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?

I just had my 20 week scan this week and tbh I wouldn't have considered not having it done. I found it an invaluable tool to pick up on any abnormalities. it was offered to me so I took it and you have to ask to find out the gender in most cases, they don't just offer this info to you. in any case the gender is the least of the sonographer's concern...

It is quite naive to just assume that even if you don't have the scan and there is a situation like low lying placenta, that you'll just be okay at the end of it and have your baby no problemo. I don't think it really works that way. The scan is offered for a reason, not just because parents want to see their baby. they check the anatomy thoroughly at the scan and if it wasn't routinely done I'm sure there would be a lot of tragedy just round the corner for many parents.

On the balance of research QUEEN, no reason at all. I do feel for how you've been treated on this thread if I'm honest. It's easy to get emotive when something happens that makes, for one person, having a 20 week scan the best (and only) rational decision. But there are other, equally valid positions and as you say it's weighing up what's important for you that matters, not what others see as important for them. For eg. on a separate issue we might say that not having an amnio if you get a risk of 1 in 1000 on the triple test is rational, but if you really would terminate then is it ethical not to have an amnio to find out if you are 'the one'? (based on the fact that many of us know people who have been in this situation?) We all make deicsions based on our priorities and what we would do with the knowledge. As long as people are informed with as much information as possible (on both sides), then I wouldn't judge whatever decisions are made. Stick to you guns xx

"So what reason is there, if I have chosen not to have antenatal screening, to go for a screening test?"

IMO, the reason would be that is could mean the difference between your baby living and dying, or becoming very ill after birth, no matter ho wlikely it is to actually happen, statistically. As I said, in my case, my son would have likely become very ill after birth if I hadn't had the scan as a kidney problem isn't one that is easily diagnosed until the child actualy becomes ill.

Personally, I want to know I did all I possibly could to prevent my child becoming ill. I cannot imagine what it must feel like if your child actually died (again, however small the risk) and there was a screening test you could have had that would have prevented that, but you chose not to.

Queen- I think almost everyone here was just trying to convince you that there are problems the early detection of which CAN improve the outome for the baby.
We are not talking about checking for chromosomal abnormalities- Of course, if you wouldn't have a termination anyway, then those are of no concern to you at the moment.

We were talking about things like inadequate amount of amniotic fluid, low-laying placenta, tumours on kidneys etc. The first two are not that uncommon and it's not something you want to find out on the day you give birth.

The baby with neuroblastoma had tests done after birth because the saw it on the 20 week scan.It wouldn't be obvious at birth.

So, I DO agree with you re abnormalities that nothing can be done about. I am talking about things that can be helped or prevented by having that scan. It would seem to me that undergoing such a simple procedure to see whether everything is ok is quite a basic thing to do.

In case your baby has a condition that needs to be treated at birth, would you rather not know about it and have the doctors try to diagnose it in the newborn, potentially wasting time and endangering the baby?

I think you have been very clear queen that you dont want you or your baby to be diagnosed. And you have heard people's stories where it has saved lives and still have that view so therefore you are right there is no point you having the scan.

I agree your point of view has been questioned quite strongly on this thread, but I dont think you have been treated harshly for your views - just quizzed. And it does seem that as a result of this quizzing you are stronger in your view so you must really believe your position on this is right for you and your family.

Personally I wouldn't make that decision as in my 20 week scan I found out my DS had a fatal condition that meant he wouldn't even make it to term never mind be born alive. Although heartbreaking, at least I knew that information early and didn't have the awful scenrio of miscarrying late or giving birth to a stillborn baby at term. It gave me time to deal with the reality in my own way without the trauma of coping with it in a crisis / emergency... But then I'm a person who likes information and I would never dream of not doing everything in my power to be fully armed with as much information as possible to help my baby.

But statistically you will be fine and I wish you all the luck

But QOFE is asking for evidence that routine scanning for otherwise low risk pregnancies improves health outcomes for people who won't terminate.
I'd be interested to know that too.
Also would be interested to know about low lying placenta - there are two ways to look at it:
-I had a LLP at 20 weeks scan, rescanned at 34 weeks, it had moved, relief all round, hurray for scanning
or
-if I hadn't been scanned I'd never have worried and it would have been fine

how many women actually have a LLP at term?

And yes, Diege, thank you, we are all aware that scans are not perfect.
Does not change the fact that still they seem to make a lot of difference in some cases.
For example, with ds I had a late scan towards the end of pregnancy ( routine in the US) that showed the amniotic fluid was low. Now, I went into labour soon after and all was good, but if I went over by, say a week or two, blissfully unaware, it might have not ended that well.
So, even if statistically they will not pick up every problem or will sacre the shit out of you by giving you a false positive, they can come in very useful. IMHO.

hmmm can see both sides..
see 20 week scan didn't pick up any of my dd's probs (she has loads as a result of severe chromo disorder) BUT o t'other hand it indicated she was on the small side. So I was closely monitored and had extra scans / dopplers later on in pg. I was induced early. She most likely wouldn't have survived till term so obv I am v glad the IUGR was picked up

This is something I looked into as well, and from what I could see the whole area is very poorly researched; there is no research into the long term effects on the baby of being exposed to ultrasound in utero and some research shows that scans do not improve outcomes (even for conditions such as placenta previa, IUGR and foetal heart conditions) - that said there seems to be very little research at all, so its very difficult to say whether these results are still valid (but equally difficult to say that they're not...)

Without a crystal ball its impossible to say what the outcome in any given situation would have been had you made different choices - all you know is that it would have been different. Is knowledge a good thing if it doesn't change outcomes and comes at an unknown health cost? How much angst is it acceptable to cause to how many families when the problem causing concern is more than likely to self resolve? How many families go away with a false sense of confidence because the scan was "clear" without realising that a "clear" scan doesn't equate to a live, healthy baby in all instances?

For what its worth, we decided to have both scans with both pregnancies. I can completely understand why other people would make a different choice, though.

Around 1/200 women have low lying placentas at term. I understand statistics, I understood when diagnosed at 20 weeks that it was very unlikely that I would have complications related to placenta previa. I was reassured. Nevertheless I was the 1/3000 who suffer severe complications, just as dd2 was one of the 1/10 babies born at 36 weeks who struggle with breathing & weght gain. It's up to you qofe how you manage risk in your life. As long as you are informed of all the relevant risks.

"The consensus from the studies done seem to be that ultrasound should only be carried out for diagnostic purposes, and I don't want diagnosing."

Queen
If that is how you really feel then you're right in that it's pointless for you to go to the scan.
What I, and other on this thread, were just wanting to put forward was that if you were interested in how your baby was getting on, you might find a 20wk scan worthwhile because if in fact there was something amiss, you would find out sooner rather than later and then treatment could prevent it becoming something more serous or even tragic after birth. Some of us also can't understand why you wouldn't want to know if your baby was ok or not, especially those of us for whom the 20wk scan picked up something seriously wrong but because it was picked up we were able to have the appropriate treatment asap.
But if you don't want to know whether you child has a potentially life limiting condition then, no, there is no point in having a scan.

I think Midori summed it up well - although bear in mind that sometimes "abnormalies" are just pregnancy issues (like low placenta) and not actually things wrong with the baby - here is an example:

• my friend found out at her 20 week scan that the baby had IUGR. She had some extra scans as a result - and her baby was delivered by CS at 37 weeks as she had stopped growing. My friend's bump wasn't especially small so if it wasn't for the scan it might not have been picked up.

She's now a very healthy 10 year old (and the tallest in the class as well, she had caught up in height with peers by around age 3/4, and having a Dad thats 6 foot tall helps!), but doctors said she would have been unlikely to survive to term or a VD.

BTW you don't have to look at the screen if you don't want to. I am struggling to understand why you had the 12 week scan when really thats the one that isn't necessary. Does your OH feel the same way?

I have friends whose baby was diagnosed with a serious heart condition in utero - this meant they could choose to deliver in hospital with the heart surgery team on hand rather than at home (as they'd originally intended) where the baby would have died before help could have been reached.

I think it's easy to assume that the only people the 20 week scan can be of value to are those who would choose to terminate if they found out there were gross foetal abnormalities, but there are people who choose not to terminate (including my friends) for whom the information was potentially life-saving (sadly not in this case, but they feel they did the best they possibly could for their child).

(I'm also someone whose baby's IUGR was picked up on scans - very glad as it meant my obstetrician could advise a C section rather than an induced birth when I went over term, as he felt an induction posed too great a risk to such a small baby - in this case, I'm glad to say, there was a very happy outcome).

I think you're crazy not to have the scan. You're focusing on the worst case scenarios (severe abnormalities), and ironically this could actually be seriously endangering your baby.

What if there is something wrong with your pregnancy / baby that is treatable? Wouldn't you feel terrible if your baby was born with a condition that would have treatable if only you'd known?

From my own experience, I said yes to all tests offered at the hospital. They found that I had a notch on one of the arteries going into the womb. This meant that not enough blood was getting to my baby. Once identified, this was really easily treated - I was prescribed medicine to thin my blood, which I took throughout most of my pregnancy and the result was that my baby was born healthy and happy.

Had I refused the tests, my baby would have been starved of blood (and therefore oxygen) in the womb and the effects on him could have been very serious indeed.

Please go for the scan. It really is in your baby's best interests.

20wk scan is v important I think. Things that can be picked up that would make a difference include low lying placenta/placenta praevia as previously mentioned - this could save your life AND the baby's life. Also, the number of vessels in the baby's cord - sometimes there are only 2, and I think if they pick this up they can then keep a closer eye on the baby and whip it out if it starts ailing. Again, could save the baby's life.