are you planning to do any of the big tests we have coming up? - Page 3

[wasabi]

Elena mine will only do a u/s after I get to 42 weeks if a non-stress shows the need for a follow-up. But as you say yes it's better than assuming they need to induce you right away.

[LiminalOne]

Originally Posted by wasabi

Now if you're 42 weeks and they want to check your fluid levels or something well fine and good. But a routine u/s to check the size of the baby I would definitely investigate because they are just horribly horribly inaccurate and can make your birth much more difficult.

Just wanted to add my experience though I doubt many of us are focused on the very end of the pregnancy process at this point. The midwives I went to last time require/demand/encourage (it's hard to tell) a 41 week u/s to look at the amniotic fluid. At that point, they determined that I had low fluid and tried to pressure me to induce which I managed to avoid for awhile. After a stressful time trying to nipple stimulate Finn into being born to avoid induction, I gushed with amniotic fluid when my waters finally broke. Later I found at that this measurement though I think well-intentioned is very inaccurate. I really like the idea, however, to wait until you have a problematic non-stress test post-dates to look at fluid. It can start the wave of intervention.

{Back to the second trimester}

[danaalex]

i just wanted to throw this out there. i think there is a huge difference between an ob doing an U/S and a tech! i think OBs just look, they don't really see.

[saharasky]

Just to let you know I'm not throwing random info out there ... and really I have no desire to debate the issue ... we all make the best choices and decisions we can for our babies.


My uncle is a neurosurgeon and I had the opportunity a few years ago to witness some amazing brain surgeries in one of Canada's major university hospitals ...in between surgeries while he was busy consulting with patients I waited in the Hospital radiology department library .... the only word I recognized on the shelves was ultrasound ... so I pulled down several large medical texts and research articles ... unfortunately I don't remember the titles or authors ... but the conclusions clearly stated that ultrasounds were not recommended for routine use as they have not been studied adequately for long term effects.

Also just before my dd was born almost 3 years ago another research article came out (a brief description was published on the cover of 'the national post') that demonstrated that ultrasounds have the potential to rewire the developing human brain ... I think it said something like in the study group (all males) it increased the likelihood that they were born left vs right handed by some rediculously large percentage ... and while changing someones handedness might seem inconsequential it's the rewiring that can't be seen or measured that concerns me.

Ultimately the choice is up to you (obviously) ... we all must weigh the pros and cons and come to our own conclusions.

Blessings

[wasabi]

Originally Posted by LiminalOne

Just wanted to add my experience though I doubt many of us are focused on the very end of the pregnancy process at this point.

I've been focused on it since I got my BFP! Don't want a repeat of my experience with DD. :LOL

[wasabi]

On the issue of the study about u/s causing left-handedness I guess I have a lot of questions about that and would like to see some follow-up studies that come to the same conclusions. First and foremost in my mind is what exactly does it mean that it was a higher than expected rate of left-handedness. It's not been that long since we stopped forcing children to be right-handed my uncle wasn't allowed to be left-handed so I'm not sure how much I trust "expected rates" of handedness. Also did these mothers have one u/s, multiple u/s? How old were the kids when their handedness was determined? I still just have a lot of questions though of course I see the implication of the possibility of handedness being affected by u/s.