or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2004 - 2008  › October 2007 › When was your first ultrasound?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When was your first ultrasound? - Page 3

post #41 of 49
For me, and maybe I should put a warning on this post, I'm getting ultrasounds to reassure myself that I'm not going to lose the pregnancy. And I realize that there is nothing I can do about the pregnancy loss itself, but honestly, if I'm going to lose this baby, I know that I cannot emotionally/mentally handle miscarrying at home. It's just not something I am capable of doing, and I want to know if the fetus is dead because I want a D&C-- I could not handle seeing the fetus.
post #42 of 49
I haven't had one yet. I haven't even started looking for a midwife yet.
post #43 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspired007 View Post
You know what? I didn't even question it. This is my first and I had no idea what to expect. I'm not mad about it though, I am more than happy to see my baby once a month! It's not until you asked that I even considered the possibility that it's too much. Oh well, my insurance has great coverage so what the heck? He says he's checking anatomy on all those u/s.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that in low-risk pregnancies ultrasound generally be reserved for answering specific medical questions, rather than offered routinely to all women."

This is from a March of Dimes webpage, but I've seen this statement elsewhere before. I just haven't googled hard enough to find a statement right from the ACOG.

A bit more googling brought me to a Mothering article.

Quote:
When Is Ultrasound Unnecessary? According to ACOG, the country's leading group of obstetrical experts, ultrasound is not necessary for every woman or in every pregnancy, and is not recommended for routine use. Despite this recommendation, ultrasound is used routinely in as many as 70 percent of pregnancies in the US.1 Here are the common reasons that ultrasound is used routinely:

To estimate the baby's due date. Done prior to 18 weeks, it is most accurate (after this, it is accurate only within a week either way).

To look for physical abnormalities. Many major abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, and heart or kidney problems, most likely won't show up on an ultrasound.

To confirm multiple fetuses. Ultrasound is reliable in confirming multiple fetuses only when other heartbeats have already been detected with a stethoscope.

For verification of a breech position. This occurs when the baby is lying in a feet- or buttocks-first position near the end of pregnancy, rather than head down. A qualified midwife or doctor can diagnose this simply by palpating the mother's belly.

To screen for intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR). IUGR is a condition where the baby is not growing in the womb as it should.

Location of the placenta during pregnancy. A very low-lying placenta (a condition called placenta previa) puts the mother at risk of severe bleeding during labor, and usually necessitates a cesarean section. However, 19 out of 20 cases of placenta previa detected by ultrasound in the second trimester correct themselves as pregnancy progresses.
from http://www.mothering.com/articles/pr...l-testing.html

I found an interesting blurb about u/s earlier today, but google is hiding it from me now. The author referenced the ACOG stance against routine u/s in low-risk women, then gave a list of specific medical questions that they don't recommend u/s for. It included determining fetal age and position, multiples, fluid levels, heartrate/existence of a heartbeat, and sex. It said that all of those situations could be determined in other ways, save for sex, which is medically unnecessary to know. I would like to find it again, or find a statement by the ACOG itself, to confirm or refute this.
post #44 of 49
I'm no fan of ACOG, but it does raise warning flags when they recommend against the policies of the vast majority of obstetricians. I don't know any obstetricians who don't do at least one routinely, usually two.

I guess it comes down to - there are psychological benefits to ultrasound. Women want them. They're also handy for doctors, because a lot of those other ways of finding information require more skill.
post #45 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessitron View Post
I guess it comes down to - there are psychological benefits to ultrasound. Women want them.
While I wouldn't want to tell women what they should and shouldn't want, I don't know if I agree that u/s provides psychological benefits. False positives for abnormalities certainly don't. And a good u/s or heartbeat today doesn't mean you won't spontaneously miscarry tomorrow. I think that just as doctors have lost hands-on skills because they rely so much on technology, women lose faith in their bodies because they look to technology to tell them what's happening. It reminds me of a scene from (I think) "Born in the USA", a documentary about birth in America. There is a scene with an epiduraled, monitored woman, in a bed, with her family there. They are all staring at the little screen that shows when her ctx are happening. "OK, here's one coming... it's at it's peak... OK, now it's finishing..." Actually, she may not have had the epidural yet at that point, yet they were still all watching the screen to monitor her ctxs.

People don't always want what's good for them. When I'm sad, I want to eat pans full of brownies. That doesn't mean they're good for me, or that my dr. should prescribe me pans of brownies to make me feel better.
post #46 of 49
Quote:
I think that just as doctors have lost hands-on skills because they rely so much on technology, women lose faith in their bodies because they look to technology to tell them what's happening.
ITA!

But on the brownies... I think you should get them.
post #47 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessitron View Post
But on the brownies... I think you should get them.
Guess what I had with breakfast Not a whole pan, though, just one square. I have such willpower.
post #48 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisen View Post
While I wouldn't want to tell women what they should and shouldn't want, I don't know if I agree that u/s provides psychological benefits. False positives for abnormalities certainly don't. And a good u/s or heartbeat today doesn't mean you won't spontaneously miscarry tomorrow. I think that just as doctors have lost hands-on skills because they rely so much on technology, women lose faith in their bodies because they look to technology to tell them what's happening.
Have been reading this thread and was waiting for this... very well said
post #49 of 49
I was 20 weeks with my first pregnancy when I found out I was having twins and that was okay.

Had a 20 week ultrasound with #4 and was told that they were afraid there was some sort of problem with his brain, head, so I got to worry until another ultrasound could be performed and was then told everything was okay (which it was). No fun.

With #5, I will try to decide if I want the u/s at 20 weeks or if I can just wait till the baby is born, unless there develops some reason to have one.

I am uncomfortable with heating up my unborn baby's molecules via u/s radiation.

I honestly don't have a clue when my lmp was, but I may keep that info to myself to prevent a midwife from recommending an 8-10 week u/s.

Interestingly, here in FL, if you are on medicaid you will not receive a routine ultrasound at any point in your pregnancy because they are not considered medically necessary. This happened to a friend of mine, who paid for hers out of pocket.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: October 2007
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2004 - 2008  › October 2007 › When was your first ultrasound?