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.

Each to their own...free world and all that!

I was scanned once a month with DS in first 6 months. Then more frequently as the pregnancy progressed.

Why was I scanned?

To check that bean is ok.
Check that blood flows are ok
Check whether baby is in correct position. My DS had been resolute breech from 28 weeks, when a senior MW felt my bump at 35 weeks, she said, 'ohh that baby is the in perfect position'. To which my response was unless he turned in the last 24 hours, I really doubt it. They didnt spot that my nephew was breech when SIL was pregnant, tried delivering naturally - his delivery was a code red c section!

Scans save lives, give safer options for childbirth and for the majority of people are a godsend!

Just one more thing. An article in my local paper today says 'scan could have saved my baby boy'.

Despite bleeding at 28, 37 and 41 weeks (in 2002) no scans were performed; although the baby was monitored. She then haemorrhaged catastrophically due to an undiagnosed VP (problem with the blodd vessels in the umbillical) chord and had an emergency section.

Sadly, her son did not survive depite being resuscitated and given a transfusion.

I agree that the decision to have an ultrasound should be down to personal choice. I think people just need to consider carefully the known benefits against unknown risks.

Spare a thought for those of us living in areas where we don't get offered two scans - I am in the Scottish Highlands and am not offered a 20 week scan

I've found it quite depressing reading all about everyone's scans and the abnormalities / problems they can detect, knowing that I am not offered the scan to find out.

We are considering paying for a private scan for peace of mind but are on a tight budget so haven't decided yet.

Well, it would be a rum old world if we were all the same .

Going outside your front door while pregnant isn't 100% safe, life is a matter of calculated risks. Actually, I slipped down the stairs the other day so even staying at home is a bit dodgy. I feel that the risks to me and my baby of not diagnosing something like a low placenta or fetal kidney problems is greater than having an ultrasound. With this pg I've had a 7 week scan (bleeding) and a 12 week dating scan. I'll have a 20 week anomoly scan, as well as scans at 30 and 34 weeks as I have a history of recurrent miscarriage. I'm quite happy about all of these scans.

I wonder what life will be like in this no-risk utopia of the future .

If my sister hadn't had a scan, my two nieces would have been dead by the time she was 7 months pregnant. Fortunately they got them out and saved them. Their cords wern't working properly from 24 weeks.

I had problems with my first pregnancy because of a poor functioning placenta, thanks to my 32 wks scan they found out that my DD was not growing properly anymore. I was monitored and DD was delivered at 36 wks. She would not be here or be who she is now if I hadn't had the scan. I am pregnant again and having the same problem, I have already been scanned 5 times (I am 26 wks) and probably will be scanned every 2 wks until delivery, this could save my baby's life, so I do not have and will never have any seconds thoughts about having a scan or not.

I was pregnant with my fourth child last year and at the 20 week scan they discovered he had died a couple of weeks before. If I hadn't had the scan there's no telling when my body would have ended the pregnancy naturally - and there are risks in carrying a dead baby over a period of time. For me, emotionally, it was so much better finding out at the scan that he had died than unexpectedly going into labour, assuming that happened, especially with 3 small children to worry about.

I am now pregnant again and nearly 24 weeks. I have had many more scans than usual eg to check blood flow in the placenta. And this has been hugely reassuring after a devastating loss.

I am very, very grateful for the technology. I also agree that if there were a problem, even though I'm pretty certain I'd never terminate, I'd want us to know as much as possible as early as possible so we could plan in advance, particularly if the baby needed medical intervention early.

Years ago a friend's mum was pg and her baby died in the womb but I don't think scans were readily available then because nobody knew until it started to smell ... All very unpleasant.

In the past, women would have sold their souls for the medical treatment we have available to us these days. I certainly am extremely grateful for it.

I cant help feeling annoyed by this thread, I am sorry. There are so many things to worry about when pregnant and I have found all of my scans so reassurring. I am 34 weeks pregnant and last week I found out that due to the babies position I am at risk of a cord prolapse. If I hadnt had this scan I wouldnt know anything about it. I have been told that if my waters break I have to get to the hospital asap in an ambulance if necessary. So for me the risks are so much greater if you dont go for your scans.

Almost everything we do is a risk/benefit trade-off. Based on what we currently know, women in Britain, USA and pretty much everywhere else are advised that the benefits of USS outweigh the risks. I am pretty happy with the credentials of the people who have made this judgement.

On a personal note, I have had loads of scans in my second and third pregnancies. In my first pregnancy an accurate dating scan may have prevented my DD's stillbirth, but one wasn't offered. In my third pregnancy the 20 week scan picked up a potentially serious fetal anomaly which will require surgery, and further scans were used to keep very close checks on my DS2's health. Decisions were made based on those scans. They were clinically necessary and I have had no qualms about having them.

OP's gone quiet. Don't tell me we've fallen prey to another journalist .

Hi,
I too had the same worries as you after reading lots of various articles and newspaper reports on the supposed 'dangers of scanning', I decided to go ahead with the 12 week scan and will also go for the 20 week scan. I decided not to have the nuchal scan. Good luck with your pregnancy!

In my opinion I think you are worrying over nothing, worrying isn't good and it's one reason we have the scans - for peace of mind.
What if you are carrying more than one baby? Would you not like to find out so u can be prepared?
I would say if you are unsure whether to have both scans just have the 20 week scan as the 12 week scan is only really to confirm the dates and to have a nosey.
I'm a true believer in not reading too much in to these 'reports', often the people who write them have a hypothosis and then go about proving it, you can read one report that states one thing and another that states the opposite.
I don't know of any babies that have been harmed from having a scan but I do know of babies that have had problems detected on scans, one of which would have died within minutes of being born if it hadn't have been detected on the scan.
Personally I believe that the benefits far out weigh any 'risks'.

I had an extra scan as part of a research project at 34 weeks pregnant with DD1. I was shocked to learn she had ventriculomegaly. We were even offered a termination at 34 wks! Thankfully she was healthy but I was heavily Monitored in the labour and ended up with an emergency section. Whilst I agree with the sentiments of a lot of the posts here, I do feel that more people should consider some of these sort of worries from scans. A lot more common is people being told their baby is very large on the scan and then worrying about vaginal delivery , only to find the baby is perfectly average sized after delivery. Scans are not perfect and still miss a lot of heart problems for example. I am expecting dc3 and will be having a 12 and 20 week scan only .

Wow, what a bizarre thread. Sorry, but it is. Whilst there seems to be a small amount of new research to show LOTS of scans (ie, scanning almost daily, like Tom Cruise did) could POTENTIALLY cause concern (no specific issues, just general concern), how can you think scanning is dangerous? It is STANDARD in Europe, ie Germany, France etc to have a MONTHLY scans, which is what I receive. In the last month, I get a weekly scan. I'm on my third baby, and those scans have been very, very helpful and reassuring. They have told me that my first had placenta prevae, so I took it easy and didnt strain myself or travel too far. They told me about potential breaches, cords around necks, size, weight, general health, and just to see my babies grow was a wonderful thing. They showed that the babies didnt have spinae bifea (sp?) or potential downs, that their neck folds/spine had closed correctly, that their hearts and every single organ (at the 20 week scan, where everything is checked)was working correctly. How you could possibly turn down the utter derisory amount of scans offered in the UK is incredible. Be grateful for what is offered, and remember its not being offered to provide a random job for Drs - it's an important health check which our mothers and grandmothers (as mentioned previously) would have loved to receive.

I will have the dating scan, I need it for a few reasons, I had irregular periods (last one 4 months ago, only just had +ve test) so I can calculate due date, because I'm considering flying home to have my baby NZ and obviously need to know when I am due to have that plan in place ha ha!!

Other than that I may decline the other scans. I'm low risk, and wouldn't intervene anyway, so I don't see the need.

I chose to decline scans (and all screening).

I knew my dates were correct.
I would not intervene if a fetal abnormality was discovered.
I have had a mmc before. I didn't get over it until DD1 was born. But being scanned ould not prevent another.
There are no long-term follow up studies detailing efficacy and safety that I am aware of.
I am inherently wary of intervention.

TThere's an AIMS publication called "Ultrasound, Unsound?" by Beverley Beech which I found very interesting.

I got a lot of strange looks but my mw fully supported my decision. Only negative comment I got was from a arrogant twit man at church.

Incidentally, DD2 was born with the cord wrapped 3 times around her neck. We were scanned fortnightly in the last trimester and that wasn't picked up.

It's a deeply personal choice and one that I mmade after a lot of research. I wouldn't dream of criticising another's choice; it's up to each individual woman.

As for scans diagnoing multiple births, I would be very worried if my mw could not pick that up! Also, just to comment, if I went on to have a multiple birth, I would be having scans to screens for twin to twin transfusion syndrome. As a healthy woman who has only so far produced singletons, I plan to decline them next time as well.