How many sonograms will you get? - Page 3

[Mamatoabunch]

Originally Posted by karmab

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.

I am not flaming, but I sure am sick of this tired, old argument. It is amazing that anyone would believe this!

[littleteapot]

Originally Posted by Mamatoabunch

I am not flaming, but I sure am sick of this tired, old argument. It is amazing that anyone would believe this!

Ditto. The risks don't actually show a statistically valid increase until about 45 weeks... And the amount of women who go that far is pretty slim.
I went to 43 weeks with my last one and UC'd him in my tub. Choosing midwifery care this time, unfortunately, means playing a little bit of the game. If it means getting a scan to try and push my date ahead so my midwife is not risked into losing her house or her job to attend me... I'm cool with that. However, I'm also comfortable with the possibility of getting into a bind where the only safe option is attending my own birth again (which my midwife is also comfortable with! She's pretty awesome, I gotta say).

[Cutie Patootie]

Originally Posted by Mamatoabunch

I am not flaming, but I sure am sick of this tired, old argument. It is amazing that anyone would believe this!

I agree.

[JosieAK]

Originally Posted by karmab

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.

Yow. I feel slapped. I thought I just said that my midwife isn't taking any risks and I am working within the system. I am not lying about dates and will go to a hospital if and when my midwife deems it medically necessary (I did with my last birth--for the record). I just wish that the system was more designed to work with women on a case by case basis.

[OrangeMoon]

Awesome, I totally get what you're saying, hopefully I didn't go off on too much of a tangent, lol. I was a total sheep at the beginning of pregnancy with DS (my first) and the only thing that saved me was knowledgeable women online telling me what's what, so I tend to blather a bit too much if I feel like it may help some one, lol.

Originally Posted by JosieAK

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.

Okay, I really should be going to bed but I think you are a bit confused in that you think the only reason women have a home birth is because they are stuck on what kind of birth for selfish reasons or something, when in fact women/families do it because it is safer for BOTH Mom and baby. The two week cut off is absolutely arbitrary and ridiculous. Here is the thing that no one wants to accept in birth: some times babies die. It is tragically, desperately sad and of course we all do everything we can to avoid that but some times it just happens. Along with life comes death, it's a fact of life. And I think you are especially confused in thinking that this happens less in a hospital, when many of the procedures only done in hospitals are directly responsible for the deaths of Moms and Babies. I'll say it even clearer - for many unfortunate victims, the Mom and Baby would have been alive if they had stayed at home. Is this always the case? No. Is being in the hospital on rare instances beneficial? Yes. But you cannot always know which is better, and anyone who says that they always know which is better is lying. And on top of this, the way a baby is birthed MATTERS. It matters for everyone but especially the Mom and Baby. On top of this, I truly believe, along with many respected midwives and a few smart physicians, that 98% of women should be having their baby(ies) at home because it is SAFER. If you are part of that 2% that needs help, then yes, go to the hospital. Do you honestly think that all of us would knowingly and willingly put our babies in significant danger? That we don't do massive amounts of research to determine what is best?

Originally Posted by karmab

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.

[Dame]

Probably two scans; one NT scan at 12 weeks and then I'll likely pay for one at 20 weeks so we can find out the sex.

[nononose]

Originally Posted by littleteapot

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.

I'm a little confused - won't this just pick up a later ovulation, not a longer gestation? I'm not commenting either way, just a thought.

[nononose]

I will have an anatomy scan around 23 weeks or so - possibly later. I haven't decided when yet. I am planning a HBAC, and feel better having this done. I would like to know if there are any placental problems, would like a good look at the heart (there are heart issues in the family), and would like to know if there's an obvious reason we should be in the hospital. I am considering the 12 week scan for IPS for AMA, but am still undecided, as I'm barely AMA (36 at birth). I really hope that's it.

[nononose]

Originally Posted by Smokering

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.)

I could be wrong, but didn't this study just consider routine ultrasound, and not ones that were medically indicated? So either group could have a medically indicated u/s ... like for bleeding to check for previa, or ... I don't know, signs of a serious growth or heart problem or something like that, just not the "we haven't had a scan in 2 months, lets do one" type scans. I can't remember if the study included the routine use of the 20-week morphology scan or not.

[littleteapot]

Originally Posted by nononose

I'm a little confused - won't this just pick up a later ovulation, not a longer gestation? I'm not commenting either way, just a thought.

I know my conception date, but because I have a knack of going overdue and would like my midwife to not risk her job by attending me, we worked together to find legal ways of trying to push the due date ahead. One of those ways is getting an early dating ultrasound. It may not, but it also may... especially because this is a menopause baby. I hit early menopause about 18 months ago and only had two or three ovulations this year.
Anything is worth a shot.
If worse comes to worse, she told me she's happy to let me UC the baby and call her after - which is fine for me, I've done it before - but I'd like to have her there if possible. I just don't want her to risk her job and home for it!

[karmab]

Originally Posted by OrangeMoon

The two week cut off is absolutely arbitrary and ridiculous. Here is the thing that no one wants to accept in birth: some times babies die. It is tragically, desperately sad and of course we all do everything we can to avoid that but some times it just happens. Along with life comes death, it's a fact of life. And I think you are especially confused in thinking that this happens less in a hospital, when many of the procedures only done in hospitals are directly responsible for the deaths of Moms and Babies. I'll say it even clearer - for many unfortunate victims, the Mom and Baby would have been alive if they had stayed at home. Is this always the case? No. Is being in the hospital on rare instances beneficial? Yes. But you cannot always know which is better, and anyone who says that they always know which is better is lying. And on top of this, the way a baby is birthed MATTERS. It matters for everyone but especially the Mom and Baby. On top of this, I truly believe, along with many respected midwives and a few smart physicians, that 98% of women should be having their baby(ies) at home because it is SAFER. If you are part of that 2% that needs help, then yes, go to the hospital. Do you honestly think that all of us would knowingly and willingly put our babies in significant danger? That we don't do massive amounts of research to determine what is best?

i worked in labor and delivery at a hospital that did 6000 deliveries a year for 3 years. i never saw a mom come in in labor with a healthy baby to have a baby die in delivery. not once. we did reiki and mom's made their own birth plans. ex-h is an ob/gyn doing 220 deliveries a year for the 13 years we were married. he had 2 fullterm babies die in delivery during that time, both had viruses unknown until the cord was cut- one mom was infected with herpes after her water broke and the other was cmv or a related virus. he never had a birth process related death. that's about 3000 deliveries and no deaths. we had a lay midwife doing a handful of home deliveries per month in this area, she was here for 8 mths and had 3 babies die in her care before she stopped. im not saying that is typical, but the contrast speaks for itself. babies die?? are you kidding me? this is something you are willing to accept like we live on the prairie in the 1800s? babies and moms die in 3rd world countries. i am not against home birth, actually, and i am for women choosing their own way to birth. but to say there is no stats that say anything bad doesnt happen after 42 wks is like putting your head in the sand. placentas are calcified and there is good reason for caution. but if that's a risk you are willing to take, bless you and i pray for a healthy delivery for the sake of your child.

[Mamatoabunch]

Originally Posted by karmab

but to say there is no stats that say anything bad doesnt happen after 42 wks is like putting your head in the sand. placentas are calcified and there is good reason for caution. but if that's a risk you are willing to take, bless you and i pray for a healthy delivery for the sake of your child.

Something bad can happen at any time, no matter how medicalized your pregnancy and birth is or no matter how low key, even UP, UC it is. It is just a fact. Pregnancy and birth have the risk of loss. I have gone both routes and see the value more in low key, but I don't feel a mama that has scans, OB care, hospital birth cares more than I or less. Why do you seem to imply mamas who receive low key care, care less? That is the problem, not what the path each mama chooses. Wow mama!

[WifeofAnt]

DDCC - I have had 3 ultrasounds so far. First at 10 weeks for dating because I have irregular cycles. I knew when I ovulated but having irregular cycles was on my chart so its what they do... I was right. My second was at 18 weeks. Regular old anatomy scan. If you have regular cycles this is probably the only ultrasound most people need. My third ultrasound was because I had a low-lying placenta at 18 weeks. Luckily it moved.

I disagree with lying about dates to get 'extra time' for 2 reasons.
1. Getting 'risked out of midwife care'. Not everyone goes late. Not everyone even goes to their due date. There HAVE been women who have lied about their LMP to get their home birth only to be risked out when they give birth too 'early'. When truthfully they could be 37 weeks and safe their 'lie date' only puts them at 35 and premature. Then they don't only lose their home birth but their labor is assumed to be more high risk.
2. Measurements. Obviously something you can't predict. Since fundal height may not be measured until 20 weeks if you lie for an extra 2 weeks and coincidentally have a small-but-within-normal fundal height you could measure 3 or 4 weeks behind and still get pushed into an ultrasound (or even more interventions because of suspected IUGR) because of concern about growth that wouldn't be there without the 'lie date'.

[littleteapot]

Originally Posted by karmab

i worked in labor and delivery at a hospital that did 6000 deliveries a year for 3 years. i never saw a mom come in in labor with a healthy baby to have a baby die in delivery. not once. we did reiki and mom's made their own birth plans. ex-h is an ob/gyn doing 220 deliveries a year for the 13 years we were married. he had 2 fullterm babies die in delivery during that time, both had viruses unknown until the cord was cut- one mom was infected with herpes after her water broke and the other was cmv or a related virus. he never had a birth process related death. that's about 3000 deliveries and no deaths. we had a lay midwife doing a handful of home deliveries per month in this area, she was here for 8 mths and had 3 babies die in her care before she stopped. im not saying that is typical, but the contrast speaks for itself. babies die?? are you kidding me? this is something you are willing to accept like we live on the prairie in the 1800s? babies and moms die in 3rd world countries. i am not against home birth, actually, and i am for women choosing their own way to birth. but to say there is no stats that say anything bad doesnt happen after 42 wks is like putting your head in the sand. placentas are calcified and there is good reason for caution. but if that's a risk you are willing to take, bless you and i pray for a healthy delivery for the sake of your child.

That was the most unscientific, unnecessary, fear-mongering, biased post about this topic. Your anecdata aside, science and research does not support anything you've said.
Aside: I don't believe you for a second that your husband had thousands of deliveries and TWO stillbirths. Mysterious stillbirths happen all the time. I know because as part of my job I'm privy to the hospital birth statistics!

Here's some more meaningless anecdata for you:
I am the head volunteer in my area for an organization called Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep. I work with stillborn babies, late miscarriages, premature births that don't make it and parents whose children are dying. In the last three years working at our hospital I have attended dozens of beautiful babies, and in our hospital MOST of the deaths I attend are from totally healthy, normal labours where the baby just up and died for no reason at all... and no one ever finds out why. Unfortunately a significantly high portion of stillbirths are like this.
I don't say this with the intent to scare anyone, but rather to correct this insane idea that it's the mother's fault, her choices and her path that her baby died.

The truth is that death is a part of life and after removing the standard list of "increased risk": genetic components, prematurity, birth defects, and certain environmental factors (like smoking) et all; you're no more or less at risk for stillbirth than you are of SIDS... that's no reason to live your life in fear. Sometimes babies die, and it's horrible, and you can't always blame mothers for it. (Anecdata ends here and science talk starts)

Science has shown again and again that - overall - low tech births and low tech care provides better, healthier outcomes for mom and baby. Period.

Also, as for comment on the "calicification" thing: Prove it. Right now. Show me the research and cite your source.
The research I've read shows that calcification is no more or less likely to happen at >42 weeks than it is at 36. It's more related to diet and smoking than it is to age. There's also no overwhelming research that says calcification contributes to fetal demise... or even any problems of the fetus.
This reminds me of all the times I hear mothers of mysterious stillbirths be told it was a "cord around the neck" because some doctor or nurse thinks it's better to lie to a mother and give her "something to blame" rather than tell her the truth.

[littleteapot]

Originally Posted by Mamatoabunch

Something bad can happen at any time, no matter how medicalized your pregnancy and birth is or no matter how low key, even UP, UC it is. It is just a fact. Pregnancy and birth have the risk of loss. I have gone both routes and see the value more in low key, but I don't feel a mama that has scans, OB care, hospital birth cares more than I or less. Why do you seem to imply mamas who receive low key care, care less? That is the problem, not what the path each mama chooses. Wow mama!

Quoted for truth. Scans and tests do not prevent birth defects, they are tools used to help a diagnostic process. I used to have this argument a lot with people during my UPs... and I DID have a child die of a fatal birth defect. Would ultrasounds and scans have saved his life? No, no they wouldn't have: no amount of scans and tests would have miraculously made kidneys grow where there were none. It's a hard reality, but it remains: no amount of testing will change the outcome, it just might tip us off a few months earlier... but it's not even like you can DO anything at that point anyway.
Which is exactly what makes getting the tests a personal choice and nothing more. It does not improve outcomes, it's an individual preference.

[4tolove]

Originally Posted by karmab

i worked in labor and delivery at a hospital that did 6000 deliveries a year for 3 years. i never saw a mom come in in labor with a healthy baby to have a baby die in delivery. not once. we did reiki and mom's made their own birth plans. ex-h is an ob/gyn doing 220 deliveries a year for the 13 years we were married. he had 2 fullterm babies die in delivery during that time, both had viruses unknown until the cord was cut- one mom was infected with herpes after her water broke and the other was cmv or a related virus. he never had a birth process related death. that's about 3000 deliveries and no deaths. we had a lay midwife doing a handful of home deliveries per month in this area, she was here for 8 mths and had 3 babies die in her care before she stopped. im not saying that is typical, but the contrast speaks for itself. babies die?? are you kidding me? this is something you are willing to accept like we live on the prairie in the 1800s? babies and moms die in 3rd world countries. i am not against home birth, actually, and i am for women choosing their own way to birth. but to say there is no stats that say anything bad doesnt happen after 42 wks is like putting your head in the sand. placentas are calcified and there is good reason for caution. but if that's a risk you are willing to take, bless you and i pray for a healthy delivery for the sake of your child.

Sadly their a rise in deaths in the US during or shortly after delivery. It's great that your husband only had two. And it's sad the midwife in question had so many. The tables can always be turned. I just don't want people to think that death doesn't happen anymore in the US at least, because it does and though it's not all the time it has risin in the past years and majority were hospital births. I'm not saying hospital births are bad, just there is a problem when not only is there a spike in deaths, but also huge spikes in complications due to delivery, c-sections and so on. Luckily more and more OB's are starting to take a more midwife approach and in many area's it's cutting those numbers down.

[wake_up]

Wow, some really intense opinions on this one.
I didn't have any sonograms during my first pregnancy. We did use a doppler to hear the heartbeat at a few midwife appointments.
I plan to do the same this time around.

[Cutie Patootie]

Originally Posted by littleteapot

That was the most unscientific, unnecessary, fear-mongering, biased post about this topic. Your anecdata aside, science and research does not support anything you've said.
Aside: I don't believe you for a second that your husband had thousands of deliveries and TWO stillbirths. Mysterious stillbirths happen all the time. I know because as part of my job I'm privy to the hospital birth statistics!

Here's some more meaningless anecdata for you:
I am the head volunteer in my area for an organization called Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep. I work with stillborn babies, late miscarriages, premature births that don't make it and parents whose children are dying. In the last three years working at our hospital I have attended dozens of beautiful babies, and in our hospital MOST of the deaths I attend are from totally healthy, normal labours where the baby just up and died for no reason at all... and no one ever finds out why. Unfortunately a significantly high portion of stillbirths are like this.
I don't say this with the intent to scare anyone, but rather to correct this insane idea that it's the mother's fault, her choices and her path that her baby died.

The truth is that death is a part of life and after removing the standard list of "increased risk": genetic components, prematurity, birth defects, and certain environmental factors (like smoking) et all; you're no more or less at risk for stillbirth than you are of SIDS... that's no reason to live your life in fear. Sometimes babies die, and it's horrible, and you can't always blame mothers for it. (Anecdata ends here and science talk starts)

Science has shown again and again that - overall - low tech births and low tech care provides better, healthier outcomes for mom and baby. Period.

Also, as for comment on the "calicification" thing: Prove it. Right now. Show me the research and cite your source.
The research I've read shows that calcification is no more or less likely to happen at >42 weeks than it is at 36. It's more related to diet and smoking than it is to age. There's also no overwhelming research that says calcification contributes to fetal demise... or even any problems of the fetus.
This reminds me of all the times I hear mothers of mysterious stillbirths be told it was a "cord around the neck" because some doctor or nurse thinks it's better to lie to a mother and give her "something to blame" rather than tell her the truth.

I'm so glad you posted before I did, because you said it very well. I would have said, "What a crock...pure malarkey. Babies die. If not for any other reason than they do. Nothing but fear mongering and it's unbelievably offensive what you keep insinuating. "

[littleteapot]

Originally Posted by Cutie Patootie

I'm so glad you posted before I did, because you said it very well. I would have said, "What a crock...pure malarkey. Babies die. If not for any other reason than they do. Nothing but fear mongering and it's unbelievably offensive what you keep insinuating. "

I'm glad someone agrees! It really burns me up to see mothers blamed for random stillbirths because they chose the safest and most comfortable route for them. I work with these moms all the time: more guilt is the last thing they need. And the idea that women choose homebirth because they selfishly care "more about themselves" than their babies is really awful. It smacks of the "all that matters is a healthy baby" trope that is just... so offensive.

[mama_daba]

i wanted to thank you to
i had wanted to say something but had not found the right words.