Bees who declined/did not have ultrasound throughout pregnancy

posted 4 months ago in Pregnancy
Post # 17
Member
19 posts
Newbee

chillbee29 :  Dating and diagnostic scans are generally considered medically necessary. The FDA article you posted is discouraging having scans for keepsake purposes only.

“Although there is a lack of evidence of any harm due to ultrasound imaging and heartbeat monitors, prudent use of these devices by trained health care providers is important” 

“Fetal keepsake videos are controversial because there is no medical benefit gained from exposing the fetus to ultrasound”

“In creating fetal keepsake videos, there is no control on how long a single imaging session will last, how many sessions will take place, or whether the ultrasound systems will be operated properly”

These are discouraged because they are often performed by improperly trained people, and may result in prolonged exposure. Not because standard dating and diagnostic scans are in any way dangerous.

Post # 19
Member
2021 posts
Buzzing bee

If you do fertility treatments (i did) there was an extra ultrasound early on involved. If you have an issue with the umbilical cord for example, they might want to do ultrasounds more frequently to make sure everything is okay. Whatever risk there may be is WAY less than not doing the ultrasound and something happening to seriously harm you or your baby. If something bad happened to the cord, it could put both of you in serious risk. Or if the baby has a heart defect, they’ll want extra ultrasounds to check progress and determine the best treatment plan in utero and after she’s born. I’m not a medical professional but I’m sure there are millions of extra examples. No one is just ultra sounding you and your baby 24/7. 

chillbee29 :  

Post # 20
Member
6734 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: April 2016

chillbee29 :  I literally had 3 ultrasounds my entire pregnancy. At my doctor’s office that’s the norm (3 or 4). They’re perfectly safe. Do you think for some reason that you’re supposed to have one every week or something? Because unless you’re high risk, that’s not how it works. 

Post # 21
Member
726 posts
Busy bee

italianbride0508 :  Yep. OP is creating a strawman argument. No one is defending unnecessary ultrasounds; we shouldn’t use fearmongering to discourage women from ultrasounds altogether.

Also, is there a Weddingbee policy banning posts which promote misleading information and dangerous/harmful behavior? I know a number of other sites are starting to enact policies.

Post # 23
Member
3757 posts
Honey bee

I think you’d have to go somewhere off the grid to find someone who didn’t have any ultrasounds in pregnancy. They’d have to have given birth at home with a midwife because no obgyn MD would care for a patient who refused ultrasounds. Too much chance of malpractice.

What’s missing in your train of thought is context, as in where and why the ultrasound is given. There is absolutely no danger in ultrasounds as medically necessary. Ultrasounds for purposes other than diagnostic may have potential adverse effects, but doing anything to excess is never a good idea.

Post # 25
Member
912 posts
Busy bee

I had an at-home birth with a midwife, and I had ultrasounds through a hospital-based midwife group before transferring care completely over. Some of the women the homebirth midwife saw didn’t have any ultrasounds, but quite a few did concurrent care early on until the 18-week ultrasound was done. My midwife assistant had birthed a number of her children without concurrent care and no ultrasounds, but she was of the mindset that “the Lord knows best.”

Post # 26
Member
9666 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: City, State

I would not believe everything you read on the internet.

Ultrasounds are helpful and very unlikely to harm your baby.

Post # 28
Member
1152 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: October 2015

I don’t know anyone in our generation who has not had ultrasounds.

I had at least 4-5 ultrasounds during each pregnancy and have two healthy kids.

Post # 29
Member
618 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: September 2017 - California

I know someone who had planned to have no ultrasounds, but ended up having one toward the end of her pregnancy because it was too difficult to determine whether or not the baby was in the right position for birth. Her pregnancy was low-risk and her baby was fine. If they had been able to figure out the position of her baby without one, she would not have needed one. Apparently, it is possible to feel the baby’s position without having an ultrasound, but obviously an ultrasound would be able to remove any doubt that the baby is not in breech. It is not strictly necessary, from my understanding (though I am not a doctor or a midwife) for a low-risk pregnancy. My understanding is that not having ultrasounds is not particularly uncommon when having a natural home birth with a midwife in a low-risk pregnancy. That being said, I have no personal experience with this, and if/when I do get pregnant I will be at least 35 which is generally considered high risk due to age, and I plan on having ultrasounds and I only know one person who has not had one (but all of my other friends and family gave birth with OBs at a hospital, so I think that’s the likely difference).

Post # 30
Member
1884 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: December 2017

I live in a developing country where most women go through pregnancies without ultrasounds. It’s a privilege for me to be able to go privately and get ultrasounds as needed. 

Many women here give birth safely to healthy babies. But many others have problems that likely would have been avoided if they’d had ultrasounds. The maternal mortality rate here is twice that globally and almost 50% of pregnancies don’t end in a live birth. Obviously that’s not all to do with ultrasounds, but ultrasounds could prevent some of it. 

Leave a comment


Find Amazing Vendors