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.

Leoni - a woman who develops a blood sugar high enough to warrant insulin does indeed have a risk to her baby. It is not all about size - a high blood sugar can result in fetal death.

I agree that testing is not always necessary however you do not know which women it is useless for in advance.

I am perfectly healthy but developed antibodies during pregnancy. Had I not known about that my babies could have died due to fetal anaemia.

Monitoring blood pressure and proteinuria can allow intervention before eclampsia takes hold. Uncontrolled blood pressure can result in brain haemorrhage.

Perhaps you should have a look at the confidential enquiries into maternal death to see how antenatal/intrapartum and postnatal care is important.

thank god the the voice of reason, mears

Leoni - there is plenty of scientific proof out there regarding the risk to babies of diabetes. I am notgoing to scroll the internet.

I do agree with you that there can be an over the top reaction to gestational diabetes but that does not mean that in all circumstances it should not be taken seriously.

I have seen a baby die due to uncontrolled blood sugar - the postmortem result confirmed that diagnosis.

I haven't even thought to say no to tests, I'm happy to have them, if they show me that bad times are ahead then it's not their fault, and I'd like to know before it happens. I got nervous about my first scan and I'll be nervous about my 20 week scan, but I'm nervous about how my baby is getting on anyway, it is not specifically the test that makes me feel this way. I found out on Thursday that I have a very rare blood type and that i'm rhesus negative, which is good to know for if I have another baby.

I actually like going to the MW, none of the tests hurt, none are invasive and it makes me feel a bit special and proud that I'm pregnant - smug bastard alert when I'm in the Dr surgery, haha!

'i don't believe a word of it'

It's interesting that you should say that LeondieD. Because that's what it comes down to for many women. Belief. No matter what scientific and anecdotal evidence Mears comes up with, you simply will not believe that gestational diabetes can be a problem. Or even exists at all.

Belief can be a very dangerous thing.

Leonie what don't you believe? That mears knows of a baby that died due to gestational diabetes?
Of course, I'm sure she'd lie about it

There are still people out there that don't 'believe' in the links between smoking and cancer, but they are all smokers that in my view are blinkered, possibly because they are too scared to think about what they may have inflicted on themselves.

VitorianSqualor - I didn't make clear that the baby that died of hyperglycaemia was to a mother with insulin dependant diabetes.

There are women with GD who go on to need insulin during pregnancy to prevent hyperglycaemia - very high glucose levels.

The point I am trying to make to Leoni is that although the majority of GD may be harmless, there are some women whose babies can be at risk. You don't know unless you test.

I am happy that you are making your own choice Leoni but your sweeping statement that testing is useless is not correct.

Testing everyone regardless is not necessary but there are some women who warrant it. I am glad you are happy not to be one of them.

researchers at Guys/St Thomas's are also interested in the future implications of children born to women with GD - and fear that it may affect their future metabolism. so monitoring such conditions during pregnancy are not a waste of time/scarmongering.

imo

for me, it's the fact that this trust has proven itself incompetent to me as regards maternity care.

if they fail people even in the early stages, they cannot be trusted to look after one's health later on.

this business of sending urine samples to labs miles away - and consistently losing them - just goes to show how inept they are.

not to mention, routinely performing abdominal scans on women in early pregnancy instead of more accurate transvaginal ones.

and treating all women like illiterate 16-year-olds, not being intelligent enough to tell the difference, or just not giving a toss to do so.

they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, much less spot an elephant with a monkey on its back.

gestational diabetes",
is a serious medical complication tha can result in baby morbidity and maternal morbidity. perinatal mortality amongst the babies of diabetics is still several times higher than amongst the general population and so continued attention must be paid to the well being of mum and baby during pregnancy. Ketoacidosis can cause fetal death at any stage.

the NICE guideline states that "the evidence does not support routine screening for gestational diabetes mellitus and therefore it should not be offered" (p19) however once there are established risk factors, v close monitorinhg is indicated

Totally understandable Expat, I was actually in the town I gave birth to my DC's in on sunday and got really poorly, vomiting severely and stomach cramps etc, but there was no way I was going to that hospital no matter how bad it got I told DP to just drive the 40miles home and I'd call my mw when I got back.

hence, i will be forgoing all antenatal treatment here.

not that it's even been offered to me.

the surgery doesn't believe or consider a woman pregnant here until their lab in Greenock has done a urine test for pregnancy.

and it appears they have lost my sample.

again.

hence, as i am not considered pregnant, and it appears i am not worthy of being taken seriously or believed despite having informed them that i spotted all weekend, then they're not worth bothering about it.

i'm paying £100 and travelling across the country next week for the transvaginal scan i need.

at least i've actually been treated with a modicum of belief by the staff at the Fetal Medicine Centre.

Oh, I see where you are coming from, VS.

I would gladly risk my life before I set foot in Inverclyde Hospital again, as it is, you're taking a serious risk by going there and expecting any competent level of treatment.

High blood sugar can be extemely dangerous to both mother and baby. If high blood sugar was not a problem, why on earth do we spend a fortune treating people with diabetes, who would otherwise die???

There are plenty of risks associated with pregnancy - go to any churchyard and look at the numbers of young women who died in childbirth a hundred years ago.

Maternal death rates have come down dramatically in the last century - yes better public health is a large part of that, but obstetric care and monitoring is a big part of it too. It is very far from perfect, but I am aware of women who are refugees here, from countries where there is civil war etc, who would undoubtedly have died in childbirth had they not had their babies here.

I haven't read this whole thread, but as an exmidwife I find some of the comments on here scary.

I think there's a very valid reason why some people are mistrustful.

I completely understand where you are coming from expat. You have had shocking treatment - I did cross post with your post, so wasn't actually directing my comments at you. I did say that antenatal care is not perfect - but it is still better here than in some countries.

I do not feel that it is an option for me.

Again, not that it will ever be offered, seeing as I am not pregnant according to the system here.

I may not be. I do not know if this pregnancy is viable, given my recent history and the spotting I had.

But again, there is no other choice for me than to go private to find out.

Before insulin was available, the perinatal mortality associated with diabetes approached 50%. Over the last 60 years, this horrific figure has been reduced to 2% in the best units.

that is horrific reading 50% morbidity. as 3little frogs says, not so long ago it was commonly fatal

LeonieD - I was NOT diagnosed with GD because my baby measured big - she measured perfect for dates right the way through the pg. The insulin allowed ME to eat the correct amount of food needed to nourish my baby without my blood sugar going through the roof. Insulin did NOT resitrict my dd's growth - it enabled it and prevented either of suffeing the very REAL dangers of uncontrolled hyperglycaemia.

I am all for natural child birth, minimal intervention etc but please think very carefully before posting ill-informed opinion on a public board like this. I don't think I've ever been so angry on a MN discussion and will now withdraw.

Apologies for typos - so bloody angry about LeonieD's comments I can't type straight.

leonie - are you discussing evidence based medicine baseed upon demonstrably good peer reviewed research.

what reputable sources are you citing
what clinical efficacy are you referring to

i can cite maternal and baby morbidity for you, but am interested in your sources and obstetric references

please elucidate