I had all three, but that's because I have erratic AF (For eg. I had a month where I had AF twice! Then it disappeared and didn't come back for I think it was 52 days )
But they have no right to have a go at you - it's your choice and I think they should respect that
when i went to book in my NT scan i was told i *had* to have a dating scan too. i was so taken aback that i booked it in...only to call back later and cancel i used FF and knew when i O'd so it seemed completely irrelevant.
last time i was pg with DD 3 years ago, dating scans werent given as par for the course at the private hossy i went to. i wonder if that has changed now?
I don't think that it is that women are so out of touch, but it's a perpetuating cycle. Some women *need* that reassurance of a scan, maybe due to a previous loss, or that she is unsure of her dates etc. Some will just take every opportunity they can to see their baby on the screen and I think some Drs will play on that. My Gyno is an ob and he has a very flash u's machine in his rooms and he will give every single pg woman a scan at every single appointment. I think that the majority of women just don't realise the damage too many scans can do to a baby. I told SIL recently (who sees my gyno for her pg) that having a u/s is to a baby what tapping on a fish tank is to a fish, and she was shocked! She had no idea. Her sister is of the opinion that we have the technology so we may as well use it. She is a nurse btw. My other SIL (DH's sister) is 17wks and has not had a single scan. She just didn't realise you had to. She has only seen a Dr once during her pg to get the 9wk bloods done and that was it.
I think that women have inadvertently created this situation where it is now routine to have many scans during a pg and we still have the mentality where we just don't question what Dr's say to us or feel that we have a right to even challenge it in the first place. So I think that only we can stop it kwim? We can ask 'do we really need that scan and why do we need it?'
ETA - just wanted to add that I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but something that has just happened kwim?
But I'm sorry that you were spoken too like that Tanya it wasn't necessary.
Last edited by Trillian; April 8th, 2010 at 10:51 AM.
I personally hate the early scans - for me it just caused more stress than it was worth.
My GP wanted me to have the early scan not for dating purposes but to make sure that my pregnancy was not eptopic (he said seeing as though it took us nearly 3 years to conceive he wanted to be sure). I went when I thought I was 6 weeks and the scan showed a 5 week sac with a yolk (but apparently everything looks great for that gestation and my Dr is not concerned). Now because it was not a dating scan Im not having a follow up scan and my GP does not want me to have another scan until 18 weeks - this would be great except now in the back of my mind I am freaking out about measuring a week behind - so have decided to have ask for the 12 week scan to see if everything is alright.
Had I not had that early scan I would not be as stressed out as I am and I would only be having the 18 weeks scan.
If I am ever blessed to have another pregnancy I will have no early scan just the 18 week as for me it is not worth it.
Not all women have scans for fun. I had a 6 week scan to check if it was a "viable pregnancy" as I had previous miscarriages. Then I had bleeding and they scanned again. Then I had the NT scan, because that was my choice. And then the 20 week scan which is standard. I think it's unfair to suggest that women don't know their bodies. Some women need them for piece of mind as Trillian said. I have a friend who delivered her baby at 20 something weeks because the bubbas brain had grown on the outside of his head, had she had the NT scan whilst it still would have been distressing it wouldn't have been as much. When she went in at 20 weeks she thought everything is fine, and to some people that extra 6 weeks would have made a difference. I also have a friend who nearly lost her life and her childs because she wasn't monitored closely enough. I see your point but there are plenty of cases that are the opposite too.
With the dates thing though Nelle, there have been women on here for example who know their dates and their cycles, but still don't quite know how they managed to fall pg that cycle because maybe their body threw them a curveball and they ovulated early, or late or even twice or their DH's swimmers have super powers LOL, or they may have breakthrough bleeding that makes them think they aren't pg only to find out later they are etc. And the sonographer is no expert by any stretch of the imagination! If they didn't have that little machine to calculate size and averages, then they would have no idea either. I don't think this issue is even really about sonograhers, but about the trend maternal heathcare has taken now, where it is accepted that a woman has at least 3 scans for her pg, maybe more if something happens to create enough concern to justify more scans later on. It's not one single thing, but many things which have created it.
I personally do think that there are too many ultrasounds i did not have this many with my first!!! I have had the NT scan with the rest of mine cause with my first they found a marker on his heart which can be one sign of down syndrome, i was stressed for the rest of my pregnancy and felt that the NT scan was necessary with the other!!! Then with DD they found the same thing but since i had had the NT scan there was not concern as my results were really good!!!
Tanya sorry tohear that they made you feel bad for this only being your first!!! But woo hoo that all was well!!! Mine is tomorrow!! Can't wait!!!
Aside from pregnancies with known risk factors, a LOT of women who are expected to have normal pregnancies and births are just plain talked out of trusting themselves and inculcated into this culture of "I'm pregnant, these are all the scans I have to have cos that's what you do" without questioning lots of things - the validity of the results, the variability of interpretation, the unproven safety of so many US during pg, then the skill of knowing what to do with results and how helpful they are to wellbeing during pregnancy anyway!
When I saw GP's during pg (when I had a bad cold or non-pg need) it was generally very confronting for them a) that I had no US information to give them and b) that I was planning a homebirth. They tried so hard (EVERY TIME!) to cast doubt on my instincts and to insist they knew what was happening with me more than I did.
For my first pg I went for 2 US with the same person and she was lovely - none of this 'great, you've come to seek the services of a higher power than yourself' crap.
That's why it is a catch22 Maya. We have women who would probably be fine, but as soon as someone sows seeds of doubt - and it doesn't have to be a Dr either - then the damage is done in most cases and then the Dr's keep that cycle going by offering it as part of normal maternal care anyway and they don't even have to make women doubt themselves. I don't disrespect women who do want to have these scans because they obviously have their reasons and though I may not understand it when women do just want to see their baby for no other reason than to see their baby or if they think the technology should be used just because it is there it isn't up to me to question that. I will tell them what it is like for a baby to have repeated scans but I wont convince them not to do it, they have to do that themselves.
ETA - *snap* Nelle. Hmmm yeah, I get what you are saying, but I just dont' know. There are too many different senarios which will make you think about it differently when it comes to this one thing kwim? I think that maybe when you read so many stories, or know of people who have had losses, late, early or otherwise that it may make it harder to trust your own body so you need to have that trust reaffirmed by someone else?
Last edited by Trillian; April 8th, 2010 at 11:35 AM.
Just reflecting - I don't think Tanya's saying 'people who have scans are out of touch with their bodies' or 'scans are unnecessary' or 'no-one is in touch with their body these days'.
Absolutely some scans are necessary, helpful, reassuring, life saving. One or all of those things!
I just took it as she was mourning the fact that some people don't take notice of their bodies anymore because as times change we are relying on other people to tell us about our own bodies. Which not everyone will see as a negative thing anyway.
Obviously there are people who know their bodies well AND have scans! But I do wonder - as a huge umbrella generalisation - do we know our bodies less well or more well than our grandmas, who knew their cycles and didn't have scans? I don't mean know ABOUT our bodies, but I mean sort of being 'in tune' knowing symptoms and things...
Registered User
)
i used FF and knew when i O'd so it seemed completely irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks