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 don't think that anyone's mentioned how useful an ultrasound scan is if you suffer from a missed miscarriage. I'd already carried mine for two weeks after it had ended, and found out at the 12 week scan. No change of symptoms, no bleeding, still being sick, body still making all the supporting hormones. I was advised to wait for two weeks in case the 'products of conception' (the term they use) would pass naturally, and then when they didn't, had the D&C operation.

By the time I had the op, I'd been carrying for four weeks with no change of symptoms. I only stopped 'feeling pregnant' ie. not sick, after the op. I hate to think how long I would have mistakenly gone on thinking I was having a baby had I not had an ultrasound scan which showed up what had happened. There's also a risk of womb infection with missed miscarriage if left untreated. I know this isn't in direct relation to the OP's point, but the issue of refusing ultrasounds has been raised since and IME this is a pretty good reason to have one.

I was 36, 37 and 40 when I had mine and I refused blood tests but had the routine scans

Knowing anything would not have altered anything as I would not terminate

My second child was stillborn and there was nothing abnormal found it was just one of those things

LittleSilver, out of interest, would your DH not put pressure on you to have scans/blood tests etc, if he was of the view that he might want to consider termination in the eventuality of a problem? Would he just accept your 'no tests/scans' policy? That feels very strange to me. Because if someone wouldn't accept the possibility a baby with a disability, then surely they would demand all scans/blood tests are done? Just wondering really...

I refused amnio because I didn't know what to do with the potentially (negative) results and I was frightened of a potential miscarriage.
As I had a high risk pregnancy and was being monitored and on bed rest in a hospital specialized in obstetrics and pediatrics, I figured that they were pretty much prepared for special interventions at birth if any had been necessary.

I did have an ultrasound a day, though, for the last 3 or 4 weeks of my pregnancy. I think many of the decisions that we take on these are not necessarily rational.

Maria, yes, he would have much preferred that I did have screening tests. But he did accept that I had declined them (and in reality, there was nothing that he could have done about it anyway. He couldn't have "demanded" them at all).

I don't think it is so very strange actually; that he should accept me declining tests yet be unequivocal in his refusal to contemplate me knowingly bearing a disabled child. The first deals with potential, the second, in the event of a poor diagnosis, with the definite.

I probably shouldn't have posted about my personal experience of declining antenatal testing. I spent soooo long thinking about my decision to do so, and some of the comments on here have been pretty hurtful. I guess I shouldn't post about stuff I'm not willing to get flamed for though. It has brought it home to me just how extremely personal each woman's decision is.

OOsabeauty, I have had a mmc too, and like you found out at my 12 week scan (first pg). I didn't, however, find the idea of "reassurance" scans useful to me though.

LittleSilver, you're very right,these decisions as you say are completely personal & individual to each couple's situation & feelings... I guess the more general, 'abstract' discussion has a good reason to exist, as it makes for a good debate & raises many interesting issues. As for the personal circumstances of each individual family making these decisions, I for one have no feelings either way...

I'm afraid I cherry picked the tests rather.

I found out in my first pg that I have alpha thalassaemia trait, which makes it seem as though I have iron deficiency anaemia - I don't. I have had it once, you can tell, because I had symptoms, and the MCV was low (rather than the HB which is never more than 10.5) So I won't have my HB tested, because being pressed into taking uneccessary iron makes me cross.

I don't have tests looking for abnormalities, although I had an US at 42 weeks to check liquor, position and size in order to reassure the doctor who was worried.

I did have tests in this pg for Slapped cheek and Measles antibodies, because there were two outbreaks in school. Turned out I am not immune to measles, despite being vaccinated as a child, but i didn't get it, thankfully.

In pgs 2 and 3 I didn't have tests for STIs, blood group, AFP etc.

Basically, I am very glad to live in this country, I believe in the NHS wholeheartedly and I think it is wonderful - and I am glad I have had the opportunities to work with my HCPs through my 3 pregnancies and births.

I had the triple test and all bloods etc. because I wanted to be prepared. Had I had a high down's risk, I would have joined support groups, done research and so forth. I don't understand why anyone would refuse tests during pregnancy.

One of my old work colleagues was 26 when she had her second baby and had routine blood tests which showed nothing. When her son was born he was discovered to have Downs syndrome. He is a lovely boy, and she coped enormously well. But in her case, she had the blood tests and the blood tests were wrong.

We had a debate about this at work, and we all decided that we would still have the tests, but we realised they were only a guide and nothing is 100%.

alyson, the test for down syndrom is only a guess, to calculate your risk in a percentage, only if the percentage is high or there is any other sign, like the scan may indicate posible down sindrom, that an amniocentecis may be suggested to know for sure, the only way to tell for sure if an unborn baby has ds is to take a sample of amniotic fluid and count the chromosomes in par 23, any other test is just a guess.

thats now it worked with us alle

We were advised amnio after bloods alone: scan wasn't high res although kindly sonoigrapher took pity on ius and tracked us down ( we wanted to know of heart issues risk)

Different PCT's tend to have differing policies.

IIRC most beabies with DS are born to mums too young for initial screening now anyway

LS did your DP realise that most disability isn't testable for? Soemthing like 1% of kids for example have ASD.

that's how it is supposed to work, as i take it from medical professionals i've spoken to, but i have not practical experience, i do know that the blood test does not give a defenitive answer, i have no idea how the risk is calculated,...

Oh I found a link earlier giving a few details re false positives etc- will see if Ic an find again

I nkow with most things differeing PCT's have their own polciies, so imagine it's the same for screening.

here

info plus a good general site for anyone trying to make these decisions

I had/ am having everything. Paid £200 for private nuchal scan as our local hospital doesn't offer them.

I was quite pleased to be declared HIV negative!

I hate blood tests too but they only last a few seconds.