Why does everyone have an ultrasound?

[redted]

I am in the very early stages of pregnancy and not sure yet whether or not to have an ultrasound scan. In the area that I live two are offered, one at 12 weeks, one at 20 weeks. I definately won't have two but may choose to have one, probably at 20 weeks.

The thing is I have looked in to it a bit and found a few things that suggest that it may not be as safe as everyone seems to think it is. It has only been around since 1955, it used to be thought that x rays were safe in pregnancy, but now no one would do one due to the risks to the fetus.

There is also a large research study that suggests that women who were scanned routinely as opposed to those who were only scanned if there were problems had no better outcomes than those who were only scanned as indicated.

Anyone else declined scans? Did you regret it, did you get supported in your choice?

It is my third baby, I did have scans with the other two, with the first because I bled a bit and with the second because I was worried after the first one. Thankfully they both seem ok.

loopylouise

You are incorrect about the purpose of the 20 week scan. It can also identify a need for further monitoring of the baby while the pregnancy progresses or that treatment may be required shortly after birth.
Calling it an 'abortion scan' would be misleading.

I found out my baby had died at the 12 week dating scan. There had been no sign whatsoever that anything was wrong. In addition, the foetus showed no sign of coming away by itself. If left to it's own devices, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have miscarried naturally for a few more weeks. Having also had earlier miscarriages, I can categorically say that for me it was massively more traumatic to find out about the loss of my baby so late. Finding out at 12 weeks was pretty crap. Finding out at 15 or 16 weeks would have been been absolutely devastating. A scan wouldn't have altered the outcome, but it did dramatically make a pretty shit situation much better than it could have been otherwise.

Incidentally, there is evidence that regular scanning in the first trimester on women who have experienced recurrent miscarriage can lead to a much higher rate of live births.

I cant believe anyone would decline a scan - they have a purpose...

What about people who have placenta previa? They have weekly scans because the condition is life threatening to both mother and child.

It is negligent imo. It's the first step of being responsible and wanting to check the baby is healthy without problems.

What if there wasn't enough water? Or too much water? Or the placenta had broken away? Or there were more than one baby?

There are loads of things that are picked up on a 20 week scan that require monitoring and may need extra help during or after birth but would not lead people to have an abortion.

i'm glad i have had scans. my previous pregnancy to this one showed a missed miscarriage at the 12 week scan, never had any bleeding or pain or anything. this turned out to be a molar pregnancy which could have turned very very nasty had it not been caught early. so i'll keep having scans thanks. 3 so far in this pregnancy, and i'm 17 weeks.

At the end of the day you can do whatever you like. However if you start googling anything you will scare yourself half to death.

It is definitely true that the potential benefits outweigh the risks (apart from nuchal which seems to frighten many on here half to death and I am quite about). It is also true that most of our mothers never had them and survived.

I really think that calling a 20 week scan an "abortion scan" would be a gross misrepresentation. I know of several individuals who had 20 week scans which picked up significant anomalies that meant that their babies were delivered in specific hospitals so that they could be attended to by neonatal and surgical teams experienced in those anomalies.

Really you wouldn't want a baby with http://www.med.umich.edu/fdtc/images/art_gastroschisis.jpg gastroschisis delivered at home (not knocking hbs btw) or anwhere other than a tertiary centre with access immediately to an experienced paediatric surgical team. I think that USS scan make a very significant difference to outcomes in certain situations.

neolara - I would love to see some evidence that regular scanning in the first trimester reduces risk of recurrent miscarriage?

deslamer: stupid question alert but...

Are scans the same as X rays?I have never thought so and might have misunderstood Op.

Wrt the "abortion scan" personnaly, I had the two offered scans for all my Dcs and would not have considered an abortion even if something had been "wrong", but I agree with LaDiDaDi that it would have helped me in my choice of delivery (hospital or home for example).

I find this quite interesting. I have never had any scans in any of my 3 pregnancies. Not because of safety issues (although I don't believe there have been sufficient studies to say they have no ill-effects) but because I personally found them unnecessary. I knew my dates and I didn't want any screening as I would continue pregnancy regardless so knowing anything wouldn't effect me.

What I find interesting is that people can have such a debate about this decision. it is the same as any other decision as to what people want to accept or decline. There wouldn't be the same attitudes if discussing 'routine' amnio!

Just to pick the first I noticed, Kaylo states that it is "negligent" to decline a scan! That is a very weighted word to use for someone else's decision.

To OP - I didn't regret it at all. And I was not supported...the first MW I saw was in total agreement with me but after that I saw a cow different mw who could not understand my 'refusal'.

gorionine no scans are not the same as x-rays. I think OP was just pointing out that x-rays had been considered safe during pregnancy then it was realised years later that they weren't. It is possible same could happen with scans. (correct me if I'm wrong, OP)

Picking up a placenta praevia is an excellent reason to scan. But as the placenta has the potential to move out of the way until 32 weeks (or thereabouts, this is when they definitively say "you need a section") this isn't a reason for a 12/20 week scan. In fact you could argue that being told your placenta is low lying at 20 weeks is really unhelpful. In the absence of bleeding it is meaningless and just gives us something else to worry about...

Having said that - the scans gave me enormous peace of mind which outweighed my concerns that their safety has not been thoroughly ascertained.

Kaylo - some people may say it is negligent to have a scan when the potential side effects (esp long term) are unclear.

musthaveaveryshortmemory If you dont have a 12/20 week scan that raises the possibility of placenta praevia then you wont be offered a scan later on to check the placentas position, because no-one will know it is a problem.

What I'm saying is - just have a late scan for praevia.

Loopylouise - The statistics about having weekly scans and how they improve outcomes for women who have had recurrent miscarriage is in the book "Miscarriage - what every woman should know" by Professor Lesley Regan. I can't remember the exact statistics, but it's something like weekly scans in the first trimester lead to a 70 - 80% chance of a successful pregnancy, compared to only a 50% chance normally. I think this is based on women who attend her clinic at St Mary's hospital London. I don't know if these results have been published in medical journals, or if so, where they have been published. However, the national guidelines on for obstreticans on how to treat women with recurrent miscarriage seems to take these results on board as currently advice is that this group should be offered early reassurance scans.

Having recently had a mmc at 13 weeks (baby died at 12 weeks), I'm damn glad I had an ultrasound. Heaven knows how long my body wold have taken to stop thinking it was pregnant. This way I found out, had an ERPC and am now almost ready to start ttc again. If I hadn't had the ultrasound I might still think I was pregnant

Food for thought:

www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasound.asp

asuwere MustHaveaVeryShortMem

I said In My Opinion.

No offence was intended - if I didnt have a scan I would feel guilty if something was wrong at the end of the pregnancy. I would feel like I failed to give my unborn baby the attention it needed for whatever condition to be picked up.

Until evidence against ultrasound scanning outwieghs the benefits of it I will continue to have my scans.

Tnaks very much for reading...it's been an interesting post.

av had 4 scans in this preg wan at 8 wks to see how far gone a was wan at 14wk wan at28 tht was to c if baby was growin ok then wan today 32 5days to see if growin ok a gen

amyboo.

Thanks for starting this thread, it's interesting reading. I think it's all a matter of personal choice.

All being well I'll be having 11 scans during my pregnancy as I'm involved in a research study on blood flow to the womb before and during pregnancy and fetal growth restriction. It did worry me at first, so I looked into it and found the studies on left-handedness, which extrapolate to possible epilepsy and dyslexia, and another on repeated scans and fetal growth restriction (ironically). But these are very old studies and my clinic has reassured me that they and the ethics committee do not feel that repeated scanning is an issue. I would feel happier if I could read some specific research contradicting the stuff I found, but have decided to put my faith in my clinic and stay on the study. My scans are all doppler ones but they don't put the doppler over the baby on the early ones. They are at 7 days passed embryo transfer, 7 weeks, 12-14, 16, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 37-38 and I think I also have the NHS ones at 12 and 20 weeks. I'm really nervous about the 7-week scan, which is on Wednesday, as I've had 2 early mcs before, but will be so reassured afterwards if everything's OK and if it is bad news at least I'll know now and not have to wait until 12 weeks to find out.

Good luck in your pregnancies everyone. Really sorry to hear about the mmcs some of you have had.

I know of a woman who refused all scans with her 2nd pregnancy and she had a torrential bleed at 31(ish)weeks. Her and the 2 babies she was carrying did not survive. IMO the benefits definately outweigh any percieved risks.

Hi, I had the usual scans with DD 1 and and a lot more with DDs 2 and 3 as there were worries about how big they were.

With DS I had the 12wk which was fine and then 1 at 21 weeks which was bad - it suggested he had no renal system and subsequent scans confirmed this. I was induced early and he was stillborn last November. He was really squashed and I think it would have been unkind to keep him inside longer than necessary.

I have just had another scan which revealed I was corneal ectopic and I was rushed to surgery.

I accept that there are only problems in the minority of cases but the last scan may well have saved my life and the one before prepared me for a dreadful outcome and helped me to take some control of the situation and make all the plans I needed to.

DDs are 9, 3 and 1 and are showing no ill effects: If I was able to have any more pregnancies, I would not hesitate to scan again.

I'm glad I was offered an early scan at 7 and a half weeks. Had I not been then I wouldn't have known so early that my pregnancy was not viable. heartbreaking as it is I dread to think of how I would have felt had I got to 12 weeks and had my routine scan only to be told the baby had been non-viable since week 6.

I think scaring women by saying scans are dangerous to the foetus is just unhelpful.

and...

Don't you think pregant women have enough to worry about without having 'scans are dangerous' thrown at them too?