- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
3rd Trimester
Refusing the 3-hour glucose
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Refusing the 3-hour glucose
You need a fasting blood draw for the 2 hour test.
OP- You should take the test. Don't be foolish.
I had GD this pregnancy. I tested my blood 4x a day, with test strips that cost a bloody fortune. I had to go to the endocrinologist every 3rd week, plus my regular OB appointments, and for the past 6 weeks I've had weekly NST's that take an hour plus BPP's and OB appointments, where I have yet ANOTHER NST. Oh, and what do you think I do with my 2 year old for all of these appointments?
Also, your baby is at greater risk for heart defects when you have GD. Uncontrolled blood sugar causes problems with the development of the heart's valves. I had a fetal echo... wanna know how much that costs?
I also have to ask, are you going to take a day off to take your sick child to the pedi? We make sacrifices for our children... starting with pregnancy, not when they're born.
Our mother's also smoked and didn't use car seats... wanna do that too?
I think you should take the test. Is there a way you can go to a lab instead of the office? Sometimes labs are open a lot later and you could go after work or at night or something.
On a side note, i am also at a birth center if I refuse to take the test they will terminate our patient/provider relationship since they can only work with known low risk patients.
If I hadn't taken the test, I wouldn't have known that I had GD. I wouldn't have had additional testing/monitoring. And at 38 weeks, I wouldn't have known that my baby was having problems relating to the GD and that he needed to be born so that he would be ok.
I would find a way to do it.
lmjt nailed what I was going to say. As someone who had well controlled GD, I still had complications. My placenta broke down and I had to deliver DD at 38 weeks 3 days. She spent the three days in the NICU due to low blood sugar issues.
You really need to put it all into perspective and take the test.
Take the test. I was fine with DD#1 and DS. With DD#2, I failed the 1 hr and had to do the 3 hr. It ended up being fine and I passed the 3 hr, but I would not jeopardize this baby's health just because my previous experience was fine.
I understand it can be hard to schedule, but it is important.
I was at a BC w/ MWs as well... I didn't have any of the risk factors, so I didn't take any GD tests (lol reading that and thinking of GD as different words made me laugh---It's way to late for me to be up)
Anywho---Check with your MWs and see how far over you were and whether or not they would recommend that you take the 3hr test because ultimately it's between you and them, not you, them and us....
There are lots of consequences for not taking the test, but then you also need to consider the actual risk of there being complications...If you think the risk is small enough, then discuss it with your MWs and see what they say... Maybe put it off and have them keep measuring the baby and then if something seems odd, decide to take it then...
I'm not saying that you should/n't get tested, but in all honesty, a PP is right... There weren't all these tests... I'm not saying that we shouldn't have them, but the levels for the 1 hour test are actually saying that some women have GD when most do not... For instance, in Expecting 411 it states that many women who do the one hour test are being flagged as positive as low as the 120's... 140+ being abnormal w/ no other risk factors, before you make your final decision double check what the risk factors are and what your levels were...
Good Luck!
This exactly- no matter what, I personally would not skip the test.
Hmm. I'm sorry, but am I not alive? Oh that's right. Last time I checked, I am. My mother never had an ultrasound, never had blood drawn, and didn't get any tests taken. Her doctor asked her how she felt, and she told him. She had 3 perfectly healthy children this way. The same with my husband's mother (except she had 5 babies) and the entire rest of my family.
Hate to burst your bubble, but just because you think you are taking all of these precautionary measures, it doesn't mean your baby won't have diabetes, or weight problems, or anything else.
Women have been having babies for thousands of years. We are so "careful" in our generation with our pregnancies, yet we are the most unhealthy generation in history. Hm. Sounds pretty ironic to me.
So using your logic, no one should ever have say, a mammogram or a colonoscopy or a pap smear?
Because they weren't available 20+ years ago, you shouldn't do something that could save your life or in this case the life of your child?
Just because I ended up with GD doesn't mean that my kid won't have diabetes or a weight problem or anything else, but by knowing about it, and controlling it, I've done my job as parent to do everything in my power to prevent it.
Worst logic ever. Who knows how many didn't live to tell the tale?
my angel babies: 6/10 (chem. pg), 9/10 @ 10 weeks
If you think about it, obviously the babies who didn't make it aren't participating in this conversation.
Look at the decline in infant mortality rates over time:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5714a6.htm
I was born in 1975. Infant mortality rates are clearly lower in this century than they were when I was born. They've been fairly low for a long time - so the chances of you or your DH or any of your siblings dying in infancy were never that high - but they are lower now than they were 35 years ago or whenever you were born. My daughter and my next LO are safer now than I was when I was a baby. This is not to bash our parents, who were as well intentioned as we are, it's just that there are things we know more about now than we did then. So we can either take advantage of that knowledge, or not. Sure, your baby might still have health issues even if you take precautions for GD or whatever, but the chances of those issues happening are lower than they would be if you didn't. It's not rocket science.
And I highly doubt that we are the unhealthiest generation in history. Why don't you take a look at historical life expectancies and try to make that argument? Specifically, take a look at historical maternal and infant mortality rates. Sorry, but the "women have been having babies for thousands of years" argument doesn't fly when you're arguing against taking basic precautions for prenatal and neonatal health that save the lives of moms and babies now. Women used to die in childbirth all the time. Babies used to die all the time (if you want to play the anecdotal evidence game, should we talk about my grandfather's family, in which five of twelve children died before the age of five?). Maybe you in particular didn't need those precautions. Good for you. This is not about you.