Christy - I've read some of your posts and can see you are doing an amazing job. I realise it's not a death sentence, but it is something that really worries me. I'm not sure how I'd cope. Also, I suspect there is a genetic tendency in my family (I'm convinced my Dad is Aspergers or something, and I have ADD - my GP informs me there's some kind of relationship bw ASD and ADD)
Jellybean - thanks for the article. I've read similar things. I'm not sure I can go with NO ultrsounds at all. What I'm weighing up is the risks vs benefits. Having had a 1st trimester mc, I've decided that there's no point in me having an ultrasound again in the 1st trimester. A mc can't be stopped at that early age and to be honest, seeing the heartbeat at week 6 was amazing and emotional, but not necessary. Not seeing a heartbeat 4 weeks later undid all that joy. I'd rather just close my eyes and hope for the best and trust in my body next time that it's telling me what's going on symptom wise. I certainly don't see the point of a dating scan. As far as I'm concerned, there's a reason due dates are estimated.
A continued argument from that would be that there's no logical reason for an u/s before viability. If something's going to go wrong up to then, again not much can be done. On the other hand, I've seen cases where there's threatened mc in the 2nd trimester where bed rest has improved the chances of a successful pg. I assume in those cases an ultrasound would hopefully pick up if that's a viable treatment (ie by ascertaining level of amniotic fluid etc). I guess in that situation it's a play it by ear scenario.
Assuming low risk, my biggest question would be whether to bother with the NT scan. I don't know how much data is gained from the triple test alone (I see I need to do more reading). Talking to my OB/Gyn I've said unless you can give me 100% that there's someting wrong, what's the point? So it's a decision of - do we get a screening scan at week 12, exposing a developing bub to high soundwaves, go straight to an amnio and increase the risk of mc (as well as exposing bub to high sound waves), skip it all together and take the risk of deformity/chromosone problem.... I really don't know. I do know we'd abort if we 100% knew there was a major problem.
I also realise that things like placenta praevia and vasa praevia can be diagnosed in late pregnancy and I'd rather know that than risk bleeding to death. Same regarding the argument for u/s for diagnosing potential risks like heart problems, which would require a paediatrist team standing by at birth.
I feel that re: ultrasound, you're damned if you do & damned if you don't. I'll probably end up with 1 or 2, but don't want many.
re: cord clamping, the argument is a lot easier. Regardless of whether there's a link to autism or not, I see no logical reason to clamp the cord early so will definately insist on cord clamping.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks