It isn't a little bit of my time.. it's the whole freaking day lol and lost money to get someone to watch my son while I get there, sit around and get back again. All to prove to myself I was right... seems silly to me. Besides I asked if anyone declined it and their reasons, not to be jumped on about the risks of not doing it...

I know exactly how you feel! I have four children already, two of them are at school but I have a one year and three year old at home, I told them at the hospital it's not that I don't want to take it, but can you see a one and three year old sitting still in the hospital waiting room for two hours? Hmmm not happening, you literally cant move from your seat though, they wont even let you go for a walk, it wouldnt be so bad if they did as im sure i could amuse them. I have no family around me so nobody to watch them for me, so I declined the test. Then four weeks later at my midwife app she really laid into me and I actually cried! She rang the hospital in front of me and made an appointment for next week, I'm still undecided about if I will go, also when we have our urine tested at the doctors every appointment that would pick up sugar in the urine anyway so it's only after that I think you should be tested, I was never tested when I had my son 9 years ago and then my daughter the year after but I was tested for my last two which were fine.

I'm low risk and have been booked in for one and I have no idea why! Ok I'm 35, but eat healthy, exercise, am not overweight (8st 4 pre-pregnacy and only put on 7/8 lbs)

maybe just ask a friend to watch you son?
i watch my friends kids at doc visits or getting their hair done, or sometimes for a date night
so do my friends watch my DD, got my hair did last week, took 4 hrs (i have really thick hair, my friend watched her and they had a blast. we moved in january, an other friend watched her while i bleached the new house (didnt want her there because of the fumes) and so on ...

Just curious booflebump, can you say more about the test being flawed?

I'm just curious because I'm pg with #2 and they're requesting I do the GTT at 12 weeks because they suspect I had it last time but the tests indicated negative (I had all the complications in labour of a too-big baby). I was an athlete all the way up to my 9th month and only 160lbs at 41 weeks so I didn't suspect a thing but you never know.

OP, I can understand the childcare issue. What a nightmare. Good luck with your choice whatever you decide. In my situation, I really couldn't say no, although if it was my 1st time pregnancy I would have said the same, but it can happen to anyone.

I never went for mine when I was pregnant, low risk, and wasn't gaining excess weight to worry about it. Familiar with diabetes symptoms having a partner with it and I'm a healthcare worker who treats people with diabetes so guessed I'd recognise symptoms. Mw was fine with me no problem at all.

I refused it and my midwife had no problems with that at all! I was offered it due to "family history" but considering it's just my nan & she only became diabetic when she was 70 then I didn't feel it was needed. It's not offered to everyone in England so I can't see that me refusing was a big deal.

Your body so yes you can but GD isn't a discriminative condition it takes who it takes. Low risk in one pregnant doesn't mean subsequent pregnancies are low risk.

The comment about watching out for hypoglycaemia make no sense to me - my understanding of GD is as follows. You eat sugars which goes into the blood stream. Insulin is produced by the pancreas. The insulin acts as a key to the body cells for the sugar to enter the body cells and be converted to energy. You carry more blood in your body during pregnancy allowing a larger stream for sugars to be carried and if your body can't produce enough insulin (or keys) to allow that sugar into the body cells, the excess sugar remains in the blood and can be passed via the placenta to baby raisin their sugar levels and causing them to grow more than normal limits. Hypoglycaemia relates to low blood sugar levels which wouldn't be an obvious symptom in pregnancy. It would only be obvious if the pancreas is compromised and can't let sugar into the cells so you'd be flagging in energy but the major issue is the increased blood supply. Does that make sense?

Personally I'd take the test to prevent problems later on. Three hours now will e easier to deal with child care than having a macrocosmic baby who needs special care due to their uncontrolled blood sugar levels - that could be days or weeks.

Mindy_mini: I've always had low-sitting sugar levels pg or not, that's why they wanted me to watch for hypo symptoms in pg. I have a huge problem with dipping levels-- have never passed out but have come close a few times. I know it isn't 'true' hypoglycaemia, which is obviously too much insulin in the blood, that is very rare, but a lot of people have low bgs naturally and I'm one of them.
So I just failed to see how I could possibly end up with GD given that I clearly make more than an adequate supply of insulin when not pregnant and also given I was basically told I wasted my time in the GTT I had with Eamon when those results came in because they were lower than average lol.

As for the childcare issue: I don't have anyone to watch him or I would at least do the 1hr test. For me that is still most of the day taken up as I don't drive and live 20 mins away from my nearest actual city that does GTTs. None of my friends have kids and they all work, and my family all have jobs or school I'm literally my son's only caregiver 99.9% of the time.