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.

Thanks for all the responses, I didnt expect many other people to say they'd refused standard tests.

I should have been more specific about what blood tests, though. I meant the routine ones for blood group/Rh status/anemia/STIs.

The ones for downs are only ever offered as an option, anyway, aren't they? Unlike the ones above that are deemed 'medically necessary'. I didnt want them because I knew my blood group/type, was taking iron tablets anyway, and was sure I didnt have any STIs. I also have a major needle phobia and would have to be at death's door to even consider it.

I'm surprised no-one else has said that they had any problems with their hospital/midwife/OB over this decision. I was accused of "DELIBERATELY" trying to harm my baby by refusing tests!

I did have all the urine tests and ultrasounds they wanted me to.

I accepted all the tests as it made sense to me to avoid un-necessary ill-health. But I refused the GTT as I didn't consider it necessary to be labeled (in a way that would adversely influence my labours) for a possible condition which was perfectly controlled through diet.

I wasn't particularly worried about the routine scans, but all of mine have had to have extra scans. I was particularly worried about no1, because he was scanned every 4w from wk20. The consultant had told me that so far the only thing that had been connected with multiple ultrasounds was a slight increase in the incidence of left-handedness. He wanted to reassure me, and made it sound fairly trivial. Which on the one hand, it is - it's not a big deal to be left-handed. But if you think about it, this implies some sort of changes in the brain...not so trivial after all.

Oddly enough, ds1 is not left handed, whereas ds2, who had the fewest scans of all my dc, is the only left-hander in the family (including extended family).

forever i am also a total needle phobe which was why i declined the last 2 lots of blood tests. and yes i was made to feel very bad for doing so. But in the end it turned out to benefit me having it done when i went in for something else, plus this is my second baby and last time during labour i had to have all sorts of things poked in me so im not as bad about blood tests as i used to be (still whimper and need to hold someone's hand!). I prefer them to the cannular thingy they put in the back of your hand. Now thats not nice!

I know I am Rh- but actually it was lucky that I didn't decline that one... because when I went to midwife at 28 weeks for anti-D they said oh, we can't give you that unless we have the blood test results from your booking in appointment, which were not in my notes since i'd had GP care (but GP couldn't do anti-D). she called the hospital to get the results. had i not been tested at my booking in i could have only had the injection if i'd gone back to the hospital for another blood test. i don't really want to get into debate over whether or not anti-d is essential but the point was they were not taking my word for it.

I declined - the STI tests, the genetic tests (already been tested with DD/DS), rubella (this is last baby and was immune when DS was born)...

I declined ALL antental tests including scans. These are my personal reasons:

I declined full blood count because I know when I am anaemic. If I feel asymptomatic I do not feel a need to be treated.
I declined SAI screening because I had a complete set of tests for all SAI before ditching condoms with my then boyfriend, now husband and we were both clean.
I declined blood-typing because I knew my blood type (though did NOT know that other aspects can alter, good info, thank you whoever posted that!)

I declined antenatal screening because termination is not an option I would ever consider. However my husband would put pressure on me to terminate if, for example,it turned out I was carrying a Down's baby. This would put ENORMOUS pressure on our marriage and tbh I doubt it would survive. Having a Down's baby diagnosed at birth, otoh, is simething I think DH would come to terms with.

I declined ROUTINE scans because I see no reason for them. I knew my dates, have no interest in knowing of abnormalities or the gender and I do have concerns regarding the safety of them. No longitudinal studies following up exposure as fas as I am aware of. AIMS tdo an excellent publication "Ultrasound, Unsound?" by Beech.

BUT I would have a scan if I can see a good reason for them. I measured very small with DD2 and had serial growth scans, the last maybe ten days before she was born. She was born with a pulse of 60-odd and blue due to the cord being around her neck and strangling her. That was never picked up on a scan. I know that was not the purpose of the scans, but I am even more wary of them as a the risk-free screening tool some people tout them as being.

I thought the GTT was discontinued as a routine test and just offered to those with a high BMI?

I would not dream of declining a urine test.

I had NO hassle whatsoever from my mw; but then I had known her through 3 pregnancies and she knew me pretty well. I am not looking forward to having a new one (we've moved) with DC4.

Littlesilver - the GTT is often offered as a 'routine' test for women like myself with higher BMI but no other risk factors or symptoms. That's why I refused it.

IMO, certain things are OK to decline and certain things are not so sensible to decline.

Ultrasound has been around 30+ years and I would not refuse an ultrasound because they can pick up problems that can be treated in utero.

Blood tests: I didn't have the Downs blood test, but I did have the tests for HIV etc, even though I could not think of any way I could have caught it, it is worth it as many things can be done to protect a baby.

Urine tests: no point in refusing these.

just out of curiosity, redcrane, have you known anyone who has had problems treated in utero? I know I haven't. In Beech's publication she also discusses the impliction of antental diagnosis in terms of premature delivery, which were not necessarily positive as far as I remember.

LittleSilver, no I have not known anyone but I just thought that it was a possibility that made it worth it. Actually, my children were both delivered slightly prematurely (3wks each) because of antenatal blood testing (obstetric cholestasis, tested because had symptoms) so I am aware that it is not particularly desirable (DS could have done with a little more cooking time, but nothing too serious), but then my alternative was to risk them getting poisoned by my malfunctioning liver so I had to take the "safer" option.

Redcrane, I would never decline medically indicated tests (eg one for OC); that's clearly just silly and irresponsible, imho. I have only ever declined "routine" tests that I deemed unnecessary.

The main in utero treatment I have experienced are fetal blood transusions - I've had to run [and I mean leg it] to the labs on several occasions to get a live full blood count on a fetal blood sample, so the obs could work out how much blood to tranfuse to the baby back in the fetal medicine room.

That would usually be a result of antibody sensitisation in the mother. So I would go for Blood group and antibody analysis in all my pregnancies. But then I have very alternative experiences to people who have not done my job, and that affects my cchoices.

Refused the screening tests as would not have terminated - as it was what DS has got - autism - cannot be tested for.

I refused the AFP test and STD screening.

I would not have terminated from the results of AFP and would neither have had an amnio or CVS, so there was no point.

Didn't want the NHS paying for the screening as dh and I are each others only sexual partners (and as I have known him since he was 19, I'm pretty sure of this!!!!)

I had my blood tested for anaemia, and also kidney function later on as I had a kidney problem related to pregnancy - therefore necessary.

Had ultrasounds.

I refused screening tests because they are so inaccurate I didn't feel I would get any clarity or comfort from the results. If they came back high risk, I would then have been faced with a decision about whether to go through an invasive and dangerous procedure when the overwhelming likelihood would still be that the baby is perfectly healthy. That would never be a risk worth taking for me, therefore the screening tests were pretty pointless.

I had all the routine blood tests. I already know I'm Rh -ve from last time so the antibody levels test in particular are really important. I will probably have the AntiD injection this time as well.

As for ultrasounds, I think they're pretty essential and would be very uncomfortable going through pregnancy without one.

Littlesilver, it's rather cavalier to say you have 'no interest' in knowing about abnormalities. It's all very well to be in denial about the possibility that there may be problems with the baby, but what if there's an abnormality such as a heart defect that needs to be treated immediately after birth? If this hasn't been picked up in pregnancy, the chances of successful treatment may be reduced and the baby could be much sicker (or worse) as a result.

muttonchop, I am not "in denial" about the possibility of abnormalities; that is actually rather rude.

I've read through most comments and I find it amazing how some people fear needles so much. Labour is far more scary and painful than the tiny scratch of a needle. Sorry, not wanting to belittle anyone's needle phobias, I don't exactly relish them but it's a few seconds of almost zero pain versus hours of pain and possible complications which is far more frightening IMHO.

Sorry, again, don't wish cause any offence to anyone as I know phobias are complex and I used to be terrified of injections, I just got over it one day when I realised it's nothing compared to what some people have to endure.

In answer to the original question

• I think I must be missing something.. why not get checked for routine stuff such as anaemia etc... people above have said all that needs to be said on that score. We're so lucky to live somewhere that gives us the opportunity to check for ailments . . .

Meeshamie - I'd rather go through labour again than have blood taken! I'm not phobic - I'm just bloody terrified!

I don't mind IM injections at all and have self administered them. But I have very very poor veins and a blood test for me involves half and hour of digging around in my arm, hand, even foot and once when a blood test was essential, something they call a femoral stab (exactly what it sounds like!). I once lost the use of my arm for several days after an inexperienced junior doc stabbed a nerve and the bruising is always spectacular.

The one person who can always get my blood is dh! He's a GP, but seems to have a knack for it. Where we used to live (remote, rural, everyone knew each other) they were happy for him to come to things like antenatal clinics and do it! Now we live in the big city thats "not allowed" or "unethical".

I am currently avoiding a blood test I probably should have, because the last one I had left me bruised so badly that I was too embarrased to take the kids swimming for a fortnight.

And as I said, I'm not really phobic. You can't just "get over it one day" if you are phobic, that's just crazy talk!

weegiemum, I know how you feel!! It's strange, I don't feel any fear about labour (yet!!) but the thought of blood being taken makes me feel quite ill...

My midwives have been brilliant and arranged counselling for me, and a hypnotist too. They've even booked me in to go and talk to one of the anaesthetists at the hospital that does the epidurals. They've really gone out of their way to help. Have you asked yours if there is anything they can offer like that?

foreverastudent - I can understand about the needle phobia and subsequent reluctance for blood tests. I have a horrible needle phobia and regularly faint when having to undergo blood tests or injections of any kind, but the tests are there to ensure both mum and baby are healthy and pick up any problems as early as possible to manage or address them.

In both my pregnancies, I had complications which meant daily injections of heparin for months, but the heparin saved my life and my babies lives. I couldn't actually give myself the injections so the task fell to my poor husband. He's now an expert!

Try to keep in mind that the hospital/midwives have your and baby's best interests in mind. You're well within your rights to refuse the tests but think about why the hospitals do them in the first place.

Little silver, I would say that you are very lucky not to know any one who has had problems treated inutero. It is not all that common, but it is not that rare.

Having spent time on NICU with my son before he passed away (due to a shoulder dystocia - not something that can be prevented by ultrasound) it was amazing to hear stories of how some of those babies were only there because their conditions had been picked up during an ultra sound. The little boy next to us had a diaphragmatic hernia and was operated on in-utero to give him a chance of survival (he went home shortly after we left NICU).

When something bad happens it is one of the few small comforts to know that you did everything you could to prevent it.

Also when something bad happens to you it doesn't matter what the risk percentage of it happening are. It has happened to you.

If anything I truly believe that additional tests should be offered. I had GBS, which we will never know if it contributed to ds passing as he was given antibiotics on arrival at hosptal so nothing showed on the post mortem. If we had known I would have been given antibiotics that would have lessened the risk of him contracting it. This may have prevented some of my birth choices, but the thing that a lot of women seem to forget is that it is not THEIR birth. It is that of their childs.

weegiemum I too often have problems when I give blood - in that they can't find my veins or the needle gives out with a large puff of air. I once went to donate some blood and the first lady saw my veins and said she wasn't going near them and she got someone else to try. Needless to say it failed and they went right through my vein so I had a nasty bruise for the best part of a week and a painful arm so I do know it's not always straight forward.

9 times out of 10 they mess it up but I know now that's often cos they don't tie the pressure strap tight enough to get a decent vein.

Some people are better doing it that others that's for sure.

Okay, so I'm not an expert on phobias but I thought my getting over it was something akin to Behavioural Cognitive Therapy and I simply got used to something after having it done a lot thereby desensitising myself to it........

??

I am in a study of 25,000 women worldwide having ultrasounds every 5 weeks. To get ethical approval to do ANYTHING to pregnant women is almost impossible, so this size of study alone suggests the safety of ultrasound technology. I am aware that this is a separate issue from some of the ones raised (ie, ultrasound is inaccurate, encourages interventions that are unnecessary etc) but I do think people should be reassured about the basic safety of a scan and not be afraid to get one, especially the 20 week scan, which can be the only indicator of placenta praevia, which, if left undiagnosed, can lead to the death of both baby and mother.

Sorry if you thought I was rude LittleSilver; the point I was trying to make was that anomalies that are picked up during pregnancy sometimes need to be treated very soon after birth, and if the hospital staff are prepared for this, the chances of successful treatment are higher. It's not just a question of finding out about anomalies for the sake of it, or because termination is a possibility - it can make a difference to the outcome for the baby.

Looking back, I'd have enjoyed my pregnancy a great deal more if DD2's heart condition hadn't been picked up at the 20-week scan (I haven't had a moment's peace of mind since) - but if we hadn't known about it, she'd have got much sicker after birth while they tried to figure out what was wrong. I'm glad we (and she) didn't have to go through that.

Mrsrvc, I'm so sorry about your son

The thing that a lot of women seem to forget is that it is not THEIR birth. It is that of their childs.

I do find this comment frustrating. There's an implication here that if you opt for a birth that is non-mainstream or you decline tests, you're doing it for trivial, selfish reasons.

When I opted for a home birth and a VBAC at that, I did it entirely with the well being of my baby in mind (as well as myself). Being hooked up to monitors in a hospital with a team of specialists, operating theatre, NICU etc. on standby 'sounds' like the 'safest' environment to give birth, but for most women, that's not really true statistically.

We get so busy defending the what ifs, we forget the science of birth. If we're in an unfamiliar environment, flooded with stress hormones, there is a much stronger likelihood labour can stall and complications arise. Labour is driven by oxytocin which flows best in a relaxed, calm environment.

I homebirthed to avoid a caesarean (which carries much higher mortality rates than a vaginal birth) and it was absolutely the right decision, instinctively AND scientifically. I don't think it's fair to imply I didn't do 'everything' to have a safe birth for my baby.