is so contentious and not recommended for normal healthy labouring women - we don't know enough about 'normal' yet.

jaynz - I have a friend who's baby was found at 31 weeks to have an extrememly elevated heart rate (250-500 bpm). That was found at the standard check up. She was immediately admitted to hospital and given emergency treatment and the baby is alive. I'm not sure if the baby would have survived if tehy hadn't listened with a doppler.

I'm one of those women who with all 3 pregnancies there has been some kind of palaver and I have been referred to specialists left right and centre and seem to have all of these tests done on a weekly basis.

Having said that I acccept them because they are there but if they were NOT done at an appointment I would not be at all worried.

In general I am healthy...I do know when I'm feeling lethargic etc to up my iron. When I had pre-eclampsia with my first I knew before the mw saw me.....

None of these tests are going to tell you that your baby is perfectly heatlhy. Only a good old scan can do that. Even if there are problems most stuff cannot be rectified until after the birth. Certainly with the problems I had with DD2 and in this pregnancy I have been told to "ride the waves" as it were....I will either lose them or I wont!!! so in that case I can understand what Jaynz is trying to say in that believing in our bodies is a good form of care. With DD2 they were certain I would lose her and I for some reason I knew she would be fine.

Incidentally last year my friends brother and his wife lost a baby last year at term. They had been to a MW appointment the earlier day and listened to the heartbeat so when she didn't feel any movements the following day she didn't worry too much thinking she was getting ready for labour. The following day the baby was stillborn!!

To me they are worth doing if offered but certainly not essential and it is a womans right to refuse them.

It's good to hear that baby is ok.

I don't mean to imply that no good can come from antenatal testing, just that for the majority of us it is often superfluous.

I have certainly had my share of stuff come up through testing that women choose to have, and still I don't feel that much of it is necessary.

I certainly recognise that it takes a good deal of strength not to have care/tests and go against the majority and the pressure - I had more than my share of criticism, mostly the "you should know better"s and the "how can you endanger your baby's (interestingly from staff midwives mostly, I had great support from independants - maybe a reflection of what we see most of?). I really think it is important that women are informed and supported.

I refused a couple of blood tests because we wouldn't gain anything by knowing the outcome. I don't mind weeing on a stick periodically, am quite interested in how much weight I've gained and like listening to the baby's heartbeat - it helps me to connect. I know this thread isn't about the big issues and the big tests, but I didn't go for any of those either. Have had one scan at 22 weeks for the purposes of a limb count (I would terminate if it was clear that the baby was not at all viable).

I agree that many of these tests prey on the "what if" fear, but I'm also aware that many of these tests are carried out "because we can". There are no guarantees in this world, so in some ways I think these tests can lull people into a false sense of security. Just my personal opinion. I know many women derive a great deal of comfort from the process and I wouldn't deny them that.

the thing is though, you don't actually know the tests are superfluous until after you have them and they come back normal.

I've had all the tests but only because I want a VBA2C and have had previous issues, the results of my 'tests' are what has given me the confidence to say 'look, my baby is fine, I'm not having a CS yet' (they wanted me delivered two days ago).

However, I am at a different hospital to my last so I put some faith in them when they actually seemed interested in finding out why I had a placental abruption wth my first pg, at my last hospital they didn't give two hoots and practically forced me (by saying there was no other way - LYING) to have a CS so if I'd still been there I wouldn't have gone for hospital ante-natal visits.

I am a "normal healthy woman" didn't stop me developing pre eclampsia with dd [4] tho.

Won't stop me developing it this time either, so I'll keep having all my tests, me thinks.

Ignorance isn't always bliss...my daughter may not be here if I had had that attitude with her. At 36 weeks I had a crash c-section & it was found that my placenta was failing quite rapidly....

It could have been very different without the tests that brought about my early delivery.

Message withdrawn

I get nosebleeds when I am anaemic so I think that throws that theory out...

I can understand what you are saying. For me, I have the tests done for reassurance. Pregnancy involves enough worry as it is, I don't do it enough to reliably know what I am feeling is right or not. I would rather wee in a pot once every few weeks for that extra bit of reassurance.

Thank you for your clarification Jaynz.

LeonieD - I refused the GTT in two pregnancies for exactly the same reasons. This last time the consultant spoke at length abou how the baby was sure to be over 9lbs etc etc, shoulders stuck etc etc. Dd3 was the smallest of my 3 - 7lbs 15ozs!

I refused all blood tests and hospital appts with consultants last year when I had 3rd baby. Purely because I have a fear of it.

All was well and I had a very easy, short homebirth.

With regards to Iron, I just made sure I took Spatone everyday and vitamins.

I think cases like hatrick's show why antenatal testing can be very valuable

personally I don't feel I need blood tests and urine tests etc but don't feel strongly enough about it to refuse and be labelled 'odd' tbh

I did not have a 20 week scan as in my case it was more likely to cause worry than solve anything

it is different for people who want to
prepare themselves for any potential problem though, or who like hatrick have a pre-existing risk they want to check out

I think some people feel strongly that pregnancy is not an illness and that they don't want the process to become unnecessarily medicalised

of course we are lucky to be in the position to receive good antenatal care when things DO go wrong

The same could be said of any tests couldn't it? Most will come back normal so why bother doing them. In that case I won't bother with my next smear as it will probably be normal like most are.The point I am making is that yes for the majority of women ante natal testing is pointless but surely for the few were a problem is detected and put right it is worth the minor inconvenience for the rest. On the same footing you could say that most babies of mums who smoke/ drink during pregnancy are fine so lets not bother advising women not to smoke or drink.

I felt great throughout first pregnancy, was a 'normal healthy woman' and got pre-eclampsia which was diagnosed through protein in urine and high blood pressure.

I felt great throughout second pregnancy - 'listened to my body' and in response to my 'listening' sank carton loads of fresh orange juice - turned out my unquenchable thirst was being caused by gestational diabetes. I ended up being on insulin injections for the last three months of my pregnancy.

I have never had any health probs in my life, was of normal weight both times but I'm very glad I took the tests. It was no skin off my nose and in the first preg potentially saved my life, and in the second, potentially saved my dd. I'm against unnecessary intervention in preg/labour but to me the basic tests are a bit of a no brainer.

No, madje, I think you are missing the point
decisions about all tests concern risk v intrusion, and it is up to us to decide what is acceptable / desirable in our own personal case

2 women I know whose anomaly scans have shown up problems, have told me they wish they never had any scans at all
there was nothing they could do about the problems, there were many conflicting theories about what the problems were, and it led to an immense amount of worry at a time which should and could have been happy and peaceful for them