Has anyone refused to have routine tests in pregnancy?

[foreverastudent]

I refused blood tests as I didnt see them as being medically necessary. Had loads of hassle with the hospital about it though.

I did have ultrasounds because I felt that the benefits outweighed the potential risks but would be interested to hear from anyone who refused these?

Does anyone else worry about the possible long term consequences of routine ultrasounds? I know docs say they're safe but thay said that about thalidomide (sp?) and ultrasounds haven't been around long enough to know if there will be effects 50 years down the line.

I had all routine scans and blood tests. They found iron problems through the blood and were concerned about my 20 week scan so had further scans, which turned out to be fine.

For some people I know there are issues around the safety of scans, but I would prefer if something was wrong with the baby that needed immediate treatment or in fact treatment whilst still in the womb, then I want the Doctors to be prepared.

I did refuse the screening tests as, for me, they wouldn't have changed the course of action.

Can I ask, why did you refuse blood tests?

I refused all the screening blood tests as I feel they can cause a lot of undue worry and I wouldn't abort whatever they said. I also have a friend who had a terrible experience undergoing amnio. Wouldn't go through that for anything.

I had all the standard blood tests and also the scans but I've met a lot of people, particularly in the US who express a lot of doubt about scans. I'm not convinced they do the baby any lasting damage (or that they bother the baby's hearing) but I would steer clear of 3D vanity scans or doing more regular scans than is absolutely necessary just in case.

They wouldn't do blood tests if they weren't medically necessary. What if you were RhD negative or had something treatable that if left untreated could harm the baby?

Ultrasounds I can see why some people might want to opt out if they wouldn't change their minds about the baby if any anomolies were found. Though I think ultrasounds have been around long enough for them to be considered pretty safe.

In our case, I have a really serious needle phobia but I knew the blood has to be taken for the sake of the baby. The midwives have been brilliant - they organised counselling and hypnosis for me to help me not freak out. If it wasn't medically necessary to have the blood tests there is no way on gods earth I would have had any.

They also found some anomalies on our 20 week ultrasound scan - we've had loads of ultrasounds and MRI's on the baby too, I know it's not ideal but it is necessary as it might affect how they manage the labour and the baby might need specialist treatment immediately after the birth.

From our experience, I'd say the routine tests were pretty important - they wouldn't waste so much time and money doing them if they weren't.

Asparagus - that's a bit naive to say they wouldn't do something if it wasn't medically necessary! Doctors aren't infallible, you know!

OP, I refused all screening tests. We are extremely low risk for all things that could be treated in utero or immediately following birth so, for us, the potential risk of ultrasound outweighed the benefits. I don't understand how they can say it has no effect one minute, and then use ultrasound therapeutically the next! We knew we wouldn't terminate a pregnancy. There was no reason to screen for anything so we didn't! I had no trouble from our midwives - why is the hospital involved in your pregnancy?

I have a friend who refused all testing for defects throughout her second pregnancy, after having a very stressful first pregnancy thinking her baby might have Down's (he didn't). She decided that whatever was meant to be would be and she wasn't going to spend nine months second guessing it all. I understand her p.o.v.

I feel very differently, though. I would want to know if there was anything wrong with my baby, just to be prepared and to have time to adjust to the idea.

Refusing all blood/urine tests full stop, though, is just foolhardy. I developed obstetric cholestasis in my second pregnancy, around the same time a friend developed gestational diabetes in her pregnancy. Neither of us would have known if it weren't for testing. I felt OK (bit itchy, but not ill) and friend had no symoptoms.

I see, I thought you meant all standard blood tests and was interested as to why.

i don't understand.

Do you mean routine test [as in the op] like blood group and anaemia acreening, or tests on your status for HIV and HepB or screening for the baby for Down's syndrom?

true mrs wobble

we refused all the screening tests too - but we've had all the routine tests.

I'd say the routine ones were more medically necessary than the screening ones

I am worried about the effects of so many ultrasounds and MRI's. We would never have considered termination at any point but I feel more confident about things knowing the doctors know what to expect when he's born so they can act quickly rather than wasting time trying to figure out what's wrong

Apasparagus - they do test for things that are not medically necessary - eg they tested my blood group - even though I pointed out it couldn't have changed since I had my DS 4 years earlier at same hospital, and I refused a routine test to determine whether I carried sickle cell aneamia or thallesmia (SP?) as if I wasn't a carrier 4 years ago I am not now! they also test if you are rubella immune - would be much better checking that BEFORE you got pregnant.

Furthermore in my first pregnancy I was tested twice for GD (2 hour fasting GTT) as all women with endocrine issues are high risk - my endocrinologist later told me that a thyroid condition does not make one high risk for GD.

re: ultrasound, understand not having early one, but refusing late one and hence not knowing if you have a low placenta seems a bit foolhardy to me.

I hate the words 'medically necessary' - they're rather meaningless and are often used by medical staff to bully a patient into following procedures or protocols that may not be ideal for that patient but which fit nicely into the hospital's administrative needs.

No test is 'medically necessary' although the benefits of having one may greatly outweigh the risks of having it. It is up to each patient to weigh up those factors with the best information they can get.

Sadly, while it would be lovely to believe medical caregivers always act in the best interests of their patient, it's simply not true.

Your blood group may not be able to change but the rhesus status of the blood can change. Its rare but has happened

I think there's a world of difference between the scrrening blood test etc (which we chose not to hav) Vs the routine blood tests life full blood count, blood group etc. Can't understand the motive in refusing those.

I am aware of a study that shows a higher proportion of left handers in people who had numerous ultrasound scans as a fetus! Depends if you'd consider that a side effect

I refused all blood tests both times - have needle phobia and felt said I considered being tested for the pox was a bit of an insult. Private hospital, quite understood.

Thye like to do your blood group including rh status as past of the assesment, because there are 100's of antibodies that can pose a transfusion risk - which is deemed imposrtant to know about. So whilst your ABo status can't change, your anti-Lea or Anti-Kell status can.

Did you know it is cheaper for your PCT to test you for the antenatal package [bloods for anaemia/HIV/Hepb etc etc] as a package than as a group of individual They purchase them from the l;abs at a bargain rate to keep maternity costs down, and to split them is more expensive. Apparently.

Rubella is tested for as the school age immunisations are sometimes missed or ineefective. Offering screening at 16 would probably be a good idea - but pre conception is difficult as up to third of preg in th eUK are thought to be 'unplanned'. Whatever that may mean. Can't remember where I read or heard that, possibly a screening stud day.

I've met quite a few people turn down various tests.

I wouldn't refuse to have routine tests in pregnancy, I am thankful that I live in a country where we have access to them.

I am rhesus negative which I didn't know until I was pregnant. With my first pregnancy I had a problem which was picked up at a routine antenatal appointment, I was sent for a scan and discovered that the baby was breech and I had very low levels of amniotic fluid. I then caught an infection and ds had to be delivered early, the doctor examined me and didn't even realise I was breech and was about to send me off for an induction. If I had attempted to give birth with almost non existent levels of fluid and the baby in a breech position there could have been dire consequences.

Yes, I forgot to say I had bloods done. I tend to get very anaemic when pregnant, which affects my recovery post-birth. After having DD2, when I had no blood tests at all, I was so anaemic (home birth) that I got very short of breath 2 days after having her. They thought I was having a PE (clot on the lung) and I had to go into hospital and have a nightmare 24 hours when I couldn't feed DD2 or cuddle her or DD1 because of the tests I had to have done. Had all the blood tests for DD3 and DD4 consequently! Just not screening tests.

Oh, also you need to know what you're letting yourself in for if tests don't go as you expect. Not to get into a debate on specifics or on GBS but I refused GBS screening with my first baby 8 years ago because positive results would have influenced my care heavily and made me ineligible for certain things (waterbirth, home birth etc.) under their policies while a non-result was treated as low risk.

Too much happens because of insurance, policy and litigation rather than evidence-based medicine.

I said yes to everything except the Downs screening. I'm youngish, so the stats are on my side re Downs, and I can't imagine ever reconsidering a much wanted pregnancy if the worst came to the worst.

Interestingly my midwife actively encouraged us NOT to test for Downs, which surprised me a bit.

I refused the HIV and Hepatitis test when it was offered with dd3. It wasn't offered with earlier pregnancies and I was confident it wasn't required so didn't feel the need for the test and the expense. Had I known Treedelivery, that from what you're saying, it's basically cost neutral I might have said 'oh sling it on the form as well then'- not sure.

I refused GTT twice because I didn't feel it was justified and I refused the triple test bloods.

I accepted three scans for dd3 - one was a cardiac scan due to dd2's heart defect. With the other two I only had one as they didn't do a dating scan at that time. I think I would have accepted more scans had they been deemed necessary. Having said that by the time I got to the heart scan I had imagined every horror and I would say it probably caused me more stress in the run up than I would have had anyway as an expectant mum with an older child with a CHD. I think that's the case. Obviously afterwards when I knew her heart was in good shape I did feel pleased I'd had it.

i refused the screening tests, and the blood tests at 28 and 36 weeks. Though i had to go in as they thought i had pre-eclampsia and the mw was asking why i hadnt had the bloods done and i said i didnt feel i needed them. Anyway she told me that if i didnt have them done, then they would do them when i went into labour anyway to make sure i wasnt anaemic and likely to need a blood transfusion! couldnt believe it. Had it done in the end, and was surprised to find i had low iron so now munching on iron tablets.

I think the cost saving in tiny on an individual scale, but adds up if you book 5000 ladies a year. So don't feel too bad Northernlurker

I must just climb on soap box and urge accuracy when using all these terms - a full blood count and screening for Down's syndrome are both screening tests by definition. Such different kettles of fish though.

And what is a kettle of fish anyway?

Why on earth wouldn't a private practice have you Riven? Nosey, but had to ask.

On the blood test thing - I knew I was going to need a transfusion during the birth, and they tested my blood every week so that they could have the right match of blood on standby for me. So it isn't just the type.

Ultrasounds - apparently there is some correlation between babies who had lots of ultrasounds and left-handedness. Can't remember the details and no idea how they established that. And correlation isn't cause. But still, that's a pretty big effect, if it is one, to switch the sides of your brain around ... (I've had one footling breech baby, placenta praevia twice and placenta accreta once, I'm all for ultrasound).

I'm left handed and my mum didn't have a single scan - I very much doubt ultrasound can cause it!

I don't know why people would refuse the routine tests re iron count, rhesus etc - we are so lucky to live in a country where these things are done for free!

Fair enough to refuse the screening for downs etc, but I just don't think it's worth the hassle of refusing the others, and the possibility they might miss something important would scare me too much to not have them.