Admittedly, normal 2-D ultrasound pictures make a baby look rather like E.T. as captured by a very primitive camera, but yes, a mother who has the procedure done deserves a clearer picture if there is a way to obtain it. In early pregnancy, if there are a subcutaneous layers of abdominal fat in the way, it is easier to get a clear picture if the woman gets a vaginal ultrasound, and in early pregnancy, chances are she has medical reasons for being given an ultrasound, such as a need to look for neural tube defects.

If I were going to be invaded with an ultrasound wand up the vagina, I’d want a clear printout; and at any rate, if the procedure is being done for screening purposes, it would behoove the technician to get as clear a picture as possible, wouldn’t it?

I personally don’t think ultrasound needs to be routine for the average pregnancy, but if a mother is having one done, she has a right to have it done competently, and to see the results if she wishes.

It also isn’t a high-risk procedure like, say, amniocentesis – heck, these days a mother can buy a personal Doppler from an advertisement in a mainstream parenting or pregnancy magazine and listen to her baby’s heartbeat at home if she likes, so it can’t be that invasive (I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing it, but that’s partly because I’m a tightwad). So even if it were for a “selfish” reason, why not let her have an ultrasound in a way that lets her get a clear picture?

I don’t disagree. But some people want to know if they are pregnant or not and whether the baby is alive or not, and I do think it is their right to avail themselves of the technology should they so choose.

I had a blighted ovum miscarriage at 11w. I didn’t start bleeding until 11w. When I did, my midwife ordered the u/s to set my mind at ease because we couldn’t find a h/b with the doppler. We had still suspected all was OK, but we wanted the peace of mind. Sure enough, all wasn’t OK.

With my current pregnancy, I had a u/s at 7-8 weeks. I requested it for my own emotional well-being. The day of that u/s, I had a heavy bleed about 30 minutes beforehand. Heavy enough to soak my underwear and pants in about 5 minutes. It was a lot of blood. My husband wanted to skip the u/s and go right to the doctor, but I was adamant we follow through. The doctor would have just wanted one anyway, it would tell her far more than a vaginal exam could.

Sure enough, and as strange as that twist of fate may have been, there was a heartbeat, a healthy baby, and a subchorionic hematoma. I never would have known that and I would have stressed endlessly about the health and well being of this baby until we heard it on the doppler weeks later.

With a history of miscarriage, if you are the kind of person that emotionally BENEFITS from an early ultrasound, I think that outweighs the (very minute, never really proven) risk of ultrasound. I’ll temper this with the fact that I don’t believe in ultrasound except where medically indicated, and certainly don’t believe in its routine use and use for entertainment purposes…but when there is a benefit to using it, even if it is just an emotional benefit, it is a choice women should be entitled to make, knowing the pros and cons both ways.

My husband and I talked and thought long and hard about a “routine” 18 week ultrasound, and will be having that, too…just because emotionally I want all the security I can get with this one. I have hyperemesis gravidarum, carrying a pregnancy is a significant investment for me and it frankly scares the bejesus out of me to think about losing a baby at 11 weeks, let alone later… again.

As a CNM, I am running across a ton of women who really really want an u/s in the first trimester. Sometimes it’s “just because,” sometimes it’s because they had a miscarriage in the past, sometimes it’s because they have no idea when their last period was and they want to know how far along they are, and sometimes it’s because they are bleeding and cramping. As long as a woman has had regular cycles and is sure of her LMP, a dating u/s is not necessary. Otherwise, I’d really prefer that she has it so that I don’t think she is 42 weeks when she is really 41. I discourage it in most cases (and I work with a population who is generally very anti-intervention). You’d be surprised how many women insist on having that early u/s when I don’t believe it’s necessary for their medical care.

Also, offices only get reimbursed for one u/s during pregnancy. That early u/s is not getting reimbursed, so I don’t believe that the office has any kind of financial incentive to do it.

Mine have always been covered and I need an early u/s because I have pcos and long cycles. Based on my LMP all my babies should have had due dates 2 weeks earlier than they really were and I also have a history of pre-term labor so if I hadn’t have an accurate due date things could have gone very wrong with my daughters. Ftr though the u/s has alwasy been within 1 day of my own calculated dates based on my charts. I wish the docs would just take my word for it but my ob’s with my dd’s would not consider anything other than ovulating on cd14 and I usually ovulate 2 weeks later than that. I will admit that with my son my new OB listened and he wrote down a date based on LMP and on my calculations. We both had a laugh over my accuracy.

I think plenty of women are aware that early ultrasounds don’t generally provide useful information. Let’s face it, if given the option, most women are not going to turn down the opportunity to peek at their babies.

Just look at the commenter above who thinks it was so unfair that she didn’t get the “good, clear pictures she deserved.” Apparently some women think ultrasounds are their fetus’s personal photo session.

2 months isn’t “very early” pregnancy, then, Brenda.

I guess I have to qualify every single thing I say: Sometimes, in some people, with some practitioners, with certain particular ultrasound machines, in very early pregnancy, transvaginal ultrasound provides a better view than abdominal ultrasound, and in some instances, is the only way to get a look.

Ah. The one time I ever even let a nurse touch me in labour was when I got hauled into the maternity ward for that second birth, when I was too out of it from a night of barfing and diarrhoea to fight back. Funny, that was also the birth that felt like more of a rape than anything else. I imagine being too sick to fight back against the whole submissive-patient thing was part of why I reacted so violently later.

In general I do not tolerate that sort of restraint or touching. I have never waited patiently for an OB or NP to give me my biannual pelvic exam, half-naked and with feet in stirrups – I always waited sitting upright, reading a book, although I did agree to remove what clothes would get in the way and use the paper blanket to cover myself, unless the office was very cold, or unless I happened to be wearing a skirt that day, in which case I simply removed my underwear. I’ve never let any medical professionals hold me down on my back for any other reason, either, save that one time.

I’m a patient from hell. I really am.

My husband tells me that my own body language tends to be more domineering than not. I am a bit impaired in that area – you could be Marcel Marceau and I would have a hard time reading your posture and gestures – so I’ll have to take his word for it. If medical professionals are the ones used to being in charge and telling the patient what the procedures will be and how they will be received by the patient and so on, I can see how my own obvious attitude of “I’m in charge of my own body, you’re the one being paid to do me a service” would be, at the very least, offputting.