# anyone not doing ultrasound?



## MermaidMom

i posted this question under first trimester the other day... bad mistake  when people dont have a mindset for natural parenting they automatically get defensive when you mention something along those lines... or they think you are uninformed and dont care about your child. anyway, we are planning not to get any ultrasounds during this pregnancy after researching the potential harmful effects. my question is what are the potential things that could show up on ultrasound that cant be tested any other way and would make it harmful to have a vaginal delivery at full term? to my knowledge there are none... but i dont want to miss anything!! please share.. thank you :flower:


----------



## henny

You could have a low line plancenta (sp?) and not know about it or baby not getting enough oxygen or slow weight gain.
We had 2 scans with both boys, I needed to know they were doing fine.


----------



## T-Bex

Similarily (God forbid this would happen to you; I hear it's pretty uncommon), missed miscarriages in early term are seen at scans. I had two before Bethan, and had no idea I'd lost the pregnancies until no heartbeat was shown up at scan. I had to have a D&C, because I still had all the pregnancy symptoms, but had lost the baby 6 weeks previously, but I wouldn't miscarry normally. This can lead to problems, if it stays in there, basically.


----------



## discoclare

I'm reluctant to answer the question lest anyone jump on me!

I think henny has suggested the two main ones: low lying placenta (risk of placental abruption) could make a vaginal dangerous.

The other thing I could think of was breech birth. Although people have breech birthed for thousands of years perfectly well, you could argue that it is risky when midwives etc just aren't used to dealing with it nowadays and don't have the experience to deliver in this way. I would think this would be even more likely in the states where most (all?) women are under the care of an obstetrician. However, maybe this isn't an issue as they could tell without ultrasound.

I am a bit unsure of the question you are asking actually. You say unsafe to deliver vaginally, are you only concerned about the mode of delivery? I presume you aren't concerned about things like Down's etc which is fine. But what about things like abnormalities that could cause the baby long term kidney problems or something like that? It's not really "harmful" to deliver vaginally for you with these kind of things but could harm the baby if not known about in advance. For example my cousin's baby had a disorder where his ureter on one side was blocked and this was found out by scan. They induced early because they felt they needed to repair the valve (surgically) and not let her go to term and risk kidney damage for him. He was still over 7lbs (they didn't induce him really really early or anything) and had his surgery the next day. There must be loads of things like this that they look for, but I don't know what any others are. My 20 week scan took nearly an hour looking at all the chambers of the heart, lungs, diaphram, the brain, watching the bladder fill etc. I don't think all the things they are looking at can be tested for in other ways. However they aren't necessarily going to alter the mode of delivery (or safety of delivery) so I'm not sure that this is what you are asking!


----------



## lozzy21

They arent many conditions that would make a viginal birth dangerouse but some of the conditions that are picked up requre immediate attention once they are born. If the problems are picked up during pregnancy then you can have a care plan set up before they are born and they can have right people there incase they need extra help, if its not picked up then by the time help gets there it could be too late for baby.

Some one mentioned missed miscarage which is a horrible thing but if its not picked up on it can cause toxima and infection for the mother.


----------



## Periwinkle

I would think something like Gastroschisis, where the baby's born with its bowels outside its body, would make vaginal birth quite dangerous. I'm not sure if they'd pick that up without an ultrasound. 

I'm sure its pretty uncommon though :flower:

Edit: apparently it happens 1 in every 2000 births.


----------



## MermaidMom

i actually did experience a missed miscarriage back in november. i was 16 weeks, but the baby had died at 10 weeks (which was when i got my first ultrasound and saw a strong heartbeat... so you can imagine my skepticism regarding ultrasound). thank you all for your responses... so far nothing mentioned would make me want to get an ultrasound as the apgar test directly following birth determines the baby's status. the kidney function thing was notable and definitely something to watch for when they are born... their first tinkle!  i researched kidney blockage and they still have to do further testing after birth before they can proceed. i guess i will ask my midwife regarding any other potential concerns she can think of. the reason i asked about fullterm and vaginal delivery is because i wanted to know if those two specific things could damage a baby that had some kind of abnormality that can only be determined via ultrasound. placenta previa as mentioned above is also of some concern, but i have none of the risk factors for it. i know it can be quite common mid-pregnancy and only becomes high risk requiring bedrest if the mother begins to have any bleeding. i think i will just stick to the plan and let things progress naturally. thank you all for your help and please let me know if you think of anything else!


----------



## MermaidMom

oh yes ive heard of gastroschisis.... apparently it can be detected doing an alpha feto protein blood test. i was concerned about vaginal delivery with that lso, but everything ive read says that there is no benefit of cesarean over vaginal delivery.


----------



## MermaidMom

wow! this article actually says vaginal delivery is the preferred method with this condition... pretty interesting. https://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/34307/Nav/1/router.asp


----------



## Jibber Jabber

Personally, and I hope that I don't offend you but I'm just trying to be honest with you. It sounds like your strive to be a natural parent seems to be a higher priority than the health of your baby. It's a scan, it's basically harmless. I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to know that your baby is healthy?

I have a dear friend who had twins and they had to be operated on in the womb, if she hadn't had her scans then both twins would have died. It's just not worth the risk to miss them in my view.


----------



## fluffpuffin

Mothers managed in the past without ultrasound scans, so i can't see why you should need one as such. Here some trusts only offer a scan at 12 weeks at which stage they cannot check for all abnormalities. The mw can check for babies hb and position. Unless you experience complications you should be fine.


----------



## Sam292

I would post this on the home and natural birthing section too for more info. I have read about a condition (not quite sure of the name, possibly osteoimperfecta sp?) Basically extremely fragile bones which could break babys spine if delivered vaginally- its picked up by looking at the brain on the scan and will show unusually clear spots if baby has it. Worth some research I think! Good luck with whatever you decide xx


----------



## MermaidMom

Jibber Jabber said:


> Personally, and I hope that I don't offend you but I'm just trying to be honest with you. It sounds like your strive to be a natural parent seems to be a higher priority than the health of your baby. It's a scan, it's basically harmless. I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to know that your baby is healthy?
> 
> I have a dear friend who had twins and they had to be operated on in the womb, if she hadn't had her scans then both twins would have died. It's just not worth the risk to miss them in my view.



No, baby's health is top priority for me. That's my reason for wanting to avoid the scans. There has been research linking ultrasound scans to autism and speech delays. But that's why I posted this question too.... if there is a potential life and death situation that can only be detected with the use of ultrasound and if the baby needed to be induced or operated on within the womb like you said, I'd obviously opt for that. Can I ask, was there some kind of problem your friend with the twins was having before she went in for a scan?


----------



## MermaidMom

thank you sam, i will look into that :flower:


----------



## hayley x

I think the benefits of one or 2 scans far outweigh the potential risks of the actual scan that are pretty much unheard of iykwim? Thats just my view. I would definately discuss with your consultant xx


----------



## MermaidMom

hayley x.... i just wanted to say how beautiful your son is. im so sorry for what happened.


----------



## sausages

I hate posting about this usually because i wouldn't want anyone to think i'm scaremongering. We lost our first baby to a condition called Vasa Praevia. If it is diagnosed the survival rate is 100%. When it goes undiagnosed the survival rate is only 5-10%. 

The condition involves the blood vessels that supply the baby running low down in the uterus, close to or across the cervix and through your membranes. In my case when i went into labour and my membranes ruptured, so did my son's blood vessels and he bled out very quickly. 

It can be diagnosed using ultrasound. The tech would be able to look at the location of your placenta and the blood vessel insertion and tell you if you are at risk during your 20 week scan. If you have any of the risk factors (low lying placenta, velamentous or marginal insertion of the cord, multiple pregnancy, IVF pregnancy, pregnancy after uterine surgery etc), you could get a transvaginal colour doppler ultrasound scan, which would give you a difinitive diagnosis. 

However, on saying all of that... The NHS don't usually scan for this condition - hence why we lost our baby (which is a whole other point of personal pain for me!) So, if you are in an area of the UK where it's not routine to look for this you would not be at an advantage from this point of view by having an ultrasound at all. 

More info can be found at www.vasapraevia.co.uk (UK website) and www.vasaprevia.com (US website) Just note the two slightly different spellings of praevia/previa due to UK/US English. 

Hope that helps, and best of luck with your pregnancy! :D


----------



## mandarhino

I'm so sorry Sausages.


----------



## fluffpuffin

:hugs: sausages. so sorry. x


----------



## hayley x

:cry: Sausages, thank you for sharing and raising awareness. Lots of love to you and floaty kisses to your boy :hugs: xx


----------



## sausages

Oh, and sorry i forgot to say about vaginal birth. The only way to manage VP so that the baby survives 100% of the time is by doing a c-section early, like 35 weeks. To make sure the mother doesn't go into labour. As you can imagine with blood vessels low down any contractions would perhaps cut off blood supply, apart from the bleeding risk. 

If my memory serves there have been cases of VP survivors where the delivery was vaginal and the condition was undiagnosed, but i think it's a rare miracle when those babies are okay and they do have to have a lot of medical care - transfusions etc.


ETA: Also forgot incidences. It's 1 in 1500 in the general pregnant population (according to some sources, some state it is much rarer, but there is a whole other rant in me about where they get their data from and it being incorrect etc that i won't go into (unless anyone would like me to of course)). With IVF pregnancies for some reason the risk goes right up to 1 in 300.


----------



## MermaidMom

wow! im so incredibly sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing your story. im actually in the US and im not aware whether or not that is screened for in routine ultrasound.


----------



## MermaidMom

btw i love your daughter's name! beautiful!


----------



## sausages

MermaidMom said:


> wow! im so incredibly sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing your story. im actually in the US and im not aware whether or not that is screened for in routine ultrasound.

I believe it is included in routine scans more often in the US than in the UK, but it is still not included in every scan for everyone. :)


----------



## kawaiigirl

The benefits of the ultrasound scan far outweigh the risk involved IMO. I believe it is totally your choice though. Ultrasound is a relatively new imaging modality and women survived without it for years. For me, it was just peace of mind and I liked to know that all was well throughout my pregnancies. I am also a sonographer.


----------



## NuKe

sausages im so sorry hun :hugs:

can i just ask what the "risks" surrounding ultrasound are supposed to be? I thought it was just soundwaves...? And I;ve never heard of any baby having problems due to a scan and there are hundreds of thousands done every day? (probably)


----------



## kirmal12

I would never have known i had GD without a scan. I had my 20 week scan which showed i had a low lying placenta, so i was booked in for another at 34 weeks to check it had moved. LO was measuring big at 34 weeks so she organized a GD test which came back positive. (i passed the test at 28 weeks). I had to be monitored closely by scans until i was induced at 38 weeks because my waters kept on changing from loads to hardly anything. I dread to think what possibly could have happened if it wasn't for scans TBH. He was also born 8lb8 at 38 weeks, what size would he have got to if I'd gone to 42 weeks, it doesn't bare thinking about!!


----------



## kawaiigirl

There are mechanical and thermal effects caused by ultrasound so basically can cause heating of the tissues. Ultrasound has been proven safe but hasn't really been around long enough to study properly. For example they use Ultrasound to break up kidney stones! Certain effects are caused depending on the frequencies used. Sorry, I'm not very good at explaining! It is recommended that exposure to Ultrasound should be kept minimal.


----------



## MermaidMom

ultrasound has actually not been proven to be 100% safe. its never been proven to be harmful to the human fetus either. it HAS been prove to have negative effects on animal fetuses including mice with brain damage consistent with autism. its also been linked to delayed speech. the american medical association only recommends ultrasound for high risk pregnancies. of course, many people dont know they are high risk until they have an ultrasound, but its up to each individuals feelings on the matter. i suppose there are risks either way and its a matter of deciding which one is higher. 

https://www.unhinderedliving.com/pultra.html

https://www.associatedcontent.com/article/130084/the_dangers_of_ultrasounds.html?cat=52

https://www.compleatmother.com/ultrasound_danger.htm

https://www.cidpusa.org/ultrasound.htm

https://mamasayanadoulasupport.blogspot.com/2010/09/dangers-of-ultrasound-dopplers.html


----------



## angelstardust

The benefits far outweigh the risks. Even if you only have the 20 week scan, it is still of benefit. 

Link to autism are not to be trusted, I could just as easily say that autism is linked to breathing, since most children with autism breathe. You will still find children who have autism and who were not scanned inutero. 

Also, I hate the saying 'women had babies for thousands of years without this than and the next'. Yes, they did, but maternal and infant mortality rate was sky high. I'm a poor bugger who would have died during pregnancy. 

Natural parenting is a good thing, but its a fine line between over use of modern science and being safely natural.


----------



## kawaiigirl

MermaidMom you seem to have it well researched and know your stuff. You can obviously make an informed decision. Good luck whatever you decide


----------



## Amethyste

MermaidMom said:


> i posted this question under first trimester the other day... bad mistake  when people dont have a mindset for natural parenting they automatically get defensive when you mention something along those lines... or they think you are uninformed and dont care about your child. anyway, we are planning not to get any ultrasounds during this pregnancy after researching the potential harmful effects. my question is what are the potential things that could show up on ultrasound that cant be tested any other way and would make it harmful to have a vaginal delivery at full term? to my knowledge there are none... but i dont want to miss anything!! please share.. thank you :flower:

Hi, i am interested in natural parenting but i still think that missing the 3 ultra sounds is a bit over the top. I respect your choice of course but think about those billions of people who have been having some and still gave birth to healthy babies. Ultrasound are not as xray and from what i understood it was said that *frequent and unnecessary* ultrasound were not good for you. 3 during 9 months should not harmful. And even so, there are lots of mums who needed lots of scans and had healthy babies !!


----------



## c.m.c

kawaiigirl said:


> The benefits of the ultrasound scan far outweigh the risk involved IMO. I believe it is totally your choice though. Ultrasound is a relatively new imaging modality and women survived without it for years. For me, it was just peace of mind and I liked to know that all was well throughout my pregnancies. I am also a sonographer.

I am a radiographer too- I also liked to know everthing was well. I think the 3D/4D scans have potential for more heating of tissues, im not too sure if the frequency is diff?. I got scanned at every appt and a few extra too :haha:which was not needed. I was happy when the 20week scan showed no abnormalties I think after that scan theres no need for anymore if everything is fine. The sonographers are usually very fast and efficient and keep scanning time to a minimum.

Im waiting to see if Ava is left handed-I had sooo many scans.

you are clearly making a very well informed choice by the looks of it:thumbup:


----------



## angelstardust

Oh the left handed thing! 

I was scanned at 5weeks, 15/5weeks, 21/5, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36weeks (and C section at 37weeks), so I do wonder if she will be left handed. So far she uses both, but because DS2 is left handed (he has cerebral palsy affecting hsi right side) she may copy him (she is copying his sign language too). I'll look out for her handedness.


----------



## c.m.c

Myself and Oh are right handed but Ava seems to reach with her left hand for most things- Im not sure if i believe the left handed thing but it will be interesting to see. I couldnt comment on how often i was scanned as i lost count!!!


----------



## Jibber Jabber

This is my friends story about her twin, it was only picked up in the scan. 

https://veinofgalen.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/alfie-dale/

I find the argument that we have been having babies for thousands of years and not need scans hypocritical. We say that it was fine in the good old days, but then in the case of weaning in the good old days people weaned from birth etc - so it wasn't that great back then.

I had a MMC at 18 weeks, I didn't really want to post about it. At my 20 week scan I found out that the baby had died, obviously I was devastated but it would have been far more upsetting further down the line.

Like I said, the benefits are huge the negatives minute.


----------



## NuKe

c.m.c said:


> Myself and Oh are right handed but Ava seems to reach with her left hand for most things- Im not sure if i believe the left handed thing but it will be interesting to see. I couldnt comment on how often i was scanned as i lost count!!!

i have HEARD... that babies favour their left hand until they are 1, as the right hand side of their brain is developing, then switch to the right after when the left hand side of the brain starts to develop more! :shrug:

i reckon poppy's gonna be a lefty anyway!


----------



## NuKe

whoops, double post! :dohh:


----------



## NuKe

MermaidMom said:


> ultrasound has actually not been proven to be 100% safe. its never been proven to be harmful to the human fetus either. it HAS been prove to have negative effects on animal fetuses including mice with brain damage consistent with autism. its also been linked to delayed speech. the american medical association only recommends ultrasound for high risk pregnancies. of course, many people dont know they are high risk until they have an ultrasound, but its up to each individuals feelings on the matter. i suppose there are risks either way and its a matter of deciding which one is higher.
> 
> https://www.unhinderedliving.com/pultra.html
> 
> https://www.associatedcontent.com/article/130084/the_dangers_of_ultrasounds.html?cat=52
> 
> https://www.compleatmother.com/ultrasound_danger.htm
> 
> https://www.cidpusa.org/ultrasound.htm
> 
> https://mamasayanadoulasupport.blogspot.com/2010/09/dangers-of-ultrasound-dopplers.html

true, though I jsut look at it like, the risks of something bad happening while riding in a car are far greater, but I'm sure you'll still be driving? There's a risk in everything we do, so you are right it does come down to weighing up the risk factor, and imo the risk from getting an ultrasound is extremely EXTREMELY low.


----------



## Rachel_C

NuKe said:


> MermaidMom said:
> 
> 
> ultrasound has actually not been proven to be 100% safe. its never been proven to be harmful to the human fetus either. it HAS been prove to have negative effects on animal fetuses including mice with brain damage consistent with autism. its also been linked to delayed speech. the american medical association only recommends ultrasound for high risk pregnancies. of course, many people dont know they are high risk until they have an ultrasound, but its up to each individuals feelings on the matter. i suppose there are risks either way and its a matter of deciding which one is higher.
> 
> https://www.unhinderedliving.com/pultra.html
> 
> https://www.associatedcontent.com/article/130084/the_dangers_of_ultrasounds.html?cat=52
> 
> https://www.compleatmother.com/ultrasound_danger.htm
> 
> https://www.cidpusa.org/ultrasound.htm
> 
> https://mamasayanadoulasupport.blogspot.com/2010/09/dangers-of-ultrasound-dopplers.html
> 
> true, though I jsut look at it like, the risks of something bad happening while riding in a car are far greater, but I'm sure you'll still be driving? There's a risk in everything we do, so you are right it does come down to weighing up the risk factor, and imo the risk from getting an ultrasound is extremely EXTREMELY low.Click to expand...

^Exactly! I always think that there should be a standard scale medical people use, with things like 'scalding self while making a cup of tea'/'dying in car crash while driving'/'brain trauma in an accident involving a pigeon, a wooden spoon and a staple gun' that the risk being discussed is placed on. We do so many things every day that are actually quite risky compared to some of the things we spend ages agonising over, it would be good if you were always given that perspective.


----------



## lozzy21

Having a child with autism is not the end of the world and autism isent a new condition. I work with adults with autism and a lot of them are old enough that they dident have ultrasounds in utero or mmr's or any of the other things that the claim is linked to autism. You can have babys that have had lots of ultrasounds and be fine and you could have babys that have none and still have it. Yes they are things that can cause it, like being starved of oxygen around the time of birth but we just dont know what causes it, for all we know it could be something we eat? I dunno im rambaling now.

However loosing a baby to a condition that could have been picked up on i can only imadgine would be a hell of a lot worse.


----------



## Kaites

Just thought I'd chime in with my ultrasound experience too...

At our 20 week scan, Emma was found to have pleural effusions (pockets of fluid in the membranes that surround the lungs) and we were immediately referred to a high risk OB team. Without the scan we wouldn't have known about her condition (which would have allowed for a vaginal birth either way- I know that was one of your questions)- this might have made for a less stressful pregnancy; however, it also would have meant that we wouldn't have received the same level of care both throughout the pregancy and at birth. Having the additional scans after the 20 week scan helped the doctors monitor Emma's health much more closely than they would have otherwise- without the scans, we wouldn't have known that the fluid had spread to around her heart. And without the scans, we wouldn't have had a team of neonatologists present at her birth, ready to intervene if necessary.

I realize our pregnancy/ultrasound experience was somewhat unusual (I think the pleural effusions were something like 1 in 1600 and with the heart complications, there is a 80% mortality rate), but my pregnancy had been completely normal up until the 20 week scan and never in a million years did I actually expect them to find something on the scan- I really just viewed it as an opportunity to determine gender.


----------



## aliss

Rachel_C said:


> NuKe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MermaidMom said:
> 
> 
> ultrasound has actually not been proven to be 100% safe. its never been proven to be harmful to the human fetus either. it HAS been prove to have negative effects on animal fetuses including mice with brain damage consistent with autism. its also been linked to delayed speech. the american medical association only recommends ultrasound for high risk pregnancies. of course, many people dont know they are high risk until they have an ultrasound, but its up to each individuals feelings on the matter. i suppose there are risks either way and its a matter of deciding which one is higher.
> 
> https://www.unhinderedliving.com/pultra.html
> 
> https://www.associatedcontent.com/article/130084/the_dangers_of_ultrasounds.html?cat=52
> 
> https://www.compleatmother.com/ultrasound_danger.htm
> 
> https://www.cidpusa.org/ultrasound.htm
> 
> https://mamasayanadoulasupport.blogspot.com/2010/09/dangers-of-ultrasound-dopplers.html
> 
> true, though I jsut look at it like, the risks of something bad happening while riding in a car are far greater, but I'm sure you'll still be driving? There's a risk in everything we do, so you are right it does come down to weighing up the risk factor, and imo the risk from getting an ultrasound is extremely EXTREMELY low.Click to expand...
> 
> ^Exactly! I always think that there should be a standard scale medical people use, with things like 'scalding self while making a cup of tea'/'dying in car crash while driving'/'brain trauma in an accident involving a pigeon, a wooden spoon and a staple gun' that the risk being discussed is placed on. We do so many things every day that are actually quite risky compared to some of the things we spend ages agonising over, it would be good if you were always given that perspective.Click to expand...

I agree and with all due respect, I don't feel those links really meet any sort of legitimate source standards. Take a good long look at those links, even ones that appear legitimate with PhD's or MDs listed, go through each and every subgroup, and you'll start to see what I mean. 

For example, CIDPUSA Foundation.
.org address, MD names listed on the front page.
-> Now take a really good look at the side links. You're going to find a few articles and finger wagging at eating pork, along with biblical support. I mean, let's call a spade a spade - this is NOT a scientific source, although it may appear to be on first glance. There are a number of 'professionals' in many 'authoritarian' positions, with MDs, PhDs, MAs, religious titles, who still need to be taken with a grain of salt.

We need to be careful to analyze our sources very thoroughly when it comes to basing important decisions on it. 

If you choose to not have an ultrasound that's your personal decision, one I respect 100% as you are perfectly correct in saying that ultrasounds cannot be proven beyond a doubt to be safe due to ethical reasons, but I just hope that people make their decision on the right sources and information.

Good luck with your pregnancy and delivery!

Some information that may be of interest to you:
Birth: A History, by Tina Cassidy (a discussion of pregnancy and labour from ancient times to today)
Guide to Childbirth by Ina May Gaskin (a natural midwife approach)

Both books have some discussion on this subject.


----------



## ojmcwt

before i say what i want to say, i will start out with i KNOW you want to do what is best for your baby and that will drive you in every decision you make, regardless, no one can criticize you for trying to do right by your baby.
that being said, i personally think having ultrasounds are the best way to go. now if that type of scan had been shown to have adverse effects and was labeled as potentially dangerous, then i would be with you one hundred percent. however, for me, the benefits are vastly greater than the "risks" and i would definitely do an ultrasound, at least once to check your baby


----------



## Hayley90

My personal experience... I had the 2 recommended NHS scans - no more, no less. 

I would have died if i hadn't had them. There was always a risk in birth for me, as I myself have a blood disorder - the first step was to determine how close my placenta was to the birth canal, of which it started out dangerously low, and moved up as Harrison grew. Had i went into labour naturally, and he started to descend with the placenta still in the way i would have bled to death. 

Then, they had to check blood flow through the cord - again, too little HE was in danger, and if it was normal there were special instructions for ME when he was born. 

Then, they had to monitor his weight - he was a big baby, and measured ahead from 30 weeks... i never had any scans at this point, but i will next time - a big baby = a difficult vaginal labour which ended in me being cut - not the ideal solution for someone who bleeds out very very quickly. 

So yeah... its not always 100% about the health of the baby. And if the only worry to your child surrounding ultrasound is autism, then i would gladly have an autistic child. A HUGE percentage of the population has some form of autism, some so weak you wouldnt notice, others so strong that they stand out in more ways than one... but i would much prefer an autistic gifted child, than one born with difficulty that could have been prevented or helped.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of sad threads on here from ladies who have children with rare syndromes, or disorders which means all or part of their child hasnt formed correctly, or blood flow is wrong, the babies heart is weak and so on... it seems like a small price to pay to *possibly* have autism, instead of these awful conditions :(


----------



## 24/7

My 12 week scan quite probably saved our babies life, and if nothing else prevented him from the risks assosciated with IUGR. Our 12 week scan showed restricted blood flow through the cord, which meant I was put on blood thinners during my pregnancy, to allow the blood to flow through to him properly. Had I not been on blood thinners the flow would have resulted in him not growing properly, or in the worst case dying. :(

Because of this we then had regular scans after 24 weeks so that if the blood flow reduced under the pressure as he needed more as he grew, he could come out straight away. xx


----------



## Aaisrie

I had 5 scans before 12w with my DD and then weekly or fortnightly after that for the whole pregnancy and she is more advanced than her peers with everything!! Although talking about handedness she seems to favour a right hand now although initially she did favour her left!!!


----------



## aragornlover8

I had to have a lot of scans with my baby as I had high blood pressure and they wanted to make sure she was handling it well enough for my pregnancy to continue. My case was a little unusual, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with the two scans that are recommended now. You would want to know if you had placenta previa, and your doctor/midwife would want to be aware of it as well.


----------



## c.m.c

NuKe said:


> c.m.c said:
> 
> 
> Myself and Oh are right handed but Ava seems to reach with her left hand for most things- Im not sure if i believe the left handed thing but it will be interesting to see. I couldnt comment on how often i was scanned as i lost count!!!
> 
> i have HEARD... that babies favour their left hand until they are 1, as the right hand side of their brain is developing, then switch to the right after when the left hand side of the brain starts to develop more! :shrug:
> 
> i reckon poppy's gonna be a lefty anyway!Click to expand...

thats interesting- i will watch out and see when she is older!!! i dont believe if she is left handed it has anything to do with me having about 20 scans- no joke:haha:

I know ultrasound is a relatively new imaging modality but i believe environmental hazards can be more damaging.

i work as a radiographer and when i was visibly pregnant people used to ask if it was safe--- sure a flight to spain has more radiation than anything im ever exposed to--- wonder how many cross atlantic flights Posh Spice and other celebs have when pregnant?


----------



## c.m.c

on a similar note to some others- i was born with a very rare problem with my knees- they were basically back to front- sounds freaky- but because my mum never had any scans she had a very traumatic birth and very hard few days after as i was only the second person in Ireland born this way- Im perfectly fine now-knee wise!!! and i suppose my mum was fine too but i think she would liked to have been prepared


----------



## Aaisrie

^^ unrelated but have you joined the NI thread? You maybe have and I didn't see but it was just in case you didn't know about it!


----------



## NDH

I've already had two scans (it's my first pregnancy, what can I say? I'm excited lol and when they offered me an early scan I jumped on it) but I'm hoping to get away with only one more at 20 weeks. In future pregnancies I think I will try to stick with just one or two unless complications that should be monitored are detected at the 20 week scan. The possible risks do concern me too, which is why I want to limit my exposure. Because studies aren't done on pregnant women there will never be a really accurate evaluation of risk and everything is completely speculation at the moment (everyone seems to have a different theory as to why there's an increase in learning and behavioural difficulties but that's all they are - theories).

That said, I do know many women who haven't had any scans at all. It's just not something I think I could consider for myself.


----------



## c.m.c

Aaisrie said:


> ^^ unrelated but have you joined the NI thread? You maybe have and I didn't see but it was just in case you didn't know about it!

hi there, yes i have- though i have only been on a couple of times but must get back into that thread1:thumbup:


----------



## MermaidMom

i sincerely appreciate everyone's input and sharing of experiences. i want to say sorry to everyone who's experienced some kind of difficult complication or even death of a child.... it's the worst thing in the world to have to go through. we may decide to do one scan later on in pregnancy. i trust my intuition, so i know that if baby needs one i will begin to feel worried for her. thanks guys... much love to you all :flower:


----------



## lynnikins

i know placenta previa was mentioned but look at vasa previa too, it cant be dected without ultrasound and the infant mortality rate if its not caught and handled correctly is 75% which is far to high for me to want to take that risk


----------



## lynnikins

oh just thought id mention, if more scans = higher risk of autism why do we not see correlating data showing that a twin or multiple is more likely to have autism because they would have had additional ultrasound scans during pregnancy?


----------



## MermaidMom

actually it does increase the risk :( but point taken with the vasa previa thing. we've decided that we might get one scan later on in pregnancy. i trust my intuition, so if i start to get worried about baby then we will go in to have one done.


----------



## MermaidMom

oops already said that haha


----------



## sequeena

Sorry to hijack OP but I'm a little worried now :( I've had to have 10 scans during this pregnancy and will have my 11th next week. I've had a lot of problems and thankfully a scan first highlighted the problem (Oligohydraminos and PPROM) but ultrasounds being used to break up kidney stones is really worrying me... it's something I will speak to my midwife and consultant about very soon.

So thanks for posting this thread :flower:

I also have painless bleeds every so often and have been told this is because I have an ectropion cervix but will mention vasa praevia at my next scan.


----------



## aliss

Where are the valid medical studies that show a risk between autism and ultrasounds?


----------



## aliss

BTW I am not saying you are wrong at all, but I think it's important to look at valid scientific studies rather than pseudo-science publications.

Here's one from PubMed that looks interesting

Potential teratogenic effects of ultrasound on corticogenesis: implications for autism.
Williams EL, Casanova MF.
Source

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
bstract

The phenotypic expression of autism, according to the Triple Hit Hypothesis, is determined by three factors: a developmental time window of vulnerability, genetic susceptibility, and environmental stressors. In utero exposure to thalidomide, valproic acid, and maternal infections are examples of some of the teratogenic agents which increase the risk of developing autism and define a time window of vulnerability. An additional stressor to genetically susceptible individuals during this time window of vulnerability may be prenatal ultrasound. Ultrasound enhances the genesis and differentiation of progenitor cells by activating the nitric oxide (NO) pathway and related neurotrophins. The effects of this pathway activation, however, are determined by the stage of development of the target cells, local concentrations of NO, and the position of nuclei (basal versus apical), causing consequent proliferation at some stages while driving differentiation and migration at others. Ill-timed activation or overactivation of this pathway by ultrasound may extend proliferation, increasing total cell number, and/or may trigger precipitous migration, causing maldistribution of neurons amongst cortical lamina, ganglia, white matter, and germinal zones. The rising rates of autism coincident with the increased use of ultrasound in obstetrics and its teratogenic/toxic effects on the CNS demand further research regarding a putative correlation.

Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


----------



## aliss

J Autism Dev Disord. 2010 Feb;40(2):238-45. Epub 2009 Sep 1.
Antenatal ultrasound and risk of autism spectrum disorders.
Grether JK, Li SX, Yoshida CK, Croen LA.
Source

Environmental Health Investigations Branch, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA 94804, USA. [email protected]
Abstract

We evaluated antenatal ultrasound (U/S) exposure as a risk factor for autism spectrum disorders (ASD), comparing affected singleton children and control children born 1995-1999 and enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente health care system. Among children with ASD (n = 362) and controls (n = 393), 13% had no antenatal exposure to U/S examinations; case-control differences in number of exposures during the entire gestation or by trimester were small and not statistically significant. In analyses adjusted for covariates, cases were generally similar to controls with regard to the number of U/S scans throughout gestation and during each trimester. This study indicates that antenatal U/S is unlikely to increase the risk of ASD, although studies examining ASD subgroups remain to be conducted.


----------



## MermaidMom

sequeena, when ultrasound is used for breaking up kidney stones and reducing tumors its used at a much higher frequency. im sure your baby is just fine. hugs.


----------



## NuKe

aliss said:


> Where are the valid medical studies that show a risk between autism and ultrasounds?

I doubt there are any valid ones.


----------



## aliss

There are a few more on PubMed but I don't have access to the full links. Not sure if they support or debunk the idea as there are no abstracts


----------



## sequeena

MermaidMom said:


> sequeena, when ultrasound is used for breaking up kidney stones and reducing tumors its used at a much higher frequency. im sure your baby is just fine. hugs.

Well that makes a lot of sense, thank you :) the longest I've had a scan for is 30 minutes. Usually they vary between 10-15 minutes x


----------



## MermaidMom

thanks for your contribution aliss. the study i read about was done on mice. the brain damage was consistent with that of autism. honestly i bet there are several causes of autism, thats why i just try to do my best to be as natural as possible.... i dont even have a cell phone or microwave! lol... but eating organic, whole foods, taking prenatals, staying active and at a healthy weight during pregnancy... thats the best any of us can really do.


----------



## Hayley90

aliss said:


> There are a few more on PubMed but I don't have access to the full links. Not sure if they support or debunk the idea as there are no abstracts

I can try and get access to them - we subscribe to a HUGE number of Elsevier journals at work, and i believe we also have a subscription to pubmed!


----------



## Bumpontherun

Hi, sorry I've not had time to read the whole thread. I've thought of a couple of things though which I guess may have been covered. There are a number of serious cardiac anomalies which can be picked up at the 20 week scan. While these wouldn't stop you from having a vaginal delivery you would probably be advised to deliver in a cardiac centre with a paediatric team on standby. Also conditions like diaphragmatic hernia - yes these can be diagnosed at birth and baby coming out not being able to breathe will be a good indicator that something is wrong but things will run more smoothly and potentially your babies life could be saved by having medical care available.

Tests like Alpha feta protein aren't specific so if you have a raised AFP you would then have to decide what to do then.

I wouldn't be so worried about breech as presentation can change after having the scan.

I chose not to have the blood tests for downs etc but I did have a 20 week USS partly because of the conditions mentioned above. As an ex-paediatrician I have been Present at the delivery of a baby with an undiagnosed diaphragmatic hernia, it was absolutely terrifying, we couldn't resuscitate the baby and it almost died - fortunately the penny dropped in time as to what was going on and we were able to save him. If we had known in advance the resucitation proccedures are straightforward.

I'm not arguing with your choice not to have a scan - just answering your question - these are the risks I can think of, chances are everything will be fine with your pregnancy but because of my personal experiences I wouldn't want to take the risk.


----------



## c.m.c

MermaidMom said:


> thanks for your contribution aliss. the study i read about was done on mice. the brain damage was consistent with that of autism. honestly i bet there are several causes of autism, thats why i just try to do my best to be as natural as possible.... i dont even have a cell phone or microwave! lol... but eating organic, whole foods, taking prenatals, staying active and at a healthy weight during pregnancy... thats the best any of us can really do.

it would be interesting to know the settings and frequency etc used on the mice. cell division would be greater in unborn mice than an unborn human being so would possibly be at a higher risk- i know it s not ultrasound but the worst stage for any radiation exposure in pregnancy is between weeks two and nine-as the cell division is so rapid during this stage. i wonder at what stage the mice were exposed to U/S- not many pregnant ladies have a scan prior to nine weeks.


----------



## MermaidMom

bumpontherun... thank you so much for that info! very helpful/non-judgmental... i appreciate it :flower:


----------

