too much medical during pregnancy?

Shavaune - posted on 03/05/2010

You know that's a really good point. In Canada it's almost impossible to sue Doctors and hospitals unless its a clear cut case of gross negligence. Maybe some are trying to cover their asses so they don't get sued.

Rosie - posted on 03/04/2010

i don't think that there is too much intervention during pregnancy, pretty much everything you can say you don't want. if you don't want the triple test don't get it, if you don't want the ultrasound don't get it. i'm glad that there are more options for us now a days.

i will agree that there is more intervention than necessary during labor. if people would stop being so sue happy the doctors wouldn't have to cover their asses as badly.

Mary - posted on 03/02/2010

Ummm, actually it's not about profit...it's more about liability. In most OB offices, the test in question are not performed by the OB themselves...ultasounds, blood work, amnio's...these are all things that are referred out to labs, Perinatal centers or radiology/sonographers. Your individual doc sees no income from that whatsoever. Not to mention, reimbursement for OB care in the states is pretty fucking poor, compared to almost every other specialty. It's a flat rate for delivery, and the 9 months of care. They make the same if you have no tests, or 50 tests. It's all about CYA!

Shavaune - posted on 03/02/2010

I too think that the States has a much high rate for "tests & interventions" during pregnancy than other countries with a public system. I had 4 kids and never had any of these screening tests done. They offered at my last one because I was almost 30 and the rate of defects is increased as you get older but the doctor never pushed it at all and I honestly wouldn't of cared if my kid had a defect I would still want him/her. Only when you have high risk pregnancies or a personal or family history do they push testing in Canada and even then alot of woman opt out. I was in labor for 73 hours with my first child and a c-section was never even discussed! I had 1 ultrasound per pregnancy. In the hospital i had my delivery nurse and the doctor just basically checked on me every once in awhile, when the kid was coming out they would just show up catch the baby on they were on their way. When I was "induced" they just broke my water and waited for it to happen naturally. It took a day but the next thing i knew i was 9 cm dilated when they came to check on me and I didn't even have contractions. I honestly think a "for profit" system pushes alot more of these procedures than a funded program by the government because lets face it their out to make as much money as they can.

Krista - posted on 02/28/2010

Kate does make a good point. My membranes started leaking, and they waited 24 hours for me to go into labour naturally, but it just didn't happen, so they started me on pitocin, which led to all of that other stuff you described (not a c-section, though). The strange thing is that after hours of being on pitocin (with it cranked up to the max), when my water DID break, my contractions were insane, leading to the epidural, etc. etc. In retrospect, I wonder what would have happened if I had just asked them to break my water and see what happened before starting in with the drugs.

Catherine - posted on 02/28/2010

Doctors were in my face and up my wazzoo throughout my pregnancy, and I wish I had just relaxed and allowed them less access. They caused me a huge amount of anxiety and the first four months were very stressful because of it.

Charlene - posted on 02/28/2010

I don't know where everyone else is from, but where I am, the doctor is not even in the room during labour. Even when I started pushing the doctor wasn't there. The doctors here are pretty much just baby catchers. They don't come in until just as the baby is finished crowning, sometimes later. It's a nurse with you during the actual labouring and majority of the pushing. Sometimes the OBs pop in during the rounds to check to see how dilated you are, but usually that's a nurse doing that too.

You are also encouraged to get up and walk around the ward/hospital and get into the shower for help with the pain. My nurse never pushed any type of intervention on me. At the beginning she said 'If you want an epidural, let us know when you are ready for it' and that was it.

Manon Alexe - posted on 02/28/2010

I have SLE/Lupus and this made me High Risk. I went for scans every 2nd week and was being monitored by 3 different doctors. I had pretty much every available test done except for the one where there's risks of miscarriage. Personally I would not have had all the tests done had it not been for the high risk factor. I had so many scans as there was the possibilty of my body creating blood clots in the placenta. In my case it wasn't as much to make sure the baby didn't have any "defects" as it was to make sure I didn't get sicker during my pregnancy. My one doctor who monitors my SLE actually told me not to get pregnant in the first place. My daughter was a surprise and am glad she came around. She actually made me a lot healthier than I'd been in years. Due to the high risk factor my ob/gyn didn't want me going over my due date so I was induced at 39 weeks and after 19hours of trying I ended up with an emergency c-section. I'm very happy that happend as I was going throught the process of getting her out all by myself.
Now to get back to the topic, I think that alot of doctors do tend to go a bit overboard, a collegue of mine nearly aborted as her test came out positive for downs and after the test where the miscarriage is high was done, it turned out there was nothing wrong with her baby boy. In her case all the test just made the whole pregnancy experience worse. In my case it didn't. So as always it depends on the person.

Jocelyn - posted on 02/28/2010

Kate you made a good point. I agree, there are WAY too many interventions in labor and birth. With my first, I was induce because I was "late" so out came pitocen, internal monitor, morphine, epidural and then "pushing" so I tore. My second I got a midwife. My water broke in it's own, aside from using the doppler, she basically didn't even touch me. I didn't even get a vaginal exam at any point to find out how dilated I was. My labors were night and day. I yelled and screamed at the doctors during my first because they were a bunch of idiots and wouldn't listen to me and were CONSTANTLY doing "something", it seemed like for the hell of doing something.

Angela - posted on 02/28/2010

I had the 12 week scan for downs - knowing that it is not necessarily accurate and had no intention of having the amniocentesis if it was possible but I wanted to be prepared if I was to have a bub with downs.. also as I had had one third of my cervics removed I needed multiple scans to check the strength, which led to finding excess fluid on the last of those scans (suggesting possible gestational diabetes or possible issues with the baby's swallowing ability - ie cleft palate/dwarfism/downs etc) all of this turned out fine but quite accidentally the radiographer found a large tumor in the placenta purely due to the additional scans and he was 'having a play!' which if it hadnt been found could have caused so many issues - as it was I got pre-eclampsia from it and my beautiful baby slowed down her growth significantly.. but because we knew it was there she didnt get heart/kidney or liver failure and instead I got an early/small but perfect babe Im all for tests - but I feel you need to decide ahead of time what you want to do if the result is not what you hoped for and how far you are prepared to go with invasive tests

Melissa - posted on 02/27/2010

Well maybe i screwed up the title, but either way thats what happened in the video, i watched.

Heather - posted on 02/26/2010

I also wanted to mention that the opposite can be harmful too..for instance, free birthing!

Heather - posted on 02/26/2010

I had a high risk pregnancy, so I had many blood tests and monthly ultrasounds starting with my second semester...I felt they were excessive, but only because I didnt have insurance and each ultrasound was $1,500. I continued to get them though because my OB got very upset with me when I wouldnt do what he wanted me to do lol I am a diabetic and well controlled with meds, which I quit taking when I found out I was pregnant. I watched my carb/sugar intake and my sugars were wonderful my whole pregnancy. I charted my finger sticks 3 times a day and brought in my glucometer for proof and he still did several A1C's on me...he wanted me on insulin and I refused, so I felt like he was waiting for me to fail lol that motivated me to take even better care of myself! The ultrasounds were to make sure the baby wasent too big...which happens with mothers who are diabetic...he ended up being 7# 5oz...not the 10+ he predicted. Oh well...at least I got a healthy baby out of it....and lots of cute ultrasound pics lol oh, and not so cute medical bills :)

I had no problem with getting the quad test...although, I dont recall ever being given a choice...there are many things I will be doing a little differently the next time around (like getting a different OB)

Ashley - posted on 02/26/2010

I agree Amie, I was never pressured into anything. I didn't want a c-section, and was supposed to go in for an ECV during week 37, but my son was born in week 36. I was dilating quite fast, and how he was breeched, an inversion probably wouldn't have worked. They said while they took him out, one leg was straight out to the side and the other was by his head, so I'm glad it was a c-section. But not once did I feel like they were making choices for me, I understood everything and agreed.

Amie - posted on 02/26/2010

Oh and I forgot to add that yes I was offered the test to see if our babies had Downs with my last two. I always said no as I was not high risk and it didn't really matter to us anyway.

However if we ever had a reason to believe that something horrendous like Sharon had listed was wrong, I absolutely would have been tested and gone as far as possible to find out for sure before aborting. I would never bring a child into this world just for them to suffer. That would be **my** selfish need to see them and hold them before they died. Most often painfully, horribly and slowly.

Amie - posted on 02/26/2010

Well as Mary's already pointed out, it's not required to get the testing done. It's suggested and offered but no one is forced to get it done. If you feel something is being forced on you, get another doctor.

As for the check ups, It never bothered me. But that's me. I went in once a month, blood pressure, weight, hemoglobin was checked. My doctor asked me how I was feeling, asked questions, that was it. Once during each pregnancy I was tested for gestational diabetes. I had 1 or 2 U/S and that was it. That was the extent of medical intervention during my pregnancies.

During labor again, nothing was forced on me, they gave me a list of what they could offer me and let me decide. When I was told I needed an episiotomy, I said no. So I didn't get one. The biggest thing the nurses did for me on the ward was keep everyone out of the room and provided me with a stress free environment. They checked on me every 15 minutes, they got me everything and anything I needed, they were great. I delivered in three different hospitals for my 4 pregnancies. My experiences were always good and nothing was ever pushed on me. I don't know where this mentality comes from but it's not happening in my neck of the woods.

Kate CP - posted on 02/26/2010

Melissa, I have watched that film no less than 5 times and I don't recall there ever being a doctor who admitted to or said all those things. Ever. It was heavily eluded to, but never confirmed.

Sue - posted on 02/26/2010

I didn't get the triple done because my OB said I wasn't at risk and both my partner and I looked at each other and said lets not.
As for going to the hospital with a small amount of spotting ..... I was sent by my doc. I noticed a little spotting one morning probably around 8 weeks and got an emergency appointment [only just found out I was pregnant]. He sent me straight to the ER with a letter and I was checked out for an ectopic pregnancy.

Melissa - posted on 02/26/2010

I watched this documentary called the"Business of being born". Ricki Lake did this and basically it was saying that a lot of women are wanting midwives and home births now because doctors get "bored" if there are no complications. They even did an interview with a doctor who admitted that he would rather deal with a complicated pregnancy or birth instead of normal. He also said if your wanting to do natural there is no point even going to the hospital. He also admitted that they like to try and talk women into getting certain drugs for pain which in turn will complicate delivery. This documentary pointed out the rise in C-sections because all this crap they would do basically makes the baby in distress so they had no choice but c-section. Anyway my point is sometimes you do have to wonder if these tests are actually necessary, this video pretty much admitted that doctors like to complicate pregnancies to make it more "interesting" for them. I would just advise using caution before doing any procedures that have risks.

Kate CP - posted on 02/26/2010

I don't know about prenatal testing, but there are WAY too many interventions during labor and delivery. It's all because women are scared shitless by other women about labor and delivery and so they go into it nervous as hell. When you're nervous, your body won't work with you; it will work against you and labor will hurt more and take longer. So because labor is taking longer we have to give pitocin because hey, we don't have all day to wait for a baby! Well, dammit that pitocin makes the contractions hurt a hell of a lot more! So out comes the epidural and the drugs. Then the heartbeat starts to drop and mom's BP goes up. Oh no! The baby is in distress now! We have to do a c-section! Then mom may be stuck delivering via c-section for the rest of her pregnancies (if she wasn't scared off of having another baby) because hospitals and doctors don't want to risk it.

Don't get me wrong, I am SO thankful for medical interventions because they HAVE saved the lives of so many babies and moms. But...they're too common place now. Medical interventions should be reserved for when there is an emergency...not because the good doctor wants to make it to his golf game on time.

Teresa - posted on 02/26/2010

Oh, I did think of something... while the D&C was doctor initiated..... He WAS going to send me home even though my husband was describing how badly I was bleeding. It was only when my husband insisted that the doc examine me that the doc admitted me to the hospital... Now THAT was almost a very scary LACK of intervention.

No point to me adding that either. ;)

Teresa - posted on 02/26/2010

Nah, I don't know what my D&C response was in reference too. I was just sharing. I'm not indepth enough to be intentionally difficult. :)

Ashley - posted on 02/26/2010

I had all of the testing that my OB recommended. There weren't a lot, and I did enjoy the three ultrasounds I had as it was wonderful to see my bubs dancing around. :)

I had to have quite a few blood tests, but that was to monitor my Lamotrigine (seizure meds) levels. It was a good thing, as I had to double my prescription to stay at the correct level.

I am guilty of having an ultrasound for fear of a miscarriage. I had one at 16 and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't having another. I had really bad cramps and no one I asked said they had cramps, so I got a little scared. Everything was just fine.

With this pregnancy, I knew more to expect cramping and it did happen, along with spotting. I did not have an ultrasound, and in fact my OB's office said unless I was hemorraging, I might as well wait it out since if I did miscarry, they couldn't stop it. Yesterday I had my first ultrasound. and am nine weeks, and the fetus looks great.

I guess it also comes down to your trust of your doctor. I love my OB, she explains everything and doesn't go crazy with tests. She is also excited to try a VBAC with this one, as my son came four weeks early and was Frank breech.

If I found out my child would have a horrible, painful, and fatal disease, I would terminate that pregnancy. It would break my heart to know I caused my baby pain before death for just wanting to hold my baby for a few minutes. Down's Syndrome I'm not concerned with, but like some others said, I'd like to know so I could educate myself about raising a child with Down's.

Johnny - posted on 02/26/2010

Could we perhaps stay focused on the topic and stop writing personal attacks in every thread. It really messes up the conversation. Express your own views on the topic, but there is no need to be so incredibly judgmental about other people's opinions, especially without bothering to clarify with them first!!

Sigh.

Now, I think Mary has raised some very important points about how much of the interventions can be parent driven. I had a very difficult time in the last trimester of my pregnancy and had to be off work on disability and at home on strict bed rest. I was experiencing random fainting spells and my doctors were concerned that I could have a fall and injure myself or the baby. But it constantly amazed me that other women I spoke to at this time were jealous that I got to be home on bed rest. They seemed to think that this was a great deal that I had to lie around not doing anything. Personally, I hated it passionately and I really hope that for my next pregnancy, I'm still able to be out going for brisk walks and reminding my boss at work what a valuable employee I am.

I refused the blood screening as I would not have chosen to have the amnio anyway if there was an issue in the blood test. But I had an ultrasound at 8 weeks after heavy bleeding (as a result of heavy lifting-which did lead me to be more careful during the pregnancy), another at 12 weeks when they could not find the heartbeat, and the usual diagnostic at 20 weeks. Both of the first two were recommended by my midwife, I did not request them. I chose to find a health care provider who held similar views to myself on less interventions during pregnancy, and I followed her advice when she told me I needed something. But to be honest, if I had it to do over, I might not have had the one at 12 weeks, because there was nothing to be gained from it but reassurance.

And I too would choose to terminate a pregnancy in which the baby would be "doomed to suffering and certain death". I do not believe that it is right to force a human being to go through unnecessary pain and anguish. I would never terminate a baby for any other birth defect or issue, but that is my personal belief and I do not judge others who might feel differently.

Melissa - posted on 02/26/2010

Thank you Teresa, im glad i wasn't the only one who misunderstood her post.

Krista, i just dont understand the need for anyone to defend someone on here. Were all adults, we can all speak for ourselves. You say i "attacked" her. come on its the internet i dont think its possible to "attack" someone. If I misinterpreted her post fine she can correct me, but her behavior if you read all her posts is a little rediculous. I dont mind a good debate or discussion but the swearing and insults

"Melissa - I just went back and read what I typed.

This is CLEAR AS BELL unless you've got reading comprehension issues..."

And all the other crap she has written is childish. I said she sounded heartless, never said she was, so maybe she misread my post and felt the need to insult my reading comprehension. Its easy to misinterpret what people are writing so if i want to understand what someone is saying then im going to ask. If someone is going to get offended thats their problem.

Mary - posted on 02/26/2010

Teresa -

I'm assuming your reference to your D&C was an indirect response to my comments about 1st trimester miscarriages? If so, please re-read both of my posts regarding this. There is a huge difference between spotting, light bleeding, and hemorrhaging. Yes, there are a few women who, for whatever reason, hemorrhage with a spontaneous abortion, and these women do require a D&C. These are the exception, not the rule. I never stated nor implied that all miscarriages didn't require intervention. The OP asked if we thought there was too much medical intervention and testing during pregnancy, and I was pointing out a classic example of how this is true, and is something that is patient-motivated, rather than doctor-initiated, as the article suggests.

Krista - posted on 02/26/2010

Krista my post wasn't directed to you.

Teresa - posted on 02/26/2010

I have only 2 things to add... By reading Sharon's first post I assumed she was saying the same thing that Melissa assumed, but no way was I going to be bold enough to comment on it.

If I didn't go to the hospital when I was bleeding w/ my 2nd miscarriage and had a D&C.... I most likely would have bled to death.

Melissa - posted on 02/26/2010

Krista my post wasn't directed to you.

Mary - posted on 02/26/2010

Carolee -

I'm assuming you are referring to methotrexate, which is only used in the case of ectopic pregnancies (one in the tube, not the uterus). If so, this is an entirely different ball of wax from a 'standard' miscarriage. It CAN be a true gynocological emergency if the tube ruptures. Most miscarriages do not require any type of medical intervention...the body is typically capable of aborting on it's own. Although I agree, it is difficult to walk around with a dead fetus in you until your body expels it (been there myself), it really is the best course of action. A D&C is a surgical, invasive procedure, and not without risks, and should really only be performed if absolutely physically necessary.

Krista - posted on 02/26/2010

Melissa, you weren't just asking a question. You personally attacked Sharon based on your own willful misinterpretation of what she said. She said that she would not give birth to a child doomed to suffering or certain death, and you said, "wow Sharon you sound pretty heartless. Sorry. Every child deserves love, i dont know how someone could abort a child because they're not "perfect". What are they an inconvenience? its your child."

So you twisted around what she said and then used it to accuse her of being heartless, and said that she would abort a child who isn't "perfect", when she said no such thing. I don't blame her for being p.o'd at you. I would be angry as well.

Believe me, the type of thing that Sharon was talking about is not "imperfection", it's about severe fetal abnormalities that are incompatible with life. And yes, women have a right to know if this is the situation, so that they can prepare themselves and make an educated decision. If they choose to go through with the pregnancy, that's their prerogative, but at least they won't receive a horrible, unexpected, tragic shock when the baby is born. Imagine thinking that you've got a beautiful healthy baby inside of you, only to give birth and realize that your baby quite literally has no face. Or that its innards are on the outside of its body. This stuff actually happens, as much as we like to close our eyes and plug our ears and pretend that it doesn't. And if the mother doesn't want to know ahead of time, then that's her right. But if she DOES want to know, then that's her right as well.

And even with something like DS, I would want to know. Not that I would abort a DS baby, but I would want to take the time to react to the shock, to grieve for the child that I had imagined, to get used to the idea of having a DS child, and to then arm myself with as much information as possible about raising a DS child.

Lyndsay - posted on 02/26/2010

Well... for me, I would rather know than not. I got the blood test to determine whether I needed further testing, and the answer was no. If they said I could do it and find out whether or not my baby could potentially be at risk, I would definitely say yes. I think that its up to the mother and her partner, but for me I would like to know I was having a healthy child. (I would probably abort the baby if I found out it would have some type of retardation or handicap.)

Melissa - posted on 02/26/2010

hahaha, i think you need to take a break from COM, your getting out of line, with the insults, and taking things way to personally. I asked a question about what you wrote, how is that a lie? its a question. Anyway im done with you. Your really not worth my time. Take a breath and relax, if COM is getting you so worked up that you feel you need to respond in such ways, you need to take a break. That kind of anger is not necessary.

Amy - posted on 02/26/2010

yeah, i have a teething toddler. Not getting sleep and not thinking well enough to type thoughts. :) I meant women I know who are over 65 - the ones I had personally known and talked to who had given birth in towns where there wasn't more than one doc - not anyone who is a grandmother [because that could be a 30 year old, really]. I didn't do too many extra tests. I did an ultrasound with son and they SWORE i would get pre eclampsia and wanted to set me up for a c section. i was going for a vbac.i asked WHY and HOW they knew. they said there was notching. i looked it up - could just mean poor circulation. because i drove over an hour and waited an hour and ahalf in a lobby - of course my circulation wouldn't be top notch. my blood pressure wasn't high, no protein in the urine, etc. there was nothing else. i asked to just have another ultrasound later to be sure. it showed nothing. if I hadn't asked and just said oh, okay, i'd have had another unnecessary c section. That kind of stuff ticks me off.



Now with my daughter, when she was born she had a tiny hole in her heart. on one hand i'm glad they found it in case it was something that could be life threatening. however it was a teeny tiny pinhole and they said as long as the stethescope couldn't pick it up no worries - AFTER about 10,000 bucks in testing they swore to me were needed. then she has a diagnosis and forever a pre existing condition. my husband could not start his own business because there was no one who would take her on for insurance. so because of something that was barely found -never even treated since nothing was detrimentally wrong - she's stuck with that record forever. IT's not that i don't care for medical advancements - i don't care for the fact that some docs over react to things to get more tests done and more money when they know something isn't going to impact the development of the child. but my sister--she would have died in childbirth if we didn't have advancements. i think we just need to choose carefully about what we allow and don't allow a doctor to do. maybe not be so hundred percent trusting and look into information on our own.

Sarah - posted on 02/26/2010

Annnnnnnnnnnnd.....................everybody breathe!! ;)

Sharon - posted on 02/26/2010

Melissa - I just went back and read what I typed.

This is CLEAR AS BELL unless you've got reading comprehension issues...

"They gave birth to babies with horrible genetic defects because they didn't know this gene w/that gene meant the baby would die in infancy or during toddlerhood. "

So please stop lying. I don't appreciate someone who lies for their own gain. Most mothers to be - these days - have read womans' day, womans world, expecting a baby books, tests for genetic abnormalities are mentions, some by specific name - I guess you weren't one since you had no clue those diseases and afflictions were out there.

I also said (and you quoted but decided to be obtuse about it)
"I won't give birth to a child doomed to suffering or certain death."
and
"Go ahead, give up all medical advances, lets see how much you cry for those advances when its your childs life on the line."
AND
"They gave birth to babies - expecting healthy chubby infants and receiving a dying child or one doomed to life with less brains than a chicken."

I am VERY clear that I am not talking about eczema or cradle cap issues or even downs syndrome.

Carolee - posted on 02/26/2010

Okay... since this has come up, and it seems to be something that most don't understand, I'm going to share why some people go to the ER when they start bleeding.

When I was pregnant with my son, I started bleeding at around 10 weeks. I went straight to the ER. I had already had 4 miscarriages, and I know that there's nothing they can do. The miscarriage I had before I got pregnant with my son, my hormone level would not go down. I ended up having to have some type of chemo, which sucks ASS, as anybody with lukemia (what this type of chemo was designed to treat) can tell you. For anybody who has had to go through multiple miscarriages and then a type of chemo, it's scary as hell when you start to bleed!

I needed to know whether my baby was dead or alive, and I needed to know if my hormones reflected that. It's not always just because someone's panicking for no reason, and nobody wants to walk around with a dead baby in their belly because their body will not fully abort it!

Sarah - posted on 02/26/2010

I've not read all the responses......

I didn't have the blood test with my eldest, but i did with my youngest and i REALLY wish i hadn't bothered!!
I was 26 when i got pregnant with my youngest so i was sure the test would come back as low risk, it didn't. I was just in the high risk band for Downs. (i think it was a one in 250 chance)

Anyway, i was offered the amnio, but declined it due to the risk of miscarriage, also i knew i wouldn't abort if there WAS a problem with the baby. So i ended up doing nothing about it...........except WORRY for 9 months (which was no fun at all!)

I can understand why some people who are higher risk and willing to take the amnio having the test, but for me i REALLY wish i'd ignored the advice (from my sister) to have the test and not bothered! :)

Melissa - posted on 02/26/2010

Take it down a notch Sharon, there's no need for the language. This is just a forum. The only reason i responded to your one post was because the examply you gave was down syndrome, so i got the impression that you would abort if your child had down syndrome. It wasn't till after you mentioned the other conditions. But tests can also be wrong too. I personally dont think i could abort any child. Thats a personal choice, not a personal attack, so dont freak out.

Mary - posted on 02/26/2010

I agree that there is, in many, many cases, a plethora of unnecessary testing performed on expectant women today. As I stated in my first post, ALL of this is optional...but most women CHOOSE to have these tests performed, particularly the triple or quad screen. I do think that the practitioners of today, including midwives, feel obligated to offer these tests to patients, in order to protect themselves from a liability standpoint. It is a sad truth that OB's today, especially in the US, must practice defensive medicine.



I am continually amazed at the number of patients we see in L&D in the first trimester who show up because of a small amount of spotting, or even just mild cramping. ALL of them come in demanding a sonogram "right now"...even if they are so early that an ultrasound may not even see anything, despite it being a normal, viable pregnancy. First of all, unless you are hemorrhaging, it is not emergent, and can wait until a scheduled 8 week ultrasound. Secondly, in the grand scheme of things, it simply doesn't matter...IF in fact you are miscarrying, there is nothing we can do to prevent it. Even if the scan is normal, and a heartbeat is seen, it is still no guarantee that all will be well tomorrow, much less 8 months from now...and still, they demand that one be performed.



This holds true with many of the ultrasounds performed after that 20 week scan. People really just want to "see the baby" at 32 weeks...especially those 3 and 4D scans. There often is no true medical need...just a parent seeking reassurance, and a pic for the scrapbook.



I take issue with the above article's statement that "doctors routinely subject their patients..." Again, I'll restate: All testing is OPTIONAL.

Kathy - posted on 02/26/2010

Well, just referring to the Grandmas of today is a pretty broad field. I AM a grandma of today, but perhaps the age could have been specified. I know in my late mum's generation, there was very little medical intervention - people generally went to their GP, not an obstetrician, unless their doctor thought there might have been problems.



I chose only to see my GP until about 7 months. I didn't have regular ultrasounds - in fact the only one I can remember was after I had a fall (I have epilepsy) when I was pregnant with my third daughter, who was born in 1986. None of my friends had regular ultrasounds at the time and I can't recall any birth defects. Perhaps we were just a very lucky group.



When my sister was doing the midwifery part of her nurses' training, she showed me pictures of the various deformities, as you mentioned - nightmarish, as you said!



I think most of us here agree that available medical tests are of value if the mum is in a high risk group. I certainly agree with that.But I do feel that there is a lot of medical intervention that may not always be necessary, especially given our better health these days.

Mary - posted on 02/26/2010

Kathy, I think it depends on the age of the grandma. I'm assuming Sharon may be referring to women whose children were born a tad earlier than yours...fetal monitoring was not prevalent until the mid-late eighties, and ultrasounds were not performed routinely in some areas until the early eighties either. My mom, and some of my colleagues who worked in L&D in the 70's and early 80's can recount numerous stories of anacephalics, Potter's or Turner's syndromes, Trisomy 18, and a host of other gross deformites/defects that are incompatible with life that they delivered. Because the antenatal tests of today, particularly ultrasounds, exist, these are simply things that we almost never see today. Back in my mom's day, they really never knew until delivery if a baby was 'normal", or even viable. These days, the most routine of testing can detect these things, and the bulk of women do choose to terminate for those defects known to be incompatible with life outside of the womb. Hell, back in the 70's and before, they never knew ahead of time if there was only ONE baby in there until delivery. I have to say, their job must have been harder than mine is today. I have yet to deliver an unexpected grossly deformed baby....and they did on a regular basis. My unit actually has a log, complete with photos, of some of these babies. It was used to prepare new nurses for some of the things they could encounter. Oh My God...it is truly the stuff of your worst nightmares...and totally heartbreaking. We today just have no idea how truly fortunate we are.

Lady - posted on 02/26/2010

I think America has a lot more medical intervention during pregnacy than the UK does. I barely saw a doctor throughout my four pregnacies. I had two scans with my firt two then only one with my last two. I had all the blood tests but that's as far as I would have gone - I'd never have an amnio - the risk is just too high even it is only 1%.
It was a midwife I saw whilst pregnant, every 6 weeks to start with then more frequently toward the end of each pregnacy with my first two and less often with the next two. I think if you are seeing a doctor then he'll probably feel the need to do more as doctors in general veiw things in a medical sense so are quicker to do medical procedures, a midwife on the other hand knows a womans body is made for pregnacy and is more willing to let things take their natrual course.

Jennifer - posted on 02/26/2010

In the UK it's very different. There is a test that's can be done to show the chance of you having a child with Down's syndrome. I personally chose not to have this test because if our child did have Down's Syndrome we would never have aborted the pregnancy. At my 12 week scan everything was fine, but at my 20 week scan they found echogenic bowel which is a big marker for genetic diseases such as Down's Syndrome, Edward's syndrome, Patau's syndrome and cycstic fybrosis. Our options were worry for the next 20 weeks about whether our child would/would not have a condition, or have an amniocentesis which there was in our hospital less than 1% of a miscarriage occuring. Between my husband and I we discussed the options and decided it was best to go ahead with the amniocentesis so we would be prepared either way for when our baby arrived. The results were negative and Logan was born completely healthy. I had to have extra growth scans as echogenic bowel can cause stunted growth. We were told Logan was going to be a small baby but he was growing steadily in the womb. My amniotic fluid level fell so I needed scans for that too. At the time I was sick of going to the hospital for scan after scan but I'm glad they kept an eye on our baby. I had a natural birth with just gas and air. Today there are more c-sections because people can choose to have one without there being any medical reasons to do so, basically because they have the money to do it and are too lazy to push...although to be totally honest I'd rather grim and bear it than have a scar for no reason at all! Also there are more c-sections that are done in emergencies and this contributes to the lower infant mortality rates so in all I think it's best to have tests to check the health of the baby but think it's the woman's choice as to whether she has those tests.

Kathy - posted on 02/26/2010

Hi Amy,



I'm one of those grandmothers (and I must admit I'm confused as to why you put "grandmas" in inverted commas) who didn't have many tests, had 3 healthy babies and didn't have a C-section for any of them. This was in the 1980s.



But I'm one of the lucky ones. I wasn't in one of the high-risk categories. If I had been I think I would have taken every test under the sun. or the ones that were available at the time.



I do think Sharon's post is exaggerated: we didn't all have unhealthy babies; we didn't all lose babies due to Rh factor issues; we didn't all lose babies due to low hormones; we didn't all lose babies due to exposure of sick kids who haven't had their vaccines; we didn't all have babies with horrible genetic defects; we didn't all expect chubby babies and receive a dying child…



And nobody here has been bashing the medical community.



In fact, there does not appear to have been a major change in the overall rates of major birth defects. This report from the Health Information Management Association of Australia provides figures from the Victoria Birth Defects Register and suggests that the incidence of birth defects may not have fallen. For example, the % of birth defects in 1983 was 2.8; in 2003 it was 4.00.



Like all statistics, these have to be taken with a pinch of salt: the figures are for the state of Victoria, Australia, so it’s not possible to extrapolate to the rest of the Western world; there is no information here about the mother’s health, age, indigenous status etc (although this is provided in later tables in this report – see http://www.himaa.org.au/members/journal/... also, there has been no attempt to draw conclusions or causal relationships between these figures and modern medicine.



What this SUGGESTS is that birth defect rates have not necessarily dropped. Other factors need to be taken into account, such as the fact that the number of babies born prematurely is increasing: In fact, the rate of premature birth increased by 36 percent between the early 1980s and 2006 http://www.marchofdimes.com/prematurity/... This might be due to the fact that more women are leaving it till later in life to have babies.Prematurity is a major contributing factor to the likelihood of birth defects.



This certainly doesn’t mean we should all merrily avoid all the available tests. Far from it. I feel we should become more aware of the risk categories for birth defects, and make our decisions based on that and your beliefs and how you feel you and your family would cope with a child with birth defects. Always enter into a dialogue with your doctor about risk categories and where you stand. Medical science has advanced to a level where it has lots of the answers, but not all. Definitely take advantage of available tests if you and your doctor think it advisable.



Thanks for raising this topic Amy – it’s an important one.

Jocelyn - posted on 02/25/2010

I won't give birth to a child doomed to suffering or certain death

I completely agree with this. Sharon you hit the nail on the head with this statement!

That being said, I didn't get any testing done (aside from the standard blood/glucose test and an ultrasound, I didn't even get an internal exam!) I do believe that there is too much medical, for those that are low risk. If you are low risk and your ultrasound was fine, I say leave it at that. Now if you are high risk (ie. an older mother, a carrier of some sort of genetic condition, an alcoholic etc) they I believe that testing would be the right thing to do. It would be better to be prepared imo.

Charlene - posted on 02/25/2010

Where in that post did Sharon say she wouldn't give birth to a child that wasn't 'perfect'?



There is a big difference between what you are saying she said and what she actually said.



I don't think I could give birth to a child that I knew was going to have a very short and incredibly painful life. It would break my heart towatch them suffer.

Kate CP - posted on 02/25/2010

Melissa, I would suggest you look up Tay-Sachs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_d...). It is a horrible genetic condition wherein a child is doomed to die a slow and agonizingly painful death. I would abort a fetus that was diagnosed as having Tay-Sachs. I would love my baby enough to not make him or her suffer like that.

Melissa - posted on 02/25/2010

"Tests that take a babys' life. If you have concerns about certain genetic issues, ie. downsyndrom etc, the gamble is up to you. It didn't run in my family, fertility isn't an issue, but if I had concerns about a debilitating or deadly condition - I would have gambled.

I won't give birth to a child doomed to suffering or certain death"

wow Sharon you sound pretty heartless. Sorry. Every child deserves love, i dont know how someone could abort a child because they're not "perfect". What are they an inconvenience? its your child. What if you took all these tests, and something was still wrong after birth, would you give them up? I was in love with my baby the moment i was pregnant and could never give it up. I cant just turn off my love like that.

Amy - posted on 02/25/2010

I refused the triple test with all four of my babies. My mom is the one who asked are you prepared to know and i decided that if my baby came out "deformed" i would still love them no matter what. It's against my faith to abort children or refuse them just because they weren't perfect.

I think some of the tests today are for our benefit. Like diabetes, pre-eclampsia, and a few others that keep both mom and baby healthy. there were other tests the doc offered me but he would always tell me which one did what whether it was optional or not. Luckily all my babies were born fine.