View Full Version : Is having an u/s a necessity?
11-04-2002, 10:27 AM
I already had an u/s at 10 weeks to verify the pregnancy and to date it.
Is it necessary to have another midway through?
I had one at 20 weeks with my first pregnancy.
I assume it is to see that all the organs and stuff look good and that sort of stuff.
I don't know if I need to get another one or not.
Whether or not I have another one depends on who I choose as a caregiver.
11-04-2002, 10:53 AM
My original (and much loved) OB said that in a normal pregnancy, u/s isn't needed. It is useful if you want some kind of verification of normal development, though.
If you need it for some reason (clinically, like lower than expected movement, or suspected amniotic volume problems), I'm sure either one will be able to get one. The 'standard 20-week' one is probably the difference between providers, right? That one isn't strictly necessary in at least one OB's opinion, then.
11-04-2002, 11:55 PM
I didn't have an ultrasound at all with my first three pregnancies. There didn't seem to be any problems, and we were interested in knowing the gender, so why bother?
My fourth pregnancy, we were dying to know if we'd finally made a boy so we took a peek. Interestingly, although we saw he was a boy, we only saw ONE boy. It took another eight weeks, two ultrasounds, and my swearing up & down that I was carrying either an octupus or twins, before we discovered baby boy number TWO hiding out behind his brother!
11-05-2002, 08:22 AM
I did not have any ultrasounds and my midwives were fine with that. I'm actually a bit creeped out by ultrasound...I think if God wanted us to have a peek, He would have put a window on our bellies! ;)
11-05-2002, 09:34 AM
It's not absolutely necessary to have one. The midpoint one is supposed to be primarily for diagnostic purposes but our society thinks it's to find out the gender :) For me, I've always had it done because one of my best friends was able to know ahead of time that her little boy had one kidney that was not functioning so they were able to take care of the problem as soon as possible after he was born.
11-05-2002, 01:44 PM
Ultrasounds have been around longer than that, my mom had one with my sister, in 1982.
I don't think multiple ultrasounds are necessary unless there are indicators of problems, but I think the option of having an ultrasound to be sure everything is in place and developing properly is valuable.
11-05-2002, 02:21 PM
my mom had an ultrasound when she was pg with me, in 1977.
11-05-2002, 02:48 PM
We didn't get a routine u/s in the middle of my pregnancy with GraceAnne. I had one at about 9wks to make sure everything was ok (b/c of my prior m/c).
U/S for pregnant women have been around since the mid '70s. There is sometimes a medical necessity. My little guy was HUGE in utero, he has a long list of maybe life long medical problems. But we were able to keep a close eye on him while I was pregant. I also know a few woman who had u/s that picked up medical problems in their babies they might of missed until they were born and got sick. So to me they are worth it if they help a mom sleep better know all four chambers of the heart are ok and the kidneys are doing well, or in my case getting me ready for the road I have ahead with my little buddy.
11-06-2002, 06:46 PM
They're generally not a necessity. I would say that no matter who you you have for a doctor, you don't have to have an u/s. It might be recommended, but it really is up to you whether you want to have one done. I chose to have several u/s done - but I also declined to do some other tests. And if I didn't want an u/s, I woulnd't have one.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.