We didn't do any with DS. I had read something about a link to autim/ADHD and we have 4 children on the my husband's side w/ autism.
But now with this pregnancy, I am starting to wonder. I guess my only thing is what if there is a heart issue and we need a cardiologist there at birth. Or we had friends who had a baby without a liver and they were told that the baby would not live. She carried to term, but baby died in 1 day. I just think if that were a possibility, I'd want to know this time, so that my son wouldn't be as disappointed or surprised. That we could forewarn him.
I don't want to have unnecessary scares though. I've had 3 friends be told their child probably had Down's, and it didn't. So I think I would tell the OB, if it looks like it has markers for Down's, I don't want to know.
I personally have done ultrasounds with both pregnancies, but I have friends who haven't for a variety of reasons -- specific concerns about the possible effects of ultrasound, or more general desires to have as few interventions as possible throughout their pregnancies and births.
There are two main reasons I would definitely always have at least the anatomy scan (though in my case I've done the NT scan at 11-13 weeks as well): some sort of issue that would require immediate medical attention at birth, as you mention, as well as to check for placenta previa. I've known several people who had previa, all of whomwere hospitalized and/or required emergency C-sections, and that's not something you want to mess around with.
Liza, mama to Beatrix Marie (7/14/08) and Eloise McCarter (12/18/10)
Personally, I've had 7 this pregnancy between the initial confirmation, the anatomy scan, the follow-up to the anatomy scan cause the could see the whole heart, the bleeding, being breech, etc, etc.
I agree with the PP that you should at least at minimum have the 18 week anatomy scan - again to confirm everything is ok with baby, and the location of your placenta. As long as there are no complications, you shouldn't need another one.
Me - 28 DH- 30
url=http://www.thebump.com/utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=UBB&utm_campaign=tickers][/url]
Definitely the 18-20 week anatomy scan if nothing else. That way you know of any major issues that could require special delivery or pre-post natal care for you and baby.
For me, an u/s at 40wks saved my dd's life. We discovered critically low fluid and lack of growth. She was induced immediately. Has I refused the u/s and waited to go into labour, we most likely would have lost her to a stillbirth. The horror of that thought makes me feel u/s are very very valuable.
I get an 8 wk viability scan (i've had a previous missed m/c), the 12 NT scan and testing and the 20wk anatomy scan. This pg I will have a later scan to ensure adequate fluid and growth as per my Dr's orders.
You don't have to have them, but from my own personal experience, the value of them is priceless when necessary. And sometimes you don't always know from fetal movement, fundal height and doppler heart rates etc that everything is fine. For me there was little indication except a slight drop off in fundal height to indicate an issue. What was discovered during u/s was alarming and required immediate medical intervention.
You make the choices that are best for you and your comfort level, just perhaps be open to all options if recommended.
Me 36
DH 35
DD 2.5 yrs! (natural birth at 40 wks 2dys) September 2008. The sweetest little thing to ever bless our lives
DD 4 wks (natural birth at 38 wks 5dys) February 2011. The second sweetest thing to ever bless our lives. And our family is complete!
Do you have a source for that article? I am an Ultrasonographer (Vascular, not OB) and am currently pregnant.
There have been many studies done regarding potential bioeffects of diagnostic ultrasound throughout the years; the most comprehensive of which (by the AIUM) having concluded that there are no known bioeffects associated with diagnostic ultrasound where the mechanical index (the output power) is <100mW/cm2. Diagnostic ultrasound, fetal ultrasound in particular, uses levels below this threshold. Ultrasound at high power can generate heat, but that is used in a therapeutic setting (like physical therapy) and is completely different than diagnostic. There is no ionizing radiation and the power is transmitted to the cyrstal in the ultrasound probe-what penetrates the body is a sound wave that is at a level that is not audible by the human ear. Diagnostic ultrasound uses a pulsed-wave signal for cardiac evaluation, all for the same reasons stated above. The handheld Doppler instruments used in the office (and unfortunately available OTC) use continuous wave Doppler, which has the potential for more heating. Here is the FDA's statement on keepsake ultrasounds (non-diagnostic) and at home Doppler use by non-professionals: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm095508.htm
There are statements available on the internet with the data from the AIUM study, but they are only available by paid subscription to medical journals. I'm sorry I can't link anything. Perhaps your doctor can provide you with some literature.
There are probably hundreds of thousands of fetal ultrasounds performed yearly, and have been for decades now. Logic would tell me that the incidence of autism is probably unrelated to the use of diagnostic ultrasound.
While I think it's wise to have a conservative approach to using ultrasound, I think the other posters have raised very important points as to the immense benefits of having them done at certain intervals in pregnancy. Those complications are real and devastating. If they can be prepared for by diagnosing early with ultrasound, I personally would opt for the scan rather than succumb to a fear of a potential and unsubstantiated link to autism.
ectopic 3/09 8 weeks
12/16/09 miscarriage (ectopic?) -natural m/c
Right salpingectomy 2/10/10
DS 3/24/11
I personally would do all the ultrasounds my dr recommended within reason. They normally won't just do one if there wasn't a reason. But I do understand your concern.
Amber 30, DH 31 Adalyne - Oct 2008m/c - 12/2009 Ellasyn - EDD 4/22/11 08/06/10 8dpo ~ BFP! 08/09/10 11dpo ~ Beta #1 43.2, P4 34.87 08/11/10 13dpo ~ Beta #2 108.8 = 35 hr DT 08/18/10 20dpo ~ Beta #3 1847 = 39 hr DT 08/20/10 5w1d ~ First u/s - Saw the yolk sac! 09/07/10 7w5d ~ First appt. Saw heartbeat & measured on track! Beta #4 72,215 = 91.32 hr DT 10/08/10 12w1d ~ Heard the heartbeat 160-170s! 10/13/10 12w5d ~ NT scan. HB 167 and everything looks good so far. 1:4649 for DS, 1:10000+ for Tris 13/18 11/13/10 17w2d ~ 3D/4D u/s. GIRL!!!! Trying to decided between Annabelle and Ellasyn for her first name. 12/03/10 20w1d ~ 20 week u/s. Ella measured on track. HB 152bpm and looking great! 01/15/11 26w1d ~Went in for detailed u/s to see what's causing spotting. Found she has an irregular heartbeat. :( Measured 26w4d. 1lb 15oz 01/25/11 27w3d ~ u/s at Maternal fetal unit showed no heart issues or reason for spotting. :) Ella measured 28w4d and weighs 2lbs 8oz 01/28/11 28w1d ~ Glucose results 159! On to the 3-hour test. 02/07/11 29w4d ~ Passed 3-hour Glucose test! 04/08/11 38w1d ~ Dilated 1 cm and 20% effaced. Ella hasn't dropped yet. Measuring 37cm. 04/13/11 38w6d ~ Contractions started but still only 1cm.
http://tcoyf.com/members/aleigh6/pccharts/default.aspx
I'd go crazy w/ out them....and i guess I'd be curious as to the research about autism...I find it heard to velieve that those 2 minutes of exposure to U/S woudl really cause that...now doing them excessively...maybe. I've been hearing the "link" to ADHD/autism thing a lot lately and I honestly think people are grasping at straws adn doens't htat just give one more thing to "mother blame". If you would feel better havingone..than do it. Think of all the babies w/ out ADHD or autism who were exposed to U/S. I'd be mroe worried about environmental toxins and such after birth as a risk factor.
And...in my professional opinion, I'm a therapist, ADHD is way over dxed anyway...often it is trauma related behavior. Just my opinion.
[
My SIL doesn't, but I think one is fine.
My cousin had a baby born with his intestines on the outside of his body, so he had to go straight into surgery. It's for reasons like this that I think the 20 week u/s is both fine and healthy. However, the constant ultrasounds to reassure mom can be ridiculous. First one to verify the pregnancy, then one to verify a heartbeat before you can hear it, then another one because it's 16 weeks and you haven't been able to feel a kick yet, plus a few extras thrown in because of fear. Then finally the 20 week one. That's ridiculous and way overboard to me. The only time I've ever needed more than one was when I was measuring too large and they rechecked me once to find elevated amniotic fluid levels (just as dangerous as too little fluid), and then again a few weeks later to see if I was better once I stopped the crazy diet my care provider had me on.
I do think a 20 week ultrasound is important, but I think more than that when there isn't a GOOD MEDICAL REASON is too much. Too many are linked to health issues. Just have to weigh it and see what's worse, I guess.
MY CHART
VJHarvey: I do think a 20 week ultrasound is important, but I think more than that when there isn't a GOOD MEDICAL REASON is too much. Too many are linked to health issues. Just have to weigh it and see what's worse, I guess.
What kind of health issues? Do you have a source? The only studies I have seen that support there being any bioeffects were with high power/prolonged exposure, not a typical diagnostic ultrasound.
Jenchichi: I'd go crazy w/ out them....and i guess I'd be curious as to the research about autism...I find it heard to velieve that those 2 minutes of exposure to U/S woudl really cause that...now doing them excessively...maybe. I've been hearing the "link" to ADHD/autism thing a lot lately and I honestly think people are grasping at straws adn doens't htat just give one more thing to "mother blame". If you would feel better havingone..than do it. Think of all the babies w/ out ADHD or autism who were exposed to U/S. I'd be mroe worried about environmental toxins and such after birth as a risk factor. And...in my professional opinion, I'm a therapist, ADHD is way over dxed anyway...often it is trauma related behavior. Just my opinion.
My husband is a psychiatrist and doesn't think that ADHD or autism are being over diagnosed. if you see my nephew, he is not an overdiagnosed case. He eats carpet, paint chips that he chips off the wall, fake flowers. His body is sick.
I used to have the resources on ultrasound and autism. I probably still do, but I researched this 6 yrs ago when PG w/ my son and have moved twice since then, so I would have to dig to find it.
I remember reading what you're talking about, and I believe I read it in Marsden Wagner's book "Born in the USA." I just found an online article he wrote, too: http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp Maybe that'll jog your memory--GL!
We have no idea what causes autism. Ultrasounds have never been correlated with autism in a scientific manner.
There is PROOF that ultrasounds have saved countless lives and babies.
So an unfounded fear (that is probably plastered on some website) weighed against the fact that ultrasounds have saved many babies and pregnant women isn't even worth debating IMO. Yes, I 100% feel that it is very irresponsible to forego an anatomy scan for what I consider an irrational fear.
There are SO MANY treatable issues that can be discovered via ultrasound to help make sure your baby is born healthy and happy. Placenta previa, vasa previa, low fluid, too much fluid, cord issues, IUGR, issues with the baby that can be treated at birth but require extra care on standby, etc etc etc. Down syndrome is the tip of the iceburg and FWIW isn't diagnosed via ultrasound. THe only way to know for sure your baby has a chromosomal issue is through amnio or CVS. If you friends got a "positive" result for Down (which could mean they had a 1/250 chance or even lower) and didn't have the amnio done then that was their choice. But they weren't told their baby had Down 100%.
Keep Calm and Have a Cosmo: adventures with two under two while my husband is deployed
My daughter was concieved thanks to IVF with ICSI. She was born at 35w4d due to pPROM.
My son was concieved by *surprise!*, naturally, the month after I weaned my daughter. He was born at 39w4d after 17P shots and Procardia. Proof that miracles do happen after the long road of infertility and losses.
Kate's twin - 10w1d - 2009 ~*~*~*~*~*~ Missed Miscarriage - 10w4d - 2007
VJHarvey: My SIL doesn't, but I think one is fine. My cousin had a baby born with his intestines on the outside of his body, so he had to go straight into surgery. It's for reasons like this that I think the 20 week u/s is both fine and healthy. However, the constant ultrasounds to reassure mom can be ridiculous. First one to verify the pregnancy, then one to verify a heartbeat before you can hear it, then another one because it's 16 weeks and you haven't been able to feel a kick yet, plus a few extras thrown in because of fear. Then finally the 20 week one. That's ridiculous and way overboard to me. The only time I've ever needed more than one was when I was measuring too large and they rechecked me once to find elevated amniotic fluid levels (just as dangerous as too little fluid), and then again a few weeks later to see if I was better once I stopped the crazy diet my care provider had me on. I do think a 20 week ultrasound is important, but I think more than that when there isn't a GOOD MEDICAL REASON is too much. Too many are linked to health issues. Just have to weigh it and see what's worse, I guess.
I don't know you or your history. But have you experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth or neonatal loss? If not, I think it is very presumptuous of you to say it is "ridiculous" and "overboard" to do extra ultrasounds for women who have fear. Sometimes peope come by their fears extremely honestly and need some reassurance. Because we all know stress and anxiety aren't good for pregnancy too.
Yes, after two late first tri losses I recieve some of those extra ultrasounds. Both of my losses were missed and I didn't particularly want to carry pregnancies for 3+ weeks longer than the baby was alive again if I didn't have to. And yea, I was terrified. Those early ultrasounds were amazingly reassuring.
I have a close friend who lost a full term, perfectly healthy baby because she had undiagnosed vasa previa. Her son bled to death and after 6 attempts at revive him he died when he was about 8 hours old. So yea, she gets some of those reassurance ultrasounds to keep looking at the cord and placenta and vessels.
The autism "link" to vaccines and ultrasounds and things of that nature are not founded. They are just another "correlation causation" grasp that cannot be proven in clinical work. I am also a therapist who works with children (lots of which who have Autism and ADHD) and while I wont' get into it on here I can promise you that ultrasounds are nowhere near my first predictions for what has a hand in autism.
Lastly, and most importantly, MOST doctors and ALL insurance companies won't cover ultrasounds that arent MEDICALLY NECESSARY. So to assume that women who have frequent ultrasounds are just strolling in and demanding them for no reason is a fallacy. Boutique ultrasounds are a different debate for a different day. I personally wouldn't do them but it isn't because i am concerned about autism or ADHD.
I do an early one to look for viability and for my own peace of mind, but the only one I would *definitely* do is the 18-20 week anatomy scan. If my baby has any problems that could be helped by having a specialist present at the birth or an immediate surgery, I'd want to be prepared for that.
Laura, married to Daniel on 12/16/00 Claire, born 6/29/06 Andrew, born 4/20/08
I just wanted to clarify that this thread is NOT a debate. It is not a debate on 1) whether or not u/s do cause autism or not and 2) whether or not people abuse ultrasounds or if they are justified in getting them or not.
Plain and simple, I wanted to hear from people who have NOT had ultrasounds.
I have to say as someone who has a sister with Williams Syndrome and a nephew (plus other relatives) with autism, I am getting sick and tired of people on these boards saying that they 'work with them' and therefore know so much. Until you've had a special needs child in your care for 24-48 hours, people just don't have a CLUE. Therapists are great, but they don't cure the situation. My sister has been in every specialists office known to man - OT, PT, sensory integration therapy, auditory integration therapy, etc. She still has Williams Syndrome and will never be able to drive. Try driving with your child at 3 am because they won't sleep and they CAN'T settle into a sleep. Or changing a 7 yr old's diaper that has carpet fibers in them b/c they've eaten the fibers or better yet fake flowers.
I'm not saying I would want to chose between these senarios and an emergency in the delivery room or a dead baby.
So just to be clear, this is NOT a debate. You guys can start another thread if you want to do that. Be my guest. Anyway, if you have not had ultrasounds, I'd like to hear from you and your reasons (I read a few weeks ago of someone on the boards that they did not do ultrasounds). .
Nicole- thanks for posting the link about the keepsake u/s and home dopplers- i had no idea they were not safe. Will not be getting a doppler this time around
Alison, mom to 3 boys and cautiously expecting #4 due late April '11
From the FDA's website:
In the last 30 years, no conclusive evidence has shown that the levels of ultrasound used on humans are harmful. However some animal studies with higher levels of ultrasound have indicated changes in cell structure or function and even cell death. These studies seem to indicate that the tissue or body part that was being examined under the high frequency waves was altered in some way.
As a result the NIH has released the following statement, “ultrasound examination in pregnancy should be performed for a specific medical indication.”
Perhaps one of the biggest risks of ultrasound is the chance of identifying something “outside the normal range” with the baby and the inevitable invasive tests, such as amniocentesis that result. More often than not, these “unusual” findings either resolve on their own or turn out to be normal by the time the baby is born. You can imagine that the stress parents experience during this time of waiting and wondering is never beneficial!
As with any other prenatal test, be sure that you have a very good reason for getting an ultrasound and with regard to safety and multiple ultrasounds, less is definitely more!
jkbd: I remember reading what you're talking about, and I believe I read it in Marsden Wagner's book "Born in the USA." I just found an online article he wrote, too: http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp Maybe that'll jog your memory--GL!
Thank you!
I am getting sick and tired of people on these boards saying that they 'work with them' and therefore know so much. Until you've had a special needs child in your care for 24-48 hours, people just don't have a CLUE.
Where's the clapping smiley? Seriously, I''m with you on that.
Not to add fuel to the fire, but as far as I know ACOG doesn't recommend a 20 week routine anatomy scan; they do support using ultrasound as a diagnostic tool (if there is a question re placental placement, confirm position, etc). IIRC there aren't any studies that show that a routine ultrasound leads to healthier moms & babies. (I'm going to look into this later--I checked http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ClickedLink=329&ck=10218&area=27 and couldn't find anything specific to an anatomy scan). Oceanview, you mentioned there is PROOF that ultrasound has saved babies--do you have any links to any randomized controlled trials WRT the routine anatomy scan? TIA!
I did have a 20 week ultrasound with both of my kids, but IMO ultrasound causes more problems that it's worth at times. If I were having a third baby, I would skip it. I have students/clients who pass on the 20 week anatomy scan quite often. If there's a question about placental placement, 3rd trimester bleeding, IUGR etc then an ultrasound can be ordered. The majority of the time these conditions present themselves with some symptom in advance, bleeding, measuring behind or ahead, etc.
I don't think you're an irresponsible mom to question ultrasound, just one who is considering the risk that can come with an elective procedure. Sometimes providers get information from ultrasound and they're not quite sure what to do with it--so they usually intervene in some way (and there are risks associated with intervention).
That being said, I can TOTALLY understand why a woman who has suffered a loss would want to be closely monitored via ultrasound. Anyone who doesn't understand that is lacking in compassion.
ds1 3/2004
ds 2 12/2006
childbirth educator & doula
FWIW, while there are probably some people here that don't do any ultrasounds, you'll probably hear from a lot more people over at mothering.com.