I refused ultrasounds with both pregnancies. I wanted proof that they could not possibly do my babies any harm.
As with all things, there are two sides to every coin.
Without ultrasound, my youngest child would - quite simply - not be here.
With my second child I had U/S at 16 weeks (in the UK) and that was it. At 30 weeks I went into labour and, although my baby was born alive, he died aged 40 minutes. He was hydropic with fluid in both chest cavities. Despite a post mortum and a battery of tests on him and me, no cause was found.
When pregnant again I was scanned regularly, and at 28 weeks gestation, my son was also found to be hydropic - again with pleural effusions. In this case, my son had chest drains inserted in utero, and was born at 34 weeks. His chest drains were removed immediately at birth, spent 12 days in special care, but never had any problems thereafter. He is now nearly 8.
The point is that - and I'm sure no-one would doubt it - that scans have their place. In retrospect, I wish that I had had more scans with my second child - he may then have had the chance that my third did. But I too didn't see the point, after all I had already had one healthy child, and I had concerns over their safety. I am not saying that scans are the way to go far from it - just that scans do have a role - just as (dare I say it) do caesarean sections. :-)
Debbie Slater
Perth, WA
