or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › June 2011 › How many sonograms will you get?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How many sonograms will you get? - Page 2

post #21 of 65


I will be having a total of 3. 2 from the obgyn- 7wks3days and around 20wks.

I will be paying for a 3-d ultrasound also. I did it with both our other kids.

post #22 of 65
My doc will order 1 around 20 weeks. I am going to go to Vancouver and pay for a private one (3D) to determine sex. It is illegal for the hospital to tell you gender here and I really want to know. I guess a few years ago there were some cases in BC of people aborting babies due to gender. I don't need a dating one, since I know my dates.
post #23 of 65
Ideally, I would skip u/s altogether as I don't trust them.
BUT ds2 had a heart defect so I feel a responsibility to have at least one but will wait until the 3 trimester...as long as I can! lol
post #24 of 65
I'm not sure yet. I'm not even meeting with my hb mw until 8 weeks. I'm not sure that I feel like I need one at 8 weeks. I would like one later, probably around 20 weeks, as DH and I would like to know gender. Also, I agree with pp that one is a good idea on the very off chance that there is something like a heart defect that would be important to know about. Other than that, I could only see getting a later one if we don't if our LO is too modest at the 20 week appt. We really want to know gender. We're happy either way. But if it's a boy we're set for clothing. If it's a girl we have nothing!
post #25 of 65
With DS I had three ultrasounds total.

This time I don't really feel that I need any, but if I am offered a 20 week anatomy scan I will probably get that one.
post #26 of 65
I'm expecting to have only one around 20ish weeks to make sure everything looks ok and that there isn't anything we need to know about before birth. My in-laws are so persistent about knowing the sex (they want a boy), that we might wait until birth to find that out!
post #27 of 65
with ds i had 20 wk & almost 42 wk u/s.
hopefully with this one we can get away with just the 20 wk.
post #28 of 65
the standard of care is 1, and ACOG recommends it at 16-20 wks. some docs do one at 7 wks for dates/viability, and if you go post-dates, they may do another maybe 1 per week for a fluid check and biophysical profile, because as the placenta gets old, sometimes babies can get a little stressed or have cord compression from low amniotic fluid. just keep in mind, i know it's awesome to see the baby, and it's easy to forget this is a medical procedure, and while it is really thought to be safe, it's only been in use for 40 years, and only common use for less than 20, so the effects of repeated exposure might not be fully understood, too. there are lots of times when risk is justified, but it has become entertainment with these free standing pay for u/s places. personally, im just not sure that's the wisest thing. i know that's a buzz kill. it's your choice, just make sure it's an informed one.
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by sagewinna View Post
We'll likely have no ultrasound done, unless it is medically warrented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeMoon View Post
Zero, and I feel a million times more relaxed already than I did with my last pregnancy.
I feel the same way as both of you! None for me. Already shocked the doctor by refusing a dating scan. ("Is it medically necessary?" "Um, no actually!" "Then no thanks!").
post #30 of 65
I am planning on two - the 12 wk NT scan, and then the standard 20wk scan. I had planned on two with DS, ended up w/ 4 - I had appendicitis at 18wks, so they did an u/s to 'diagnose' that (since they couldn't do a cat scan) I ended up w/ an MRI since the u/s wasn't conclusive enough (turned out, it was on the verge of bursting! which would have been an awful thing - there's a 20% fetal loss rate)

I also went late, so they did an u/s at 41wks to make sure amniotic fluid was okay, etc.
post #31 of 65
As few as possible. I don't want to abuse medical technology (that carries its own risks) to treat my impatience, or anxiety about being connected to my baby. My last pregnancies I didn't get any.
This time I'm scheduled for one next week for dating in effort to push my due date ahead so my midwife and I can be prepped for my notoriously overdue pregnancies and she won't be forced to abandon my care when I go to 43 weeks.
post #32 of 65
That's a great reason for a dating one, littleteapot! I would hate to loose my homebirth because my dates were off!

I had zero with my daughter and no regrets. I think I will talk to my midwife about a 20 week diagnostic scan. I had a scare when I realized I was taking meds when I conceived and I kinda would like to just know that the baby is whole and be mentally or physically ready to take care of any immediate needs. On the other hand, I don't want false positives leading to fear, multiple ultrasounds, risking out of a home birth, etc. Plus, I don't really trust sonograms anyway. Urg. Thankfully I have a few months to make a decision.
post #33 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosieAK View Post
On the other hand, I don't want false positives leading to fear, multiple ultrasounds, risking out of a home birth, etc. .
This is very similar to why, when I felt something was very wrong with my second pregnancy, that we chose not to have a sonogram to confirm. Our son died from a fatal birth defect shortly after birth (there is zero survival rate, the only "treatment option" is abortion), but as a result of our choice we got a lot of beautiful, undisturbed pregnancy time to celebrate his life... rather than mourn prematurely. There were some amazing moments that I wouldn't give up for the world.

I don't know if I could do it again if it happened a second time, but for that time, it was the right choice for us... and we regret nothing.
post #34 of 65
Yeah, I totally know what you mean. It especially boggles my mind since it is scientifically proven that there is zero improvement in maternal and neonatal outcomes with getting more than one ultrasound. So I can see someone making the argument that they want one, despite the risks of it outweighing the benefits for 99% of women, but anything above that I just don't understand. Typical Ob/Gyn fear mongering if you ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainsun View Post
Honestly, I cannot believe how many ultrasounds are being done these days. I have seen people with completely normal pregnancies having 3-4 or more ultrasounds, and I am like whaaaaaaaaaaaat!! When I had ds1, almost 7 years ago, my OB did 1 early one, and then the 20 week one.

With ds2, we had 1 around 10/11 weeks, because my midwife could not find the heartbeat with the doppler. Didn't have the 20 week scan with ds2 because everything was all good at the 10 week one. We had a homebirth with him.

this time, I am thinking probably one for us, barring any problems.

Don't be so hasty to want more ultrasounds. They are not really necessary (unless there is a problem) and some might say that they may even be dangerous. Do some homework on this one. Just enjoy your pregnancy, mama
post #35 of 65
I'd just like to gently say that while I understand what you're saying, I don't really agree. It really frustrates me that certain states say if you go over a certain date, you "risk" out of the chance of using a midwife for a homebirth. TONS of women, especially first time Mom's go "late" even though it is perfectly healthy and normal. It unjustly puts pregnant women in a stressful situation, which I think is totally wrong to begin with, because the women know if they go too long, they will either have to have a hospital birth (an utter nightmare for most homebirthers) or have an unassisted childbirth, when they would have preferred support from a midwife. Then on top of that, I don't believe ultrasounds to be completely safe. To get around that I had a friend (in Florida I believe) who just lied about her LMP date to avoid the ultrasound, and still be able to use a midwife, but some women don't know about that and get an ultrasound when they would rather not. The whole thing just seems totally wrong to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JosieAK View Post
That's a great reason for a dating one, littleteapot! I would hate to loose my homebirth because my dates were off!

I had zero with my daughter and no regrets. I think I will talk to my midwife about a 20 week diagnostic scan. I had a scare when I realized I was taking meds when I conceived and I kinda would like to just know that the baby is whole and be mentally or physically ready to take care of any immediate needs. On the other hand, I don't want false positives leading to fear, multiple ultrasounds, risking out of a home birth, etc. Plus, I don't really trust sonograms anyway. Urg. Thankfully I have a few months to make a decision.
post #36 of 65
I was under the impression that it meant, any more than one ultrasound has no improvement in outcome for mother or baby. So you're right, one ultrasounds at 20 weeks can diagnose a heart problem that needs taking care of immediately after birth, but that there is no point in doing any more than that to "look at it again" or "see if there are any changes" which is what's commonly done, kwim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokering View Post
Just the anatomy scan. I know about the study that says routine ultrasound doesn't improve outcomes, but it doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I personally know of several people who picked up conditions on the 20 week scan, ignorance of which would have been disastrous - things like omphaloceles or heart defects that required immediate surgery after birth. So I'm thinking quite a lot of babies must be saved by that prenatal detection. So... if it doesn't improve outcomes overall, does that mean that the ultrasound itself is so harmful it kills as many babies as die of all those conditions? But nobody claims that. So - I don't get it. I realise false positives can happen, but I don't see how that would generally be harmful to the baby - unless of course the mother aborted, but would they include that in the study? I dunno. It just seems worthwhile to me. (And my sister had a heart defect, albeit a non-serious one, so I guess that sways me as well.)
post #37 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeMoon View Post
I'd just like to gently say that while I understand what you're saying, I don't really agree. It really frustrates me that certain states say if you go over a certain date, you "risk" out of the chance of using a midwife for a homebirth. TONS of women, especially first time Mom's go "late" even though it is perfectly healthy and normal. It unjustly puts pregnant women in a stressful situation, which I think is totally wrong to begin with, because the women know if they go too long, they will either have to have a hospital birth (an utter nightmare for most homebirthers) or have an unassisted childbirth, when they would have preferred support from a midwife. Then on top of that, I don't believe ultrasounds to be completely safe. To get around that I had a friend (in Florida I believe) who just lied about her LMP date to avoid the ultrasound, and still be able to use a midwife, but some women don't know about that and get an ultrasound when they would rather not. The whole thing just seems totally wrong to me.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeMoon View Post
I'd just like to gently say that while I understand what you're saying, I don't really agree. It really frustrates me that certain states say if you go over a certain date, you "risk" out of the chance of using a midwife for a homebirth. TONS of women, especially first time Mom's go "late" even though it is perfectly healthy and normal. It unjustly puts pregnant women in a stressful situation, which I think is totally wrong to begin with, because the women know if they go too long, they will either have to have a hospital birth (an utter nightmare for most homebirthers) or have an unassisted childbirth, when they would have preferred support from a midwife. Then on top of that, I don't believe ultrasounds to be completely safe. To get around that I had a friend (in Florida I believe) who just lied about her LMP date to avoid the ultrasound, and still be able to use a midwife, but some women don't know about that and get an ultrasound when they would rather not. The whole thing just seems totally wrong to me.
Oh, I TOTALLY agree, OrangeMoon. It does not seem right or fair when I know for a fact that some women just gestate longer than average. The arbitrary two week overdue cut off is ridiculous and stressful for a wanna-be-home birther. I was blessed to go into labor the day before my due date last time and, while I know that could go very differently next time, I know first timers tend to be latest and I'm not as worried about going overdue.

When I talk about risking out of a homebirth, I am not talking about actual risk, even, but the limitations that the Alaska government have placed on my midwife. As sweet as she is, she has told me, "I'm not risking my license for just one mother when I have so many others depending on me." She can't assist my homebirth two weeks past time, she can't deliver twins, breech, gestational diabeties, VBAC, etc. My only options for a home birth in those situations are for it to be a surprise (she actually has delivered surprise twins), unassisted, or to find an "undercover" midwife who is not licensed in Alaska. But for now, I am doing my best to work within the limitations she has been placed under, and I wonder if not getting a sonogram will keep some "safe" surprises a secret or if there are unsafe ones that I should be aware of.
post #39 of 65
I wouldn't switch to another doctor for more ultrasounds.

With my first pregnancy, I had one at 9 weeks to confirm dating, and one at 22 weeks. They did do one the night I was induced because that's how they were checking my fluid level--and it was low (which is why I was induced).

With my second pregnancy, I had one at 7 weeks because of spotting, then one at 21 weeks. My doctor also ordered a level 2 ultrasound (and possibly a fetal echo? I'm not sure if that's what they did...) when I was about 33-34 weeks because I was on a medication that increases the risk of heart defects.

With this one, I had one at 8 weeks due to spotting/bleeding and I'm having another at 13 weeks to check on that (because I have a subchorionic hemorrhage). I'll also have one at 18-20 weeks.

I think that 2 ultrasounds is quite often the "norm" and I think that's reasonable. They usually do more if they are concerned about something else. Hopefully this one at 13 weeks will show that the subchorionic hemorrhage is healing and then I won't need one til 18-20 weeks.
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosieAK View Post
The arbitrary two week overdue cut off is ridiculous and stressful for a wanna-be-home birther.
I understand your frustration, but truly, the two week overdue cut off is not arbitrary or ridiculous. there are risks beyond 42 wks, and if you are considering a home birth, even if it means lying about your lmp to get it, you really need to be familiar with them. unfortunately you are right, if you have a hospital birth after 42 wks, your chances of it being pretty hairy are higher, but that is because the chances of the placenta not perfusing well, amniotic fluid being decreased, and the baby feeling that stress are higher. i expect to be flamed but i would rather be criticized than have one mama lose a baby because she was more concerned about the birth than what might be happening with the baby.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: June 2011
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › June 2011 › How many sonograms will you get?