routine ultrasound - is it safe??

[ashie]

i have had 2 scans already one for dates and one for check up as i had bleeding and i have had previous m/c's. my ob checks with u/s each visit to make sure bubs is growing and no problems have arised. scans are useful i had a placenta covering some of my old c section scar at 20 weeks and having a repeat c section it can be dangerous, so i was monitored by my ob to make sure it moved. its good to know certain things as they can be life threatening and will be doing the same things with this pregnancy to ensure my baby is healthy and stays safe until he or she is ready to meet us.

[LimeSlice]

I think 3 is 2 more than the actual medically 'required' amount and there are no "shoulds" about it. The 20 week scan is the only one that is funded by my hospital. It is used to assess the baby's health and also at this time you can find out about the position of the placenta, cervix etc.

A dating/viability scan is not at all necessary and the 12 week scan only determines risk of a couple of conditions (plus checks other health factors which you don't 'need' to know at 12 weeks as birth is so far away).

Personally I would NEVER have an ultrasound for photos! Or 'just because' scans every time you see an OB. It all seems a bit crazy.

We decided to have the 12 and 20 week scans as we wanted to know and be able to work with the information given. But I have plenty of friends who have no scans- they are not necessary. Are you also aware of the risk of doppler use? I have declined the use of the doppler. In my previous pregnancy no-one was able to find my son's heartbeat by using the pinnard instead (a lost skill!) but it didn't matter because he was kicking. What's the point of then checking for a heartbeat??

All of my scans are bulk billed - so a portion i get back form medicare. I am not through a hospital.
I can certainly tell you though if you have had an ectopic (or more than one) then the dating/viability scan IS absolutely necessary - for both medical reasons and for emotional reasons.

As for the 12/3 week scan - if you are a parent who is concerned about DS, then this scan also matters - and has nothing to do with being "so far away from the birth" - you may not even want the birth to take place if you child has such abnormalities!

As a PP said, there are many couples who use IVF and the early scan is also vital to ensuring a viable pregnancy in this situation.

(Oh and the 'should' I used was referring to the ones deemed 'necessary', nothing to do with what a patient should or shouldn't do - there is a should about it, the ones your doctor says you 'should' have.)

I have never been offered more scans during pregnancy, but them my viable pregnancies have always been completely normal with no issues, and my pregnancy with conjoined twins did not last long enough to need anymore.
I have also never been through an OB, so not been offered them in a routine examination - and I certainly wouldn't take them if I had, they aren't necessary (for me).

It is a personal decision, but I really don't think there should be any illusions about the fact that there are viable reasons behind each of the 3 scans that are routinely given in this country, and they are very serious reasons and often vital for the informed decision making of both parents and care providers.

As for the husband wanting pictures - I really don't think that is such a bad reason when you think about it. We get to feel the baby, experience it in full. They get a kick every so often and see a growing belly - they have no other connection or attachment to the baby and I can totally understand a partner wanting the pictures - it is a more tangible thing to get attached to - and from what I understand, that is a fairly normal male way of thinking. I know my husband felt much better and more connected after seeing the ultrasounds (and if he couldn't be there for the scan in person, the pictures are vital.) Just something to think about before we judge how silly or foolish a reason it is for having an ultrasound.

[*Beema*]

Being High Risk I have had a lot of scans, TBH I have lost count, of how many internal and external scans I have had, starting from 7 + 4 weeks I started to lose one of the twins and bled for weeks and on numerous occassions it looked as though the second twin wasn't going to make it as well. I had a very short cervix, so have been under constant monitoring for that to ensure that it is not funneling or shortening again, retained product from the first twin, my placenta is located over the septum (septate uterus) so where there is basically no blood flow in that section, my placenta is small so we are on constant monitoring for growth restriction, via growth scans and uterine dopplers. Low amniotic fluids which have picked up of late, and having constant BH's and being on Meds to calm them and having had a prem before, without all the monitoring and scans I hesitate to think about where we would be as I have been on rest, no lifting for the last few months.

So while it isn't ideal and not my preferred way, we need to be aware with what we are dealing with, and are making all attempts to make this pregnancy as long as possible, and a lot of the information we are looking at you can only get from US.

My OB take a number of images of my scans and puts them on file and refers back to them at each appointment, they are a good reference for her as a visual image to compare things rather than just a measurement, but a lot of the photos are of my cervix, the placenta, and not just a series of photos of a growing baby.....

So while it is not ideal to have so many scans we have to weigh up the risks and delivering a baby very prematurely or using technology to prolong a pregnancy for as long as possible I know what my choice is.

I hesitate to agree with articles due to the lack of referencing in the articles, and the age there is much mroe recent information, I have read a bit about the risks of having too many US but there is certainly a point when the benefits outweigh the risks.

[Kirley64]

As for the husband wanting pictures - I really don't think that is such a bad reason when you think about it. We get to feel the baby, experience it in full. They get a kick every so often and see a growing belly - they have no other connection or attachment to the baby and I can totally understand a partner wanting the pictures - it is a more tangible thing to get attached to - and from what I understand, that is a fairly normal male way of thinking. I know my husband felt much better and more connected after seeing the ultrasounds (and if he couldn't be there for the scan in person, the pictures are vital.) Just something to think about before we judge how silly or foolish a reason it is for having an ultrasound.

Totally agree with this statement!! Very good point!

[Arcadia]

My key concern with ultrasound is their inherent ability to undermine a mother's own trust in her body, by placing the knowledge of her baby in the hands of a care provider.

Placenta, baby and cervix conditions can all change, and I question why doctors need to "know" what is going on at a regular basis (as in every appointment for a "quick look"). I support a 20 week morphology scan, to check for congenital issues which may need treatment at the time of birth, but even then, I wonder how many conditions need "in-utero" diagnosis and immediate treatment (just a hesitation, but I still support morphology scans).

In the case of bleeding, high risk pregnancies, or concerns about DS or other conditions, then I can see further ultrasounds are useful...but as was discussed in other threads...sometimes ultrasounds just stress out parents, rather than put their minds at ease.

As for checking size of the baby I think its a waste of time. It seems there is a great fear that babies will somehow be too big for women to birth. How can we grow babies that are too big for our bodies??? I just don't understand that...unless of course the woman has GD, but that can be detected by other means.

Ultrasounds haven't been checked for safety, we just assume they're safe because there are no obvious side effects. That in itself is a concern for our whole society, because we seem to embrace technology so openly, often with little critique of the knowledge the so called experts have on the subject. And lets face it...who wants to subject their baby to randomised trials on the safety of prenatal tests? That's why it hasn't been tested. We are the guinea pigs.

[juniper76]

That in itself is a concern for our whole society, because we seem to embrace technology so openly, often with little critique of the knowledge the so called experts have on the subject.

There are always people such as yourself who do not rush to embrace technology without seeing evidence of its safety and are willing to speak up about it. When enough people are speaking up, that's when they go to the trouble of proving their claims.

Personally, I'm grateful for the scans we've had. We took so long and went through so much to get pg and had one early loss along the way, so I find it reassuring to know that everything is on track. I can't wait until I can actually feel movement so that I can feel reassured without any tests.

I think, given the prevalence of pg u/s these days, if it were going to cause a problem, they would have seen a pattern of problems by now. This is not the first generation of children to be spied on in-utero. But that is not the same as proving that it's safe, so your point is entirely valid.