Anyone else chosen NOT to have 20 week scan?

[QueenOfFlamingEverything]

I am 19 weeks and the hospital have 20 week scan booked for next week, but am not sure whether I actually want to go along or not.

We don't want to know the sex, and I don't particularly want to know about any abnormalities as tbh we do not want to be faced with the knowledge and subsequent decision making.

I did have a dating scan at 12 weeks where I was redated (?) to 14 weeks. We deliberated over going for that but decided we would in the end - mainly for reassurance tbh as I had been having (presumably anxiety related) dreams about there being something wrong.

But the 20 week one just doesn't seem important to me somehow. If I went, the main reason would be just to see the baby, which IMO (and that of the WHO) isn't a good enough reason. I can feel it moving, so I don't feel I need the reassurance of seeing it again.

Has anyone else ever made the decision not to have a routine scan? How did it go down with the professionals if you refused?

It's your choice to have it or not so I wouldn't worry about what the doctors will say. I, for example, didn't have the triple blood test and the midwives didn't give me any grief.
But- I think it may be worth doing it, because there are some conditions that can be seen on the scan and knowing about them in advance will enable the doctors provide an adequate care once the baby is born- so I think it could actually be useful iyswim.
Also, you can choose not to know the sex.

I refused (see thread on routine antenatal tests that's going on). I had no hassle as at all from and HCPs. I would just recommend that you are clear on why you are refsuing (and it sounds like you are pretty clued up if you are citing WHO guidelines. Amazing how few people know the WHO guidelines on routine scans. I told one of the GPs that and suggested he read them)

Of course it's your right to refuse.

For us it's not just abnormalities they pick up, but potential problems that the baby could need care for as soon as they're born. Mine was showing small for dates and so they are going to look at the placenta and a few other things just to make sure. If it were a problem it might mean the baby would have to be delivered early. We too don't want to know the sex.

Beech, in AIMS' "Ultrasound, Unsound?" (I'm honestly not on commission, sorry for banging on about how good it is)argues against that point winnybella

Oh I know its my choice entirely - I just remember when I had my DD, they said I couldn't be booked for a homebirth until I'd had my scan. I had the scan (and the homebirth) because I simply didn't have the confidence to argue at the time. But I just wondered if that sort of 'pressure' was normal, just so I could be prepared.

LittleSilver I will look for the other thread, thanks.

Well, LittleSilver if, for example, as in Heated case, they find out the baby is small for the dates and should be delivered early? Or if it's a case of excessive/ inadequate amount of amniotic fluid? Will not mention any possible issues with the structure of internal organs etc- if they see there's a problem with the heart they can prepare for a surgery after birth, as opposed trying to find out what's wrong with the newborn baby and possibly wasting valuable time.
Of course, ultrasounds are not perfect and will miss a lot of problems or give false positives. Evidently. Still, a lot of conditions can be picked up only that way. Can you really argue with that?

*opposed to

And LittleSilver why don't you have a look at belgianbun's thread on Chat about her baby being diagnosed with neuroblastoma. They saw something on the baby's kidney at 20 weeks scan and that's why they ran tests after birth. Who knows how long it would take to find out something was wrong if mum didn't have that scan?

I know there's a trend to be all earth-motherly, all-medical-intervention-is evil mindset, but really, just have a look at that thread and tell me that scans during pregnancy are a waste of time.

Handy to know if your placenta is low/praevia. That is a pretty good reason in my book.

It wouldn't occur to me not to have a 20 week scan. A kidney problem in DS2 was picked up on his 20 week scan, which meant frequent ultra sound scans to monitor during pregnancy and that my son was put on immediate anti-biotics after the birth and while they ran tests. If I hadn't had the 20 week scan and the problem hadn't been picked up and got worse in utero, he could have died. This way had a problem occurred in utero they could have delivered him early. Also, it's quite possible the problem wouldn't have been picked up for years after his birth, and could have led to eventual problems.

I also think placenta praevia is a good enough reason too.

The 20 wk scan isn't there so you can see your baby again and find out the gender! It's there because at that stage they can properly check the heart chambers, kidneys, vital organs etc.

I am very glad I had the 20wk scan for ds3 (although tbh it wouldn't occur to me not to have it) because it picked up on a kidney abnormality which, if they hadn't picked it up at the 20 wk scan they wouldn't then have been able to keep an eye on with further scans and then at birth he was able to immediately be put on medication which prevented him having permanent damage to his kidneys.

Your choice but why choose not to have the scan which is there to check your baby is developing properly and all organs are functioning as they should be?

Thank your lucky stars that you've been offered one. If I'd been pregnant just a few months earlier we'd have had to pay for ours (about £170 IIRC) and travel hundreds of miles to have it. The 20 week one is THE important scan.

OP - out of the few replies that you've had, there are 3 of us with examples of conditions that if they hadn't been picked up on the 20 wk scan could have meant the babies' lives were threatened. Does this change your views on the 20wk scan?

i would always fo for a 20 week scan. I was also recommended a 37 weeks scan to check the babys size etc which I thought was unnecessary. However, it picked up oligohydramnious(low fluid) and I had no idea there was any problem at all. In the end baby was delivered by cs 1 day before due date and with no problems.

Again can I add my experiences? I have all tests but not because I would act on any information given but because I would like to be informed and act if something needs to be done.

The scan doesnt just pick up problems such as spina bifida etc but problems that can be solved or action taken that may well save your baby. Mine was a low lying placenta (which moved) but if it hadnt then my baby may have died at birth. Another friend had a scan and the cord was in a position where it would have prolapsed. Another friend had a heart problem picked up which they couldnt do anything about until after the birth but they knew so she could give birth at a specialist hospital. Another friend had low fluid. One friend had the devestating news that her baby had died. She wasnt due to see the MW for another 8 weeks.

Personally I think the 'risk' of a scan (if proven) is worth it for these situations. Personally I dont understand why you would choose a dating scan which is mainly for that reason but not this? I fully understand not acting on it and of course that is 100% your right but to me this is a medical luxury we have in this country and I dont quite understand why you wouldnt want to check that there are no underlying problems you can solve or work out how you are going to reduce?

However your baby, your body you choice and I'm sure the midwives will support that

winnybella I never said that all medical intervention is evil, nor that scans are a waste of time.

Please do not make things up.

I actually had serial scans with dd2 and placental function tests as there was a concern over her growth and I would do it again, and would have all tests/scans warranted. MY personal choice is not to have ROUTINE tests/scans and I explained my rationale.

Like others have said, I think that it is sensible to have the scans when you are privileged enough to be offered them.
The scanning for anomalies is not just about being offered a termination. 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 (and I am not saying that it will for you) it is one of the few small comforts to know that you did everything you could to prevent it.

As someone who had placenta previa, I would also strongly recommend you have a 20 week scan (although as with others here I agree that it is entirely your choice). About 1/200 women get to full term with the placenta still covering the cervix, not knowing this in advance means a crash section under general is almost inevitable.

But Little Silver it is during the routine scans that often problems are picked up-as you can see from the posts above.
Kidney, heart or placenta problems will not be evident from the midwife measuring your belly and if these women didn't have routine scan at 20 weeks, babies' health would have beeen severely compromised.

I suppose what is on my mind as I read these posts is that...well, it seems a teensy bit selfish to me to not have it. There's no great reason not to, as far as I am aware, although I am sure someone can put me right.
But - I can't imagine that, once your baby is here, you wouldn't do everything possible for your baby's health, so not sure what the big difference is before birth?

I take on board the comments regarding placental location, however, a low lying placenta at 20 weeks would only result in a repeat scan at 32 weeks. If you had any sort of bleed during pregnancy then you would be scanned at that point for placental location and source of bleeding, regardless of whether you had 20week scan or not. If your pregnancy was uneventful and the head was still not engaged at 37 weeks or the baby an unstable lie a scan at this point would be indicated to exclude a placenta praevia.
Did you know that the standards for picking up cardiac abnormalities on the 20 wek scan state that the unit must aim for 25%, most babies are diagnosed at birth or in the neonatal period as a 'failure to thrive'. As for the array of other abnormalities that can be detected, if you are not going to terminate, whats the point of being scanned?
I understand that the baby would be born in a specialist unit, however, it could be transferred after birth and most NICU can deal with the most commonly encountered problems. Just food for thought, not necessarily my opinion.

I have to say i don't really understand why you are so against the 20 week scan. I think any negatives (not proven) are out weighed by the positives.
In my case i have had my 20 week scan and it was picked up that baby's kidney is dilated - which is a sign of kidney reflux. Since i have had the scan the baby will be scanned again at birth and if needed given medication to stop kidney damage. From hearing others experience of this condition if it was not picked up at the scan the baby could become seriously ill before it is picked up by doctors as baby's are not scan as routine for this condition after birth.
Obviously its each to their own but just wnated to add my positive experience of having a 20 week scan.

I had to fight my case to get a 20 week scan with DC1 - wasn't standard in Glasgow until this year. I have a heart murmur and my brother had a kidney that never developed and had to be removed aged 7.

I was VERY keen for the ultrasound to check for heart and renal issues, and any other problems that might affect the style of delivery and/or immediate treatment.

I didn't have the bloods for Downs etc as I would not have an amnio or cvs and would not terminate. The ultrasound was risk free as far as I am concerned and also provided a possible lifesaving peek at the baby at a crucial stage of developement (ie big enough to see organs fairly well but not so squished up as baby will be by end of pregnancy).

Was very glad to find policy had changed this time and I got an automatic call - I went into the scan very much seeing it as a medical check on the health of Bean and prepared that all might not be simple; seeing Bean and finding out gender were merely bonuses.

As far as I am aware scans are pretty safe. Throughout my pregnancy I have all of the tests that have been offered to me - blood tests and scans won't hurt the baby.

My philosophy is that if there was something wrong with the baby the earlier you can find out, the more opportunity you have to make informed choices.

If any probs had cropped up, however, I would have had to think very hard about any form of invasive testing that could cause harm to the baby, e.g. an amnio.

I have been looking and so far haven't found any evidence that shows routine ultrasounds to actually improve outcomes in low-risk pregnancies.

That's not to say they are dangerous, or of no value in some circumstances, but I can't see that there is any reason for me to have the scan.

I can't really explain why I don't want it tbh. I just don't feel right about it, and as I can't find any evidence to convince me it is necessary or beneficial in my circumstances, I am still veering towards cancelling the appointment.