Ultra Sound
Jan. 5th, 2010 10:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ailbheThe icon is actually Linnea's scan, which was at 20 weeks or so. But today's scan went well, and the baby held the same pose, cupped hand up to mouth with fingers clearly visible, nose and mouth visible with a careful look. 13 weeks now.
We went to the scan and the technician asked chattily what we were hoping for; I said "A skull." So she first said "there's the skull, and the spine, they're fine," and I was able to look at the screen. She then showed us all the bits of the anatomy - the heart, both sides of the brain, the abdomen, feet and hands. She exclaimed "Oh that's cute!" when the baby sucked its thumb.
Rob feels that the whole thing is more real now and I have alleviated a big worry, which I knew was largely unfounded but still worried about.
Then there was the nonsense about the downs screening. "You want the combined screening?" "No, I want the nuchal fold screening." "OK."
About three people said that, but nonetheless I was directed, after the nuchal fold measurements were taken, to go and get blood drawn. So I did, and then the care assistant said "We need to have your weight."
I said "No, you don't, you just prefer to for your systems."
She had to go up the food chain to find someone who could officially accept that we declined the combined test and only wanted the nuchal fold one. But we managed it, and she understood that our declining the standardised testing was something the system ought to be able to cope with and just didn't because it's so unusual.
It's not the test I object to, though; it's the weighing. They weigh one once and use that measurement. They'd have weighed me at 5 weeks pregnant - only a few days after missing a period - wearing my light shoes, and used that. Or today they'd have weighed me wearing my hiking boots, two layers of winter underwear, many jumpers etc, at 13 weeks pregnant and being significantly larger. They would treat both of those weights as meaning *exactly the same thing* for the test; the forms they send to the lab have no place for "approx weight of clothing" or "week of pregnancy at which weight measured."
Along with all the other things they claim to be able to judge using weight, I find that ridiculous.
And I intend to get to the end of this pregnancy without being weighed. I wasn't weighed either of the other times, because there was no clinical reason to do so and it wasn't policy; I was told at the time that this was because weighing pregnant women can make them restrict their food unnecessarily, which is not desirable.
We went to the scan and the technician asked chattily what we were hoping for; I said "A skull." So she first said "there's the skull, and the spine, they're fine," and I was able to look at the screen. She then showed us all the bits of the anatomy - the heart, both sides of the brain, the abdomen, feet and hands. She exclaimed "Oh that's cute!" when the baby sucked its thumb.
Rob feels that the whole thing is more real now and I have alleviated a big worry, which I knew was largely unfounded but still worried about.
Then there was the nonsense about the downs screening. "You want the combined screening?" "No, I want the nuchal fold screening." "OK."
About three people said that, but nonetheless I was directed, after the nuchal fold measurements were taken, to go and get blood drawn. So I did, and then the care assistant said "We need to have your weight."
I said "No, you don't, you just prefer to for your systems."
She had to go up the food chain to find someone who could officially accept that we declined the combined test and only wanted the nuchal fold one. But we managed it, and she understood that our declining the standardised testing was something the system ought to be able to cope with and just didn't because it's so unusual.
It's not the test I object to, though; it's the weighing. They weigh one once and use that measurement. They'd have weighed me at 5 weeks pregnant - only a few days after missing a period - wearing my light shoes, and used that. Or today they'd have weighed me wearing my hiking boots, two layers of winter underwear, many jumpers etc, at 13 weeks pregnant and being significantly larger. They would treat both of those weights as meaning *exactly the same thing* for the test; the forms they send to the lab have no place for "approx weight of clothing" or "week of pregnancy at which weight measured."
Along with all the other things they claim to be able to judge using weight, I find that ridiculous.
And I intend to get to the end of this pregnancy without being weighed. I wasn't weighed either of the other times, because there was no clinical reason to do so and it wasn't policy; I was told at the time that this was because weighing pregnant women can make them restrict their food unnecessarily, which is not desirable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 11:04 pm (UTC)By the time the triple-test blood test results came back it was too late for the nuchal-fold scan. The triple-test results seem to have coloured the way we were treated throughout Debbie's pregnancy, and none of the tests could actually tell us what we needed to know so we aren't sure we will have any tests next time.
For those who don't know us, we weren't prepared to terminate on the strength of any of the Down's tests or risk losing the baby with an invasive test. We have a happy, healthy seven-month old boy with Down's who so far was no evidence of problems caused by his genes.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 11:13 pm (UTC)Congratulations on your baby :)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-07 08:27 am (UTC)The triple test gave us a 1 in 14, which we allowed ourselves to think was a 93% probability of being normal, and Debbie was convinced that her intuition said that everything was fine.
We spent the pregnancy thinking all would be fine, and being annoyed at the scans (the final tally was 13) because he seemed to have a small stomach and the consultant who "couldn't quite persuade herself that is heart was completely normal" so called in the specialist from London*.
When he was born and they said he (probably) had Down's it was a surprise but not a complete shock, although Debbie refused to believe it until his blood test result came back, so I'm not sure that the "1 in 14" did a lot to make us mentally prepared.
* Who said that it was absolutely fine, just like the one who checked his heart when he was born. He had a final heart scan at six months and the consultant not only said it was fine but "beautiful".
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-05 11:19 pm (UTC)I allowed my hosp to weigh me 2 weeks ago for my general anaesthetic (useful to determine how much gas I'd need) but again was with fairly heavy shoes and clothes on which bugged me but may be within parameters. Annoyingly they did my height and got my BMI which I'd have tried to stop them doing if I'd been paying attention.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:20 am (UTC)At the booking appointment, ie the one where you notify the NHS you're pregnant, they said "If you don't mind getting on the scales -" and I said "I do mind."
And today I said "No, you don't, you just prefer to for your systems." I'm kind of pleased I'm managing to be coherent about it because really, it gives me RAGE.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 01:24 pm (UTC)It looks very likely that I will still be overweight/obese by BMI when we get around to trying for baby2 (because I am more interested in improving my fitness for another pregnancy than in losing weight) and I can use all the reminders I get that my weight is not the issue, my fitness/health is more important.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-05 11:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-05 11:59 pm (UTC)But I really object to the routine weighing of pregnant women; nothing I have read in six years of being really quite interested has led me to believe it's useful at all.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:15 am (UTC)When they _had_ to weigh me, in order to see what bed would fit me with my height, I was at 8 months plus!
There was one bed in the hospital, that would take my height, and my weight. Height was the main issue. As it was, I had to birth in another type of bed, with the bottom of the bed removed... they had tall beds in the hospital, they'd never had to have one called into Maternity... but 'my' bed had been brought up to I could transfer into it. It was the only one that took my height, and had automatic up and down lift (in regard to the SPD, so I could get in and out of it safely)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:24 am (UTC)They did start giving heptarin, because of my BMI, and being bed ridden. But you don't need to weigh me, to know I have a high BMI!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:34 am (UTC)My GP went nutso. :-) Loved that GP.... *sigh*
Maternity just don't like informed, argumentative mothers, with attitude. Actually... hospitals don't like yadda yadda yadda...
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:35 am (UTC)On my last pregnancy, weight wasn't mentioned until it was needed by the anesthesiologist who was happy to accept the figures I gave him from 2 days previously. Given that I was 40w4d with a 4kg baby, I'm not sure how accurate they have to be in those cases.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 12:38 am (UTC)I was weighed for anaesthesia for my repair surgery in Dec 2004. I was perfectly happy to be weighed then, as the whole deal is safer if they're not outright guessing dosages. They still calibrate on the fly, as it were.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 05:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 07:33 am (UTC)I'm relieved as heck not to have the midwives commenting on my weight as well as my blood pressure and wee, TBH.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 07:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 08:34 am (UTC)It was never even mentioned on Ayesha, in Ireland, 2007. Not once.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 09:03 am (UTC)How amazingly stupid! I'm not sure what they'd use the weight to determine, but it seems to me that whatever it is, it's not going to tell them much if they use a random weight from any point in the pregnancy.
Good for you for standing up to the system though.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 09:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 09:18 am (UTC)But to do some sort of test on the baby's welfare based on a random weight makes no sense whatsoever. I am baffled.
I hope this pregnancy goes smoothly for you all, in any case.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 11:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 11:38 am (UTC)Pregnancy: it's not a science.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 01:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 07:42 pm (UTC)My knees hated me so much.
(145 lbs. - 195 lbs., 8 lb. 15 oz. baby., which is 65 and a half kilo to 88 and a half kilo and a four kilo baby.)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 09:20 am (UTC)I was extremely pissed off to be weighed at my 12 week scan which was held at 17 weeks due to lack of appointments. I was told I was obese even though I pointed out that their chart was for 12 weeks & I was 17 weeks with a second baby, as my bump was pronounced by then. I then had to have the blood glucose test & it did turn out that I did have gestational diabetes, so maybe it was for the best. I was very upset over having obese written in my notes though. I was a size 16, having not lost Kate's baby weight, but it made me feel down.
Very glad your scan went well :)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 09:35 am (UTC)I somehow managed to completely miss that you are pregnant! So sorry! Congratulations, I'm really happy for you and wish you a happy/healthy pregnancy.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 09:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 11:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 03:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-11 01:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 05:38 pm (UTC)xx
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 06:13 pm (UTC)E is to have nuchal fold scan on 21st - at her first scan on 30/12 she was told she was a week less on than she thought, so they weren't able to do it properly then. But at least that scan confirmed there was a baby there, she wasn't just imagining it!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-06 10:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-11 01:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-11 01:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-11 01:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-11 01:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-11 01:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-11 11:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-12 12:08 am (UTC)