20 Week Ultra Sound, necessary? - Page 2

[SeattleRain]

Originally Posted by honeybee

However, the risk of prematurity, induction, and c-section increases with adding a routine 20-week ultrasound... because actions are taken due to suspected problems.

I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. Sometimes in the natural community we confuse a low-interventionist attitude with a no-interventionist attitude. Babies who have severe issues that require c-sections SHOULD have c-sections. Babies who need to taken out early, sometimes have issues that are severe enough that the risk of prematurity isn't as risky as staying inside.

Originally Posted by AustinMom

Corasmama, I do see what you mean. It's all about seeing which is riskier. To me, there must be a some what notable risk to routine U/S for ACOG, NIH, and everyone else to NOT recommend it. Yes, I do sympathize with your experience, but I would hope you would take into account the ability of your caregiver to recognize these issues in other ways without u/s. That's what I am looking for. I would think that HB MW are more apt to look for complications in ways other than U/S because, 1) they can't do U/S usally 2) a lot of parents going through a HB MW don't get any u/s and 3) no MW wants to walk into a birth with a baby born with complications that could have been screened out in ways THEY themselves can screen, like the example of fundal height measuring. I doubt most OBs and hospital birthing MW go off such basic techniques to look for problems, mainly because they have all this other "better" technology at their disposal. Just my thought, I'm not meaning for this to be offensive in any way, but there was a lot of stuff our Birthing Center MW didn't know, and I wish I would have had a better CP last pregnancy.

I don't think there's any way to diagnose these problems without US. Midwives don't have x-ray vision, and they only have so many tools at their disposal.

[AustinMom]

Originally Posted by honeybee

However, the risk of prematurity, induction, and c-section increases with adding a routine 20-week ultrasound... because actions are taken due to suspected problems.

I think just because two things commonly happen with a pregnancy, isn't necessarily connecting one to the other. For instance, yes, I'm sure those who have cs, inductions and prematurity, all are under practices that have high intervention rates all around. I doubt if a mom in these typical practices, refused her 20 week u/s, she would have less of a chance of the other array of interventions. I am guessing that a woman in a standard MW practice, if she has a u/s would not be more susceptible to cs, inductions, or prematurity. I think it's a matter of how your caregiver practices as a whole.

[CorasMama]

Originally Posted by AustinMom

Corasmama, I do see what you mean. It's all about seeing which is riskier. To me, there must be a some what notable risk to routine U/S for ACOG, NIH, and everyone else to NOT recommend it. Yes, I do sympathize with your experience, but I would hope you would take into account the ability of your caregiver to recognize these issues in other ways without u/s. That's what I am looking for. I would think that HB MW are more apt to look for complications in ways other than U/S because, 1) they can't do U/S usally 2) a lot of parents going through a HB MW don't get any u/s and 3) no MW wants to walk into a birth with a baby born with complications that could have been screened out in ways THEY themselves can screen, like the example of fundal height measuring. I doubt most OBs and hospital birthing MW go off such basic techniques to look for problems, mainly because they have all this other "better" technology at their disposal. Just my thought, I'm not meaning for this to be offensive in any way, but there was a lot of stuff our Birthing Center MW didn't know, and I wish I would have had a better CP last pregnancy.

No, actually, there is no way to find many congenital defects without diagnostic imaging. My quad screen and AFP are great, and my other pregnancy issues have nothing whatsoever to do with baby's omphalocele, bowel defect and heart problems.

This is one of the reasons that there really are better outcomes now for babies with congenital defects than there were years ago.

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by jennica

Maybe you feel comfortable relying on this method, but most people aren't led around by the hand by some force who protects them from danger. Things can and do happen to people in homebirth or hospital settings, and when weighing the risks and benefits of a certain procedure, it would be irresponsible to to trust that some magical voice will tell us if something is wrong. Tragedies happen, and no magical voice told those people that something was wrong.

My comments were directed at a specific part of Honeybee's post, which I felt was extremely disrespectful to the very diverse audience here on MDC. I was not arguing for the 20 week ultrasound, in fact I am having a homebirth and probably wont be getting the 20 week scan. I never implied that people who choose not to get the 20 week scan are doing so because magic voices talk to them - but rather I was saying that when we weigh the risks and benefits of any medical procedure, it is irresponsible to suggest that we don't need a certain procedure because we will be guided in some way towards safety if something really is wrong. That is simply not true. When bad outcomes happen it wasn't because of those peoples religious persuasions or the amount of faith they had in their god/body/birth/etc. To suggest otherwise is extremely offensive and insensitive to the wide variety of beliefs, or lack of beliefs here on MDC, as well as to people who did have bad outcomes.

I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying. First, I was only talking about my own comfort levels with ultrasound and homebirth, and saying faith plays a part in MY decision for ME. I also mentioned the studies and statistics I've looked into... so obviously I'm not basing all of my decision on some "magic voice."

Second, yes, tragedies can happen to anyone at anytime. And I never said or implied... because I don't believe it's true... that bad outcomes only happen to people due to a lack of faith or religious beliefs. Sometimes babies will die or be born with disabilities, no matter how much "faith" we have or how many "tests" we've had or how much technological equipment we surround ourselves with, or how much we isolate ourselves from all technology. There are no guarantees, but it is human nature to latch onto one theory or another to hedge our bets and make ourselves feel safer.

When I say I have faith that I will end up where I need to be, I meant it... but to me that doesn't guarantee a perfect outcome. I just know from personal experience that when I surrender myself to follow those inner promptings... whether that is intuition, God, the collective consciousness or whatever name you want to give it... things always turn out much better for me in the long run. That doesn't mean tragedy never happens... only that I will be in the best place and surrounded by the best people and support system if it does.

[birthangeldoula]

I've re-written this post over and over.. I guess I'm just going to say that the 20 week ultrasound afforded me 4 days with my son before he passed away. It didn't necessarily make the outcome different, he may have died either way, but at least by having the ultrasound I gave birth in a place that was equipped for my sons situation. Instead of me not getting to spend any time with him because he was in a different part of the city, I was able to be by his side during his short life. I wouldn't have done it any other way and I'm glad that the ultrasound technician was skilled enough to detect his defect. That is all.