Curious- What's with all the Ultrasounds? - Page 3

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by MaerynPearl

Comparing ultrasounds to thalidomide is not exactly accurate or fair.

Thalidomide was a dangerous drug that women who used during pregnancy could cause serious body damage to their children. Visible deformities.

I have never ever once seen a baby deformed due to an ultrasound, though Ive heard of many who were deformed and an ultrasound caught it (such as cleft palate, spina bifida, Omphalocele)

And in the 40 years they have been using ultrasounds, 20 years since it became widespread or 10 years since they started using them even outside of medical settings, this would have popped up if it were honestly occurring.

You're much more charitable than I am, I'd say it's absolutely absurd and alarmist to try and compare u/s to Thalidomide!

[Peony]

I agree that they are much more common on MDC then they used to be. Changing demographics, not as many people using MW's etc... I am not interested in US for myself personally, and none of my MWs have ever done them except you requested one, and that was only the first one, the other 3 I used, if you wanted an US then you had to find out how to get one yourself.

[nia82]

Ulrtasound and doppler usage has not been proven safe, nor has it been proven to cause substantial harm to a fetus. However, there were labtests done that show overheating of tissue and changes on the molecular level. Doppler ultrasound is not even done anymore in the first trimester - I was even told that yesterday by an obgyn! ACOG doesn't even recommend routine use of ultrasound for the very reason that it's not known what effect it will have. It somewhat assumed to be safe, but there are no studies. Erring on the side of caution is always the best measure.
I did not want nor was offered a dating ultrasound, I knew the date of ovulation exactly thanks to charting. I am aware of risks of ectopic pregnancy but am already past the stage that I would have noticed if my pregnancy was ectopic. I'm not interested in viability scans personally, so I skip that. I am not interested in nuchal scans or quad screens, wouldn't change my pregnancy at all.
The only ultrasound I would be remotely interested in is the 20 week ultrasound, but I am not sure if I will do it at all. Frankly, I know a family who has had all the ultrasounds under the sun and the obgyn still didn't see his kidney deformity that could have been corrected at birth. Instead, he went into complete kidney failure at 2 months and now is on dialysis until he gets a donor kidney. It's not foolproof.
I'm not jumping the gun, but it is neither right to claim that ultrasound is safe nor to say it has been proven unsafe.

[WifeofAnt]

Originally Posted by nia82

Ulrtasound and doppler usage has not been proven safe, nor has it been proven to cause substantial harm to a fetus. However, there were labtests done that show overheating of tissue and changes on the molecular level. Doppler ultrasound is not even done anymore in the first trimester - I was even told that yesterday by an obgyn! ACOG doesn't even recommend routine use of ultrasound for the very reason that it's not known what effect it will have. It somewhat assumed to be safe, but there are no studies. Erring on the side of caution is always the best measure.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I really should start going to bed earlier.

[Kelly1101]

With both of my pregnancies I've had two. One early one for dating/viability, and the 20-week anatomy. I especially wanted the early one this time because breastfeeding had wacked out my cycle and I wanted an accurate due date. And we do find out the gender, and I like to get certain birth defects ruled out before I birth, so I definitely like the 20-week scan.

I would get more if necessary, but so far no more have been necessary.

[queenofjuly]

I think it is a matter of medical necessity--not a choice. Ultrasounds can be a very helpful diagnostic tool in many cases, if used properly and prudently.
I did not "want" ultrasounds or to have a high risk pregnancy. I had 1 ultrasound initially for dating purposes. The reason for the rest of my ultrasounds (bi-weekly transvaginal in the 2nd trimester) is because I had previous cervical surgery (LEEP and cone biopsy) which places me at risk for cervical incompetence. There is no way to properly measure cervical length with a vaginal exam. I am glad I had them, as I had cervical shortening at 16 weeks, so I ended up on bedrest with a cerclage.

[dannic]

I got one in my first two pregnancies (CNM) and none with these last two (CPM).

[annettemarie]

I think the person who said that many of us on MDC on "old timers" was probably spot on. We're older, we've had losses, we've been studying birth issues for decades and haven't seen a whole lot of conclusive evidence that ultrasound is dangerous.

One thing I've really found as I've progressed along my mothering journey is that if I want people to trust my parenting decisions and to believe that they come from a true place of caring myself and my child as well as a place of informed consent, I need to extend them the same courtesy. To that end, I don't really care if or why someone is having an ultrasound. I don't think it's any of my business, unless they ask my opinion.

[kittywitty]

Well, I just had the one to make sure it wasn't ectopic at the beginning and then the 20 week with my first, another at the end to check for induction (and was horribly wrong) with my 2nd, just the 2 with my 3rd, and over 5 with my 4th. They overreacted about something stupid, misdiagnosed me with placenta previa, etc. so I had a ton until I quit their practice around 5/6 months. This time, I haven't had any. I'm not worried and it's not worth the risk for me. I would kind of like one just to see, but my mw does not do them and I do not have a doc/mw that takes my insurance here.

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by nia82

Ulrtasound and doppler usage has not been proven safe, nor has it been proven to cause substantial harm to a fetus. However, there were labtests done that show overheating of tissue and changes on the molecular level. Doppler ultrasound is not even done anymore in the first trimester - I was even told that yesterday by an obgyn! ACOG doesn't even recommend routine use of ultrasound for the very reason that it's not known what effect it will have. It somewhat assumed to be safe, but there are no studies. Erring on the side of caution is always the best measure.
I did not want nor was offered a dating ultrasound, I knew the date of ovulation exactly thanks to charting. I am aware of risks of ectopic pregnancy but am already past the stage that I would have noticed if my pregnancy was ectopic. I'm not interested in viability scans personally, so I skip that. I am not interested in nuchal scans or quad screens, wouldn't change my pregnancy at all.
The only ultrasound I would be remotely interested in is the 20 week ultrasound, but I am not sure if I will do it at all. Frankly, I know a family who has had all the ultrasounds under the sun and the obgyn still didn't see his kidney deformity that could have been corrected at birth. Instead, he went into complete kidney failure at 2 months and now is on dialysis until he gets a donor kidney. It's not foolproof.
I'm not jumping the gun, but it is neither right to claim that ultrasound is safe nor to say it has been proven unsafe.

I completely agree. I did my rounds for a month in u/s in school and did bladder scans and such at my job. But it was always talked about how the research goes both ways. For me, personally, I have been misdiagnosed by u/s for placenta issues, previa, and due date so I do not trust them as far as reliability of diagnosis. If I had other risk factors, I certainly would get one since the benefits would outweigh the risks.

[Sharlla]

Originally Posted by forest~mama

When I was on MDC 5 years ago with my last pg, it seemed like not a lot of people had more than one ultrasound during their pregnancy. In fact, it was common to hear a lot of mamas talk about not even wanting any during pregnancy. Now that I'm back in the pregnancy and ddc forums, I notice a lot of mamas getting multiple ultrasounds, many starting in the very early weeks of pregnancy. I'm just curious what the change is. Different demographics on MDC, change in safety concerns of ultrasounds, less people with homebirths, ect.

I had been thinking of scheduling one around 20w or so-when I went in last time-and now I'm wondering if that's strange...

i was wondering the same thing. with ds1 and 2 i at around 16-20 weeks,the dr didnt even suggest anymore than that. with dd i did a UC/UP so no us.
Posted via Mobile Device

[nia82]

I forgot to mention, with DS I had a whole bunch of ultrasounds. I was told there is absolutely no harm, which in retrospect I find to be not informed consent, because they can't say that for sure. The first was a dating ultrasound, transvaginal, which was so horrible that I never wanted one of those again. Then 16 weeks, 20 and 24 week anatomy scans. I changed from Kaiser to other insurance and the obgyns didn't trust Kaiser's assessment. I should have said no, but thought oh wow more pics of baby for my scrapbook! I had more ultrasounds to measure my cervix with preterm contractions at 28 and 30 weeks. Those I think were good ones, and they really only checked the cervix, not DS.
I just feel it is a good diagnostic tool when a medical condition exists, but I personally want to limit exposure to a bare minimum.... Just being cautious.

[forest~mama]

I can totally see why mamas with losses or medical concerns have multiple US. Lots of good answers here. I have no idea how I would even schedule an US by myself, or if insurance would pay for it if I did. Otherwise I guess I just have to wait and see if this one sticks, and check for hb at 11w mw visit.

Originally Posted by RedOakMomma

...it might be the particular ddc you're in, or just what you're seeing this week in the pregnant forum.
I would still say the average mama here at MDC gets one or none.

Yeah that's what I'm wondering- but I'd say overall it seems less "crunchy" here than before. I'm not complaining though- it seems a bit more tolerant here because of that balance.

Originally Posted by Yuba_River

I also feel like I hear about more U/S on MDC than I did three years ago with DS.

Yeah...

[aikigypsy]

Originally Posted by forest~mama

... I'd say overall it seems less "crunchy" here than before. I'm not complaining though- it seems a bit more tolerant here because of that balance.

That's how I feel, too. I wasn't on here much when I was pregnant with DD, but used a UK-based pregnancy board instead, which seemed more balanced. I would love to have a home birth, but I have to go to a hospital for various reasons and I'm glad that seems more normal here, now.

[karen1968]

I think MDC is definitely less crunchy than years ago. I've only been on for 3.5 years or so, but I've noticed some dissatisfaction amongst more "crunchy" mamas.

AFM, I didn't know any better with my 1st pregnancy and just went with it when the OB (whom I'd never met before) automatically got out the trans-vag wand. It turned out to be a good thing, as it was an anembryonic preg, and we'd been getting ready to announce it at our wedding a week later.
2nd preg, I was freaked and HAD to have the 8-week scan. I hadn't found MDC yet, but I'd had a friend who lost a trisomy 16 baby, plus I was 36, so I had the quad screen/NT scan. Then the anatomy scan, then I developed pre-e, and I had weekly scans which I agreed to readily as they helped me keep baby in longer (I was with a CNM group, but OB started talking inductin at 35 weeks).

3rd preg, I wanted only the 20-week scan, as we planned to HB. Then I had spotting at 10w and asked for a scan. Found out embryo didn't develop past 7w3d. So now, with 4th preg, I NEEDED that viability scan (as others have said). Although I'm 41 this time, we skipped the NT. We had the 20-week scan to make sure baby was/is healthy enough to birth at home, which she is. At that scan I was diagnosed with partial previa. I'll have another scan at 32 weeks to make sure it's resolved - I really want that water birth!

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by forest~mama

Yeah that's what I'm wondering- but I'd say overall it seems less "crunchy" here than before. I'm not complaining though- it seems a bit more tolerant here because of that balance.



Yeah...

Hope the thread doesn't get derailed or shut down for talking about this, but I agree it seems less "crunchy". However, I don't think it's more tolerant. I know my super super crunchy friends are all very tolerant and just present the facts. All sides get their voice through different ways and the internet is a very hard place to convey your message completely without tone of voice or anything. On here, though, I have seen a whole lot of anti-crunch, for even suggesting one should not have to have an ultrasound/c-section/whatever, etc. Intolerance comes from both sides.

[forest~mama]

Well I haven't been all over the forums yet, mostly just here and my DDC. I feel like ppl have been pretty open and accepting. We did one us and waterbirth at home with dd, but I like that mamas who don't do that can feel free to talk about what they do. But like I said, I've been limiting myself to not visiting some of the hot topic forums.

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by nia82

I was even told that yesterday by an obgyn! ACOG doesn't even recommend routine use of ultrasound for the very reason that it's not known what effect it will have. It somewhat assumed to be safe, but there are no studies.

This is repeated here constantly, and it's not true. The ACOG recommends against non-medically indicated u/s. That is NOT the same thing as recommending against "routine" u/s. The ACOG recommends that women get a standard u/s examination between 18 and 20 weeks, and earlier if there's medical indication (including but not limited to suspected multiples, gestational dating, pelvic pain, suspected or previous ectopic, vaginal bleeding, etc).

The ACOG does NOT say that ultra sound is not safe, or that it's "somewhat assumed to be safe." They say that it is safe, period. In fact, just a couple years ago the ACOG president released a statement saying that u/s is safe and beneficial for many women and that because of that, Medicare shouldn't restrict their use. http://www.acog.org/from_home/public...nr07-18-06.cfm

[FireWithin]

I find that there are trends here on MDC (probably like any forum) that influence discussions, opinions and decision. I see it greatly on the allergy forum, which is my second home, and have seen it on other forums, also on the homeschooling forum. It could have been "back in the day" that not doing an u/s was a newish concept, so the mamas here were absorbing the information and making decisions, now there are other things to absorb and think about, and the view has become more balanced.

[nia82]

@ Cherrybomb: Doppler ultrasound is something different than ultrasound. And that is what they don't want done in the first trimester, even my really super mainstream medical ex-obgyn said that. It is much stronger than usual ultrasound. I also didn't mean that ACOG says ultrasounds are unsafe, however they do advise against routine ultrasounds, that is what my health insurance with a pamphlet sent to me as they no longer cover routine ultrasounds for that very reason. I would have to do some digging to find the same stuff online they sent to me (I tossed it a couple weeks ago, I was pretty upset about it, I called them twice to confirm this information, it is Tricare btw.). That's why I probably won't even have a 20 week scan, since I won't pay $$$ for that (it is well over $1000!!!!).
I'm sure that they say what they say to cover their behinds in this very lawsuit-happy society.
And, this is all just important to me. I don't care how many ultrasounds other moms choose if they feel safe with it - nothing wrong with it. I just limit exposure to what is necessary to be on the safe side just in case. During pregnancy, I do that with all things and just personally feel that it is a prudent decision for our family.