To U/S or not U/S, that is the question... - Page 4

[jane-t-mommy]

Initially I had planned on having the mid preg (20 wk) ultra sound. But I have to thank all of you informed mamas for sharing so much info with us! I have decided that unless there is a truly medically warranted reason for an ultrasound, I will refuse it as being extraneous to my and my baby's care. I truly understand the desire to check things out and "make sure" everything is progressing as it should. But due to the possible risks and the buying into the corporate culture of our medical system and the fact that by placing faith in technology instead of in the miracle of my own body I am ultimately undermining my belief in birth as natural and something I can do. This is my second preg and I did have a U/S with dd, and I am over 35. Thanks for listening and for sharing! Janet

[scheelimama]

I haven't read all the responses, but I have read similar threads, so when I went into my first appointment with my mw for this babe, I asked her about the risk of doppler and u/s. She said that she was aware of the possible risks, but they feel that the risk is pretty darn low to nearly nonexistent with only a monthly doppler (weekly at the end) and 1 u/s. She said she feels the real risk is for women who have multiple u/s and/or are hooked up to doppler for an extended period of time. She felt that even hospital birth could pose a risk b/c of the amount of time they usually have you and baby hooked up to doppler. She said that we could decline any doppler or u/s if we wished, but that she felt it was not really a risk factor. They routinely do an u/s between 18-20 weeks for 2 reasons. The first is to get an accurate due date and measure babe. The second is to take a look at all the major organs and body parts to make sure the baby is fine. I believe that we will have an u/s this time. We had 2 last time and normal doppler use and delivered at the birth center, so she only checked the hb every 1-2 hours until I got really close to delivery. DD has turned out just fine and has no hearing problems or any others problems. That's my take on this issue.

[CyndyRR327]

I am a high risk pg and was last time since I am diabetic. Last time I had one at about 9 wks, then starting at 20 wks had one a month. So I suppose that is about 7 u/s. Considering my medical problems I welcome them! I'm so glad to be reassured each month that things are OK. The last u/s was to see what his weight was to determine if a c/s was necessary which it was. And I'm so glad it was done or else ds would have had major problems coming out vaginally since his shoulders were so much wider then his head (a common problem with diabetics).

So, for this pg, I will do the same. DS is fine, meeting all milestones, etc.

[3boobykins]

I do allow the doppler at my prenatal appointments (we're planning a home waterbirth), but I'm not having an U/S unless there seems to be a very good reason for it. I was in a bit of turmoil over this last week. I'm 20.5 weeks and haven't felt a great deal of movement--with my last pg, I saw a kick or two from the outside by 16 weeks. I went in to the midwifery office to drop off a check last week and talked about the option with one of my midwives. She said it would take a couple of weeks to get an appointment with their backup OB, so I declined. By then I'm sure I'll be feeling a lot more movement. She reminded me that the real kicks and rolls tend to start closer to 22 or 23 weeks when the baby is a bit bigger. We did take a quick listen with the doppler for my peace of mind, and she said she could hear that my placenta is anterior, which would explain why I haven't felt as much movement this time around. We did have an U/s with dd at 16 weeks to check growth, as our first was very IUGR. This time I'm trusting that the baby's growth is fine as long as my fundal measurements are normal, which they are.

[Angelfish]

I had two U/S with my son. The first was ordered because, during my initial exam at eight weeks, my midwife found a suspicious lump. I had a "make sure all is well" at about 20 weeks. (I was terrified about miscarriage. At one appt, my midwife asked if I had any concerns. As I occasionally did, I mentioned my fears. She looked at me as though I was crazy. She said it wasn't a big deal, something along the lines of, "Since you're 37 weeks, we just call that early labour." )

I sometimes worry about what sort of damage could possibly have been done to my daughter. I had an initial dating U/S done, and the "all is well" at 20-something weeks. The second caught mild placenta previa, so I had a third to check that. After the third, I was told (at 35 weeks) that the baby had stopped growing and everyone was concerned (although the placenta had taken care of itself). During the next four weeks (she was a week early) I had three in perinatal, one in radiology, one in L&D and two with the maternal/fetal medicine specialist. They were primarily monitoring amniotic fluid levels, and radiology and m/f med also checked the placenta and cord blood flow. My daughter seems healthy enough (she's nine weeks), but still...

My apologies if this has already been addressed, but if U/S is sound waves, what is the objection. Aren't sound wave just sound? (I'm thinking the echolocation that bats use. Am I way off?)

[Mamid]

It is, but it isn't. In theory it is the same, but in actuality, it isn't.

They (the military) did tests and certain sound frequencies _can_ kill an adult.

Which, if you think about it, is some scary shit.

Check for ultrasound and epidemiology studies. Those ones will show a possible problem. Any other studies done about ultrasound show that they are "safe" but epidemiology ones have shown that there might be some mild brain damage.

That, and we have no clue what ultrasound does to immature ova and won't know for at least another 20 years.

[Pam_and_Abigail]

Can anyone (Mamid?) point me to the studies showing there might be brain damage? I'm still thinking about this one (I'm 6 1/2 weeks, and would be scheduled for an u/s around 20 weeks at my next appt).
Thanks

[kimberlylibby]

Yeah, I've had umm, 5 u/s already. I had a placental abruption (along with eclampsia/hellp) with my first and we are keeping a close eye on everything.

Also I was bf when I got pg and it was totally a surprise so we had no clue how far along I was, like I could have been anywhere from 4 weeks to 24 weeks.... I had NO clue

[mirthfulmum]

Don't know of the names of any studies but I've heard and read articles about them. I don't recall ever reading about brain damage per se, but there is evidence of it having an effect on brain development (for eg. increased possibilty of being left handed). But I'm not really in any place to authoritatively comment on them.
I can however tell of my latest u/s experience. We did in the end have our ~20 week u/s a couple of days ago. I've heard stories from some people whose baby's had a perceived negative reaction to the u/s. Some baby's started thrashing around, one post I read told of a baby covering its ears during the u/s. My experience was nothing like that. My u/s with my current pregnancy showed my little guy sucking his thumb, doing a bit of wiggling and even yawning. DH, DS and I found the experience of getting our first glimpse of our newest family member to be a wonderful bonding moment.
But it seems that not everyone experiences this. It's almost as if some babies are more sensitive to the u/s than others.

[Piglet68]

It's also really hard to determine what baby does when you aren't looking. They may thrash around anyways. Mine seems to sleep through the first 90% of the procedure, and only starts moving alot when they try to take a nice photo for us, lol.

I think how you interpret the baby's movement is going to depend alot on what your preconceptions are regarding the U/S.

I know for us, getting to see baby is an incredibly emotional experience. But I also have *total* respect and support for mamas who choose not to have one.

[flitters]

here is a link to a great paper "Fetal stimulation by pulsed diagnostic ultrasound" which showed a statistically significant increase in fetal movement during ultrasound:
http://www.mayo.edu/ultrasound/papers/fatemi2001.pdf

it's only available in pdf unless you read the google cached version, but here is the link to the index of papers from that group (the one i mention above is the second one in 2001):
http://www.mayo.edu/ultrasound/papers/

anyway, this lead me to do further research about hand held doppler versus imaging ultrasound because i think increased movement could indicate a more agitated state. the study showed the increase in movement was not particularly significant with continuous wave doppler (like the ones for listening to heart tones).

it is surprisingly difficult to find documents on the intensity of the waves from either ultrasound or doppler, but what i did find left me feeling more comfortable with my monthly doppler to listen to heart tones than with an ultrasound exam.

some sources such as birthlove (quoted earlier by lucysmama) say, "fetal monitors and hand-held fetal stethescopes ('sonicaids') feature continuous waves, giving much higher levels of exposure than 'pulsed' ultrasound." i believe this is misleading as i have looked pretty hard and not found anything that indicates this while ALSO taking intensity into account. yes, more soundwaves reach the baby over a given period of time, but they tend to be a lower dosage because the power of the signal is less. kind of like comparing sitting in a room with a loud banging drum versus sitting in a room with continuous noise from a car engine. there is less noise exposure from the drum because it is pulsed, but the noise from the car is overall less agitating.

make sense?

[applejuice]

I never had an ultrasound scan with any of my dear children during my pregnancies. I refused the doptone when I learned it too was continuous wave ultrasound.

The complacency I read in most posts is reminiscent of my mom's time when she went in with every pregnancy for X-ray pelvimetry to be sure of the size of her pelvis.

The excuse always was - "You have to be sure," or the "risk/benefit ratio". I know: you take a risk each time you cross the street; well, I do not cross the street blindfolded, I look both ways first, weigh my options, and if it is too problematic, I do not cross.

Now everyone lines up for ultrasound scans to "be sure of the dates"; there are other ways to accomplish this, but a ultrasound record is considered good prenatal care.

Ultrasound will be out when medicine finds a new and improved substitute. Then we will all know the real risks of ultrasound technology.

[malibusunny]

I'm surprised that I am in the minority here.

I have not had any ultrasounds, nor do I plan on having any. Like a previous poster mentioned, the long term effects of prenatal exposure to ultrasound have not yet been established. I have, however, allowed the use of a doptone, which uses ultrasound technology, for the purpose of checking the heart rate. The exposure from this is very brief in comparison to having an ultrasound scan, however.

When I say I am not having ultrasounds, many people look at me like I just took off my head and dribbled it. One thoughtless person actually exclaimed "but don't you care if your baby is okay?" *sigh*

Incidentally, I did do the triple screen and would have had an ultrasound if any indicators had came back. When given the choice between a routine 20 week ultrasound and having the screen done, I chose to have a small amount of blood taken from myself rather than have Sproutling bombarded with ultrasound waves. I agreed to any medically indicated ultrasound but have been lucky that such a thing has not been necessary.

I will *not* be consenting to an ultrasound for the purpose of determining size or position. Size is so often incorrect and the position is easily determined through a little determined squeezing.

[Pam_and_Abigail]

SO I just read this article:
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasound.asp
forgive me if it was already linked, but I was surprised to read that even the doppler was dangerous. Anyone not allow their doc to do this? Here, they check the hb every appt once they can detect it. Still not sure where I stand for this pg. I wonder if I can just get them to do a shorter u/s?

[saintmom]

I didn't have any u/s with Joy even though i was 46 ,had had many m/c's was considered high risk etc.,etc.,etc I did find a hb midwife who didn't think there was any reason to worry given the fact we had 6 other healthy babes. That's why we named her Joy!everything was perfect.Her apgars were ten both times. the midwife was fairly dancing around the room saying over and over "she's perfect just perfect".I don't really think u/c is all that reliable a diagnostic tool.For all it can find look at what all it can't.And how many abnormalities can be rectified safely before the dear babe would be born?I really question the whole climate of control and to some extent fear that can be created by u/s during pregnancy.I guess that's why I chose not to participate.There just weren't any indications that that was what I needed to do.

[AmandasMom]

I will have the 18 week ultrasound. I want to find out the sex. If that makes me "selfish" then so be it. We take risks with everything in our pregnancies (and our lives!!!), from driving a car, breathing polluted air, eating food with pesticides and hormones, drinking clorinated and/or floridated water, sitting in front of your computer monitor while reading this, living under (or over) powerlines, etc. I can understand and appreciate the decision to get the US or not, we are all mama's and want the best for our little ones!

[LianneM]

I didn't want to have any U/S but since I conceived on 150mg clomid, I have to find out how many are in there. If it's just one I get to have my homebirth. If it's more than one, I go to the hospital.

Any advice on how to do that without u/s?

[Lucysmama]

Lianne -

It will become apparent to a skilled midwife that you are carrying multiples, if you are. (However, suprise twins do happen...but that's pretty rare.) She will probably be able to hear two hearts on the fetoscope/doppler, your uterus will measure ahead of dates, etc.

Pam-
You asked if anyone refused the doppler at visits. I do. But my mw doesn't even offer, cause I told her up front, no doppler or ultrasound. We're doing the fetoscope. I know of a few other mamas who do that, too. You have to wait a bit longer to hear the baby, but you aren't risking any exposure that way! The fetoscope is like a stethoscope with a little horn on the end that gets pressed against your belly. It's totally non-invasive.

[roseselene]

Hello...I'll preface this post by saying that I'm not trying to start an argument here....really I'm not. I just read some of the responses and have a couple of questions. I totally respect anyone's decision not to have an ultrasound as I believe that the majority of the ones that are done are totally unnecessary. I also believe that the ones that are done for fun (4d) in the mall or where ever are wrong. That being said, I did have one to find out the gender -- somewhat selfish maybe, but I had one.

The part that I don't understand is the stuff about brain damage & left handedness. I understand that there are *potential* risks and ultrasounds haven't been proven totally safe; however this brain damage arguement didn't make any sense to me at all. What exactly is meant by "left handedness is a marker for brain damage" ? Is that referring to the miniscule amount of population that incurred brain damage in utero....or is that referring to the entire population of people that have brain damage (the vast majority of which had a tramatic even leading to brain damage). If it is only referring to cases in utero and ultrasounds haven't been proven to cause brain damage...then we can't use left handedness as an example for something that the ultrasound caused and therefore might be brain damage. That's not good scientific method. Also, I am left handed, my mother never had an ultrasound...I am not brain damaged...I have a fairly high IQ and did exceptionally well in school. My uncle is lefthanded...my grandmother never had an ultrasound...and he is of very high intelligence and extremely creative. I always thought that the increase in lefthandedness is related to the fact that parents are no longer forcing their children to be right handed. It used to be that parents would force their children to use their right hand if they noticed that the child was starting to use the left. Since this practice has stopped, it only stands to reason that there will be an increase in left handedness in the general population....ultrasounds or not.
I just had to comment on this because I personally have never heard of left handedness being related to brain damage in anyway and was hoping that this wouldn't be scaring some people.

Yes there are legitimate concerns for not getting an ultrasound...but I'd really have to read that study to figure out what on earth they are talking about regarding ultrasounds/braindamage/lefthandedness/lefthandedness being a marker for braindamage.

There are just my thoughts.
Amy

[Lucysmama]

Amy-

I think you should read the study...
That said, nobody ever said that being left-handed MEANS that you are brain-damaged.

I am not sure IF this is true or false. I just quoted a study. It's not meant to scare people off, it's just meant for people to be aware of results of some of the research out there.