Pregnant women warned over ultrasounds

[Fi]

I think you are 100% correct Deb. The ones who love u/s the most are the ones who have the greatest risk of something not being right in their pregnancy. Its a blessing more than anything else.
I have a friend who just had a baby who needed fortnightly scans to check a tumour/growth in her babies lungs from 19w til 34w. There was no way she would give up the scans and just hope that her child's tumous wasn't growing, and no medical professional would have let her. It was a very high risk pregnancy. U/s was a big help to her.

[Lukesmum]

I had an ultrasound at 6 weeks and just had another one at 9 weeks. This morning when I saw the headlines stating that ultrasounds may not be safe I felt sooo bad. I have been thinking/worrying about it all day. I just haven't been able to get it out of my mind. A friend said to me today, almost all pregnancies have at least one or two ultrasounds and the majority of the babies are fine. I do think that we should be warned about ultrasounds if it is believed that they can damage the unborn baby but at the moment I wish I knew nothing about the recent scan warning / recommedations as on Monday at the scan I was overjoyed as everyone is to see the little heartbeat going.

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

Lukesmum, please don't worry. Read the studies. I'm having at least 4 scans and am not worried in the slightest. Nor is my sonographer.

As for "you could have given birth to a genius until you had a scan..." yup, but I also could have given birth to an axe-murderer, so an extra glad I had my scans! Recent studies show that learning musical instruments is important in IQ and learning et cetera, so it could just be another symptom of modern life: 100 years ago, everyone who was schooled learnt at least one instrument and had no scans, now we have scans and fewer children learn music or listen to violin music... do we blame music or the scans? Or do we blame the fact that we also send children with lower IQs to school: they used to be only for the very bright and the wealthy, now they're for everyone.

Too many variables; I do not believe that scans are to blame.

[lady*of*thelake]

My father pioneered some of the first ultrasound technology available in Australia and has always warned me about having "unneccessary scans" during my pregnancy. Again, not because it is a KNOWN harm, but because in his opinion, there is not enough known about the risks to warrant using it just to "have a squiz" because you feel like it.

Heaps of people have asked me if I wanted the 3D/4D scan done, and I have said that as I know the gender, the one surprise I have left is what my bubs will look like! There is no way I would personally go for the whole bring-your-popcorn, stadium seating, recreational scan on a DVD with your choice of music type business. I find the growth of those scanning places quite scary.

So my thoughts are that if the scan is medically indicate, or if it reduces risk of something going wrong, then the benefits of it FAR outweigh any potential risks. It's the whole "there's nothing harmful about it so we'll turn it into a user-pays circus for having a good look at your unborn child" thing that concerns me.

[Liz]

I think an advantage of the 20wk scan is that they can pick up any problems with the heart or whatever, so they can be prepared at the birth to deal with it straight away. It's not just to find out whether your baby is normal or not for those who 'might' terminate.. altho I can't imagine terminating at 20 weeks!

A friend of ours knew that her baby would need heart surgery straight after birth because it was picked up in ultrasounds. It just reduces the delay/risk of diagnosing after the birth.

That being said, they're not terribly accurate either, but I think they do serve their purpose. I do think people go a bit too far booking 3d/4d scans just for the sake of looking at the baby.

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

Renaee, if you're going to only have one, have the 20w one. It picks up if the organs are formed and if they will work when the baby is born, shows that the spine and brain have formed correctly and also shows that the other bones (such as the leg bones) are all present and correct. OK, you're not going to terminate - but what if the scan picks up that your baby will need surgery either in utero or straight after birth? Yes, it is traumatic to find that out, but if your baby has a serious problem then the scan can pick that up and it can be treated as early as possible to give your child the best chance of survival.

I agree that scans shouldn't be done on a whim, or to get a half-hour video, but a quick 5-minute scan (maybe 10 mins at the 20w one if the baby is being "awkward") won't do any harm. If you wanted a half-hour scan every day then, looking at the studies, something bad may happen, but there's only a chance of that: less than an hour of scans over 40w is not going to hurt.

[Lukesmum]

Thank you so much Ryn for yesterdays post. I have had a more relaxed day than I had yesterday. I'm not going to worry about it anymore.

[Renaee]

Hey Ryn/Ivana

Well had the scan yesterday and I was pleased with how it went, kept it to 10 minutes and dr was very good explaining to me everything on screen and said no abnormalities were there that he could see (though he did say this is only 85-90% accurate). I talked to him about my concerns around safety and of course he said they were completely unfounded and no evenidence to back them up ect. But I say the jury is still out on this one, and in the years to come, as the ultrasound machines get stronger and more detailed, then caution may be advised by Dr and Midwives. Til then it is left up to us to have to decide what to do.

In some ways I wish we were not armed with so much information, as yesterday it kind of took a little bit of the joy out of the experience for me, as I was so concerned that he not leave the scan on the baby's brain for too long! But it was also very re-arrassuring to get the all clear and to see my lovely little one.

The Dr at one point made a joke, saying I had a shy baby and he/she kept covering up it's bottom with one hand.

I think it is very interesting to read everyone's different views on this topic. Some woman have had so many, and they have been a life saver litterally - so it is hard to dismiss this technology when it can help so much. And yet I wonder, in my mum's day, having babies 30-40 years ago - no such technology existed, was the death rate higher then because of this? were more babies lost b/c Dr could not advise on what was going on??

Anyway that's my little rant after the 20 week scan - I think I needed to debrief!!

thanks, Renaee.
ps - something else I have to know, what does the D stand for in Dhusband or Dpartner as used on bb forum - can't figure this one out??

[Tigergirl1980]

thanks, Renaee.
ps - something else I have to know, what does the D stand for in Dhusband or Dpartner as used on bb forum - can't figure this one out??

Dear. Or DH can stand for d!ckhead if he's not being so dear, lol.

[christy]

LOL Bec...

I have been hearing that multiple u/s aren't good since I was pregnant with Matilda... The thing I don't "get" is dopplers, so if u/s are bad what about dopplers? Don't they use sound waves as well at a higher frequency to u/s? Why are they okay and u/s not??

Just my questions...

I don't rule out the importance of peace of mind for mothers. I do think that having an u/s just for another peak isn't great & I've been tempted a few too many times myself. I have had a peak at work when I was waiting for an u/s for peace of mind earlier in this pregnancy. We weren't sure if Jovie was still with us & we had to wait a day to get the u/s, I couldn't wait so I went to work & popped the u/s on, saw the heartbeating & within 30 seconds had it off again... so I relaxed and asked for a shorter scan the next day...

[Liz]

I think the mortality rate has declined over the years due to various technologies. Not sure if placenta praevia and things can be easily diagnosed without u/s? I'm sure it has helped save many mums and bubs