what do you think of this?

[OliveJewel]

Ok, maybe I am being flippant and naive, but this is why I don't get ultrasounds and amnios and tests...

In the end the u/s tech says, "Well, she *could* just be a small baby..."

It reminds me of "the plight of the bumblebee"...

"According to the greatest minds of science, the bumblebee cannot fly. Its wings aren't big enough. Aerodynamics says it is impossible.

The biggest computers in the world all come to the same conclusion, it can't fly. But what does the bumblebee do? It ignores the great minds, the skeptics, the computers... and it just goes ahead and flies."

This is how pregnancy and birth go most of the time if you allow it to, imho.

[SGVaughn]

Id say its a careful balance....I can sincerely say Ive heard more stories of reassurance that all is well then horror stories, and enough stories of real problems being caught and better outcomes to be had from it to know where I stand on it....and I have had my own recent not so good ultrasound story (possible problems where there were none)

I also tend to thrive on info...I do much better with more of it than less to be a good head space about things

[kriket]

I tend to only 'look' for things that can be fixed. I don't give a hoot about down syndrome, clef faces and the like. But if little bit has a heart defect, or intestines on the outside, I want the team of baby doctors standing by to rush him to where he needs to be.

Placenta covering the cirvex, want to know :) Or if there is more than one bit! Just like to know to buy 2 carseats ;)

[Full Heart]

I don't find that u/s are very accurate for estimating weight but honestly thats the whole point of measuring women at every prenatal, to make sure there is growth.  Its just as unscientific as an u/s.  Honestly, I never used to get u/s.  That changed.  I have lots of kids and I need to be their parent as much as the one growing inside me.  There are things that can be known from u/s.  You can't know everything, you can't prepare for everything, but if there is a chance I can prepare for something ahead of time then I will.  I can arrange childcare, prepare my other children through education and be of a better mindset than finding out at birth or shortly after.  I have the opposite problem as the one described, as I have big babies.  Last time I had u/s for lack of movement.  10 days before delivery they said the baby was 9 lbs 10 oz.  They wouldn't tell me what they thought he weighed the day I had him when I had another BPP (which showed NO movement at all btw and a placenta that went from barely calcified 10 days before to completely calcified) but they were thinking around 11 lbs.  He was 9 lbs 2 oz, he did have a 15 inch head though, which probably threw the measurements off some.  U/s are notoriously wrong on weight but they do have their place. 

[MarineWife]

I don't go for any of the other testing, AFP, triple screen, amnio, for that very reason. I don't need added stress about something that could or could not be a problem and can't be fixed anyway. I do get Level II u/ses. I feel the need for it since I'm having a homebirth and have had a previous c-section. I need to know if the placenta is attached to my scar. I need to know if there is anything that would preclude me from having a homebirth, such as the thinks kriket mentioned. I don't worry about measurements or weight guesses because I know they can be off by a week or more, especially the further along you are (which seems counter-intuitive to me but that's another issue).

I think it's all about being informed. I talk to too many women who don't seem to have a clue about any of it. They freak out because they were told their baby was 9 lbs. at 37w. When I tell them to chill because those measurements can be off by 2+ pounds that are shocked. They didn't know. They thought whatever they were told was written in stone. When the doc suggests a test or procedure they don't ask questions. They just assume it's necessary and go along with it. I find that very disturbing.

I know that an u/s won't necessarily pick up every possible problem that might occur. I also know that u/ses can sometimes lead to false scares. The MFM doc I've been seeing this time for my u/ses wants me to come back for a growth scan around 30w and then a biophysical scan and/or regular NSTs later. I will decline both of those unless my midwife thinks there could be a problem. He sees it as precautionary but I don't see the need.

[Bird Girl]

Originally Posted by OliveJewel 

This is how pregnancy and birth go most of the time if you allow it to, imho.

Are you saying that birth defects are caused by the mom failing to "allow" the baby to grow normally? Surely not. It sounds like it though, so you might want to be aware that you are blaming women for their childrens' birth defects.

[MarineWife]

I've been thinking about that blog post some more. I think the thing that is concerning about the situation is that she had two scans that showed slow/low growth. One small measurement wouldn't necessarily mean anything but two, especially with even less growth, could mean something serious. It would be interesting to see if the amnio provides any answers, positive or negative. An amnio can't check for every possibility. If there is a problem, her having the scans may end up being a positive thing because then she and her family can either do something or at least have time to come to terms with whatever it is.

[OliveJewel]

Originally Posted by Bird Girl 

Are you saying that birth defects are caused by the mom failing to "allow" the baby to grow normally? Surely not. It sounds like it though, so you might want to be aware that you are blaming women for their childrens' birth defects.

That's an interesting take on my quote...  What I was trying to say is that it is not uncommon for u/s and tests to cause a lot of unnecessary worry on the part of the parents... feeling like something "might" be wrong... when *most* of the time the everything goes fine...

The only developmental or physical disability that I can think of that would be caused by a mom would be fetal alcohol syndrome.

I understand now that some women feel just as much comfort in having all the tests as I feel in not having them.  It's just a difference of opinion... with mostly the same outcome!

[goldingoddess]

I love the analogy you made to the bumble bees. And I think it is absolutely right on. If I had had an ultrasound with my first there is no doubt he would have been diagnosed IUGR and I would have likely risked out of homebirth and been put through an onslaught of tests. Instead I had no ultrasounds and gave birth to a completely healthy 'low birth weight' baby at home who had zero issues.

[MarineWife]

Originally Posted by goldingoddess 

IIf I had had an ultrasound with my first there is no doubt he would have been diagnosed IUGR and I would have likely risked out of homebirth and been put through an onslaught of tests. Instead I had no ultrasounds and gave birth to a completely healthy 'low birth weight' baby at home who had zero issues.

That's interesting because I've been dealing with a MFM doc this time that my home birth midwife referred me to because of my history of RPL. I've only had miscarriages in the first trimester so most of us think I'm good to go now that I'm in the 2nd trimester. The MFM doc, however, keeps coming up with all these reasons why I need further monitoring. When I asked my midwife what she thought she said that more monitoring meant setting myself up for someone to find a problem that may have never been an issue otherwise. In other words, if you look for something long enough, you're sure to find it.

[Snugglebugmom]

Originally Posted by kriket 

I tend to only 'look' for things that can be fixed. I don't give a hoot about down syndrome, clef faces and the like. But if little bit has a heart defect, or intestines on the outside, I want the team of baby doctors standing by to rush him to where he needs to be.

Placenta covering the cirvex, want to know :) Or if there is more than one bit! Just like to know to buy 2 carseats ;)

Ditto!