Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Pregnancy Pregnancy

refusing the glucose test...why????

Posted by   + Show Post
Why would you want to refuse that test?

What if you in fact had gest diabetes?

You wouldnt know because you refused that test and you may be putting your baby in danger...dont say "well I can just test my sugars at home"..whats the point in doing that if your refusing to do it the doc way or think "well I dont have gest diabetes I didnt with my others"..things change..every pregnancy is different.... I believe in doing the test my doc provide so I know my baby is healthy and Im doing everything I can to keep her that way and myself....

Im not bashing anyone but I just wanna know why you would want refuse any testing for you or your baby....
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Dec. 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Replies (21-30):
Plus-size-mommy
by Bronze Member on Dec. 1, 2012 at 7:21 PM
So, I took my one hour the other day, my level was 135 which is their cutoff so now they want me to do the 2 hr fasting test. I, technically, did not fail. I'd love your opinion on this. I asked if I could decline and she went to scare tactics and said the baby's lungs may not develop, lungs may be too large, or baby could even pass away from Gd.

Quoting doulala:


GESTATIONAL DIABETES Gail Hart (Gist of Midwifery)





  • A
    certain portion of people are unaware they have diabetes Mellitus until
    their symptoms become severe enough to send them to the doctor or
    hospital.



  • Some of
    these unknown diabetics are women who will become pregnant, and their
    diabetes will first be discovered during routine prenatal care.



  • A
    certain portion of women with very mild diabetes – often unknown
    diabetics – will demonstrate symptoms of diabetes only under the stress
    of pregnancy.



  • Diabetes can be a dangerous disease with serious risks for the baby and for the pregnant woman.





Diabetes mellitus



  • Diagnosed by symptoms and clinical signs, confirmed by lab results





Gestational diabetes”



  • Diagnosed solely by lab values (elevated screens or GTT)



  • No symptoms or signs





Risks of Diabetes mellitus in pregnancy



  • fetal malformations (possibly caused by medications). Most common is poorly formed hips.



  • A baby who is under-mature for his gestational age (still “premie” at 37 weeks, lungs not mature)



  • Maternal high blood pressure, PIH, pre-eclampsia more common, more severe



  • Stillbirth more common



  • Very large baby more common (risks of birth trauma)



  • Unexplained late term stillbirth risk increased if diabetes poorly controlled



  • Risk of hypoglycemic baby after birth (cure is to feed baby!)



  • Diabetes mellitus symptoms, signs, and blood sugars all increased in pregnancy.



  • Increased symptoms require increased insulin





Risks of “Gestational Diabetes”



  • No risks to mother or baby



  • SOLE risk is of having a larger than average baby (above 9 pounds)





Discussion:


Women
metabolize sugar differently when they are pregnant. The swings between
high and low are larger (it’s one cause of morning sickness). The normal
blood sugar levels are slightly elevated from non-pregnant. This makes
it harder to distinguish between normal elevation and mild diabetes.


Diabetic
women frequently spill glucose, but occasional glycosuria is common in
pregnancy among non-diabetic women. Daily testing shows that most women
will spill sugar a few times during pregnancy (generally after a high
sugar meal).




Diabetes
Mellitus can elevate maternal and fetal risks in pregnancy. Every
effort should be made to discover the “hidden diabetic” or the
“borderline diabetic” who may develop the condition while pregnant.
Testing methods have recently been devised to detect hidden diabetics.
These tests rely on large doses of glucose to force a “stress situation”
and expose the hidden diabetic. The tests are controversial because it
is does not mimic a normal situation, and high numbers of women will
fail the test, even though they do not have diabetes. Most of the women
who fail the test, will pass it on another day (test is not
reproducible).a better test to detect Diabetes Mellitus is the A1c. The
A1c will be normal in many women who fail the Glucose Tolerance Test.






Even
though normal non-diabetic women’s blood sugar NORMALY runs higher, the
levels used to “discover” diabetes in pregnancy are actually set LOWER
than when not pregnant! (the levels seem to be rather arbitrary. I can
find no data to support lower ranges in pregnancy; the levels are based
on theory)




The test
recommended by the ADA to discover diabetes in non-pregnant people is
the 75 gram two hour screen. Normal values are at:


fasting <115


1 hour < 200


2 hours < 140.




Often,
pregnant women are arbitrarily given the 50gm 3 hour challenge, with
varying “normal” results listed by different sources (results seem to be
based purely on opinion)




NDDG scale


Fasting <105


1 hour < 190


2 hours < 165


3 hours < 145




or another one: (Carpenter and Coustan)


fasting < 95


1 hour < 180


2 hours < 155


3 hours < 140.




Each of these scales is equally acceptable. The decision to call a woman “gestational diabetic” rests upon which chart the careprovider prefers.


Queston
without answer: Is this logical? Why should pregnant women be assigned
normal values LOWER than the levels which would trigger a diagnosis when
they are not pregnant? A “logical” approach would be to assign levels a
bit higher – or even a number unchanged from the non-pregnancy “normal
values”.




The
American Diabetes Association recommends that every pregnant woman be
screened with a one hour 50 gram test (values taken at fasting and at
one hour).


This test is similar to a simple post-prandial screen (values taken one hour after a meal).


A
value over 140 requires a follow-up 3-hour GTT. However, because blood
sugars run higher in pregnancy – even in non-diabetic women -- about 15%
of women will “fail” the 50 GM screen and become candidates for the
3-hour GTT.


The
timing of the test is also important also. The most accurate time for
screening is between 24 to 28 weeks – although many people do the tests
without respect to gestational age.








According to ACOG, women who fit all the low risk categories do not “need” to be screened:



  • under 25 years of age,



  • not “morbidly obese”



  • no family history



  • not a high risk ethnic group




A
competing view is that EVERY woman should be screened – regardless of
risk status – because of the theoretical chance of discovering a case of
hidden diabetes.




Gestational diabetes in and of itself – does not actually exist as a “disease process”


Distinction between Diabetes Mellitus and “Gestational Diabetes”



  • Gestational Diabetes” is without symptoms, signs or effects on baby



  • Fasting glucose and post-prandials normal or only slightly elevated



  • A1c is not elevated



  • No – or rare – gylcosuria



  • No ketosis





A woman
with diabetes mellitus – regardless of when it is first discovered –
has blood values far in excess of those used to diagnose “gestational
diabetes”. She will usually have a history of insulin-dependent diabetes
among family members, and show SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS of diabetes:



  • excessive weight loss or weight gain



  • extreme thirst



  • poly-uria (increased frequency, and larger amounts of. urine)



  • glycosuruia. —sugar in the urine



  • ketonuria – ketones in the urine



  • Possibly cardiovascular symptoms – leading to high blood pressure



  • Poor healing of cuts and scrapes



  • Frequent infections, including vaginal yeast infections





In pregnancy:





  • the fundal heights will usually be large-for-dates



  • the baby will be large-for-dates;



  • excessive amniotic fluid (hydramnios) is common





The rate
of large babies is statistically the same even when a woman follows a
“gestational diabetes diet” . Studies of women who followed a diabetic
diet and also took insulin, show an average reduction in fetal size of
about a quarter of a pound –not obstetrically significant.




. Most babies can be born vaginally – even very large babies.


Avoid induction.i


Avoid induction


A prospective study of 262 women with macrosomic babies as predicted by sonography (over 90th
percentile). Half (115) had an elective induction with macrosomia as
the only indication. induced for macrosomia. With elective induction,
the cesarean rate was 57%, significantly higher than the 31% rate with
spontaneous labor (P < .01). The induced group also had a
significantly higher EFW and birth weight. When logistic regression was
used to control for birth weight, parity, and care provider, elective
induction was still associated with a higher risk of cesarean delivery
than was spontaneous labor (adjusted odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence
interval 1.2-5.9; P < .02) Obstet Gynecol 1993 Apr;81(4):492-6 Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Combs CA, Singh NB, Khoury JC.




Induction of labor for “impending macrosmia” raises the cesarean rate, without improving outcomes.ii




The
antenatal prediction of fetal macrosomia is associated with a marked
increase in cesarean deliveries without a significant reduction in the
incidence of shoulder dystocia or fetal injury. Ultrasonography and
labor induction for patients at risk for fetal macrosomia should be
discouraged”


Am
J Obstet Gynecol 1995 Oct;173(4):1215-9 Fetal macrosomia: does
antenatal prediction affect delivery route and birth outcome? Weeks JW,
Pitman T, Spinnato JA 2nd.











Debate over screening for gestational diabetes


From: C-upi@clari.net (UPI / Stories of modern science...from UPI., Bill Clough (UPI))
Organization: Copyright 1997 by United Press International ** via ClariNet **
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 0:51:14 PST


BOSTON, Nov. 26 (UPI) -- Toronto researchers say too many mothers-to-
be are getting unnecessary blood tests for pregnancy related diabetes.


The scientists say they have developed a simple screening technique
to determine who is really at risk. They estimate the technique could
cut the number of such tests by one third, eliminating hundreds of
thousands of tests a year.


The new screening method, an evaluation based on a woman's height,
weight, age and race, would also limit false positive readings, which
lead to more complicated, time consuming tests, the scientists say.


In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators from
the University of Toronto used the method to screen more than 3,000
pregnant women, who were also given the standard blood test for
diabetes. They found that nearly 35 percent did not need the blood
tests.


Dr. C. David Naylor says the new method is "dead simple," and "picks up just as many cases as universal screening."


Naylor, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, also
says the study found that false positives dropped about 5 percent with
the new screening method.


Pregnant women are usually screened for gestational diabetes with a
simple blood test, which costs around five dollars and takes an hour.


But if a women gets a false positive from the first test, she is then given an oral glucose tolerance test.


Naylor says this involves a two-day high-carbohydrate diet, fasting
and giving blood four times during three hours in a blood-letting
station. The woman also must drink large, sometimes nauseating, amounts
of sugar water.


Naylor says, "This falls under the heading of serious nuisance for women who are already busy enough."


In a NEJM editorial, Dr. Michael F. Greene of Massachusetts General
Hospital says that the study supports the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association,
which call for selective screening.


But he says, "busy obstetricians are unlikely to wend their way" through a complex diagnostic screen for each pregnant woman.


(Written Mara Bovsun in New York)











Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
queenXofXmean
by on Dec. 1, 2012 at 7:48 PM
This is not a troll post..this was just a simple question...no need to be rude...i was just wondering why anyone would refuse this test or any other test


Quoting nicki.hemingway:

You clearly are very ignorant about the horrible glucose drink that they make you take to take the test.  It is pure refined sugar.  No one consumes that much pure sugar without health consquences.  A child could take this drink and they will test out of normal glucose ranges.  GD is by and large a made up condition.  It is a dx to explain a large baby.  Yes true diabeties is a very serious condition, GD has no side effects other than a large baby.  GD is not and never will be diabeties.  Now can a woman develop true diabeties (I or II) yes, but the GTT will not diagnose it, you need a A1C or Insulin levels to diagnose diabeties.  I have been diabetic for 13 years, and my Endo has stated thatthe GTT is inaccurate and does not show diabeties. So I am caliing this, TROLL POST!!!!

Quoting x_Starr_x:


did I say anything about the test NO I DIDNT. clearly stating a fact.





Quoting nicki.hemingway:

Still does not mean that taking that horrible innaccurate test is good for you.  My midwife pulls my A1C twice with other routine bloodwork and Insulin levels after 28 weeks. These are much more accurate diabeties tests and not the horrible drink that can cause even non-pregnant women to fail. 

Quoting x_Starr_x:

just because you don't eat crap DOES NOT MEAN you won't get it GD is WAY different that type 1 or 2.








Quoting Heather2001:

Because I never put that amount of processed, high-sugar crap in my body at any one time ever in my pregnancy, why would I for a test?  It makes me feel horrible afterwards.  I allowed my doc to do a couple random blood sugar finger pricks at my appointments and that was enough to know that I didn't have GD.









Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Raeann11
by Platinum Member on Dec. 1, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Because I have done my research, talked to my midwives about it. The smart thing they do is every month I go in. They have a strip that tests my sugar levels. 

They are actually finding out that baby's in womb can have it and mother have no signs at all. I wish I had a link but I don't. My midwife was telling me about it. When she was one of her week midwife trips. 

nicki.hemingway
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 3:23 AM
4 moms liked this

But it turned into a troll post too.  If you wanted info then you could have just asked for information.  The way the question was asked almost guarenteed drama.  Also most tests in pregnancy are A) Inaccurate and B) Optional.  A simple google search would have netted the information about the inaccuracy of the test.  Many Ob's have a god complex when it comes to testing and they recomend useless tests so that they get paid more.  More mothers need to learn to do research and do less taking what their dr says for granted. 

Quoting queenXofXmean:

This is not a troll post..this was just a simple question...no need to be rude...i was just wondering why anyone would refuse this test or any other test


Quoting nicki.hemingway:

You clearly are very ignorant about the horrible glucose drink that they make you take to take the test.  It is pure refined sugar.  No one consumes that much pure sugar without health consquences.  A child could take this drink and they will test out of normal glucose ranges.  GD is by and large a made up condition.  It is a dx to explain a large baby.  Yes true diabeties is a very serious condition, GD has no side effects other than a large baby.  GD is not and never will be diabeties.  Now can a woman develop true diabeties (I or II) yes, but the GTT will not diagnose it, you need a A1C or Insulin levels to diagnose diabeties.  I have been diabetic for 13 years, and my Endo has stated thatthe GTT is inaccurate and does not show diabeties. So I am caliing this, TROLL POST!!!!

Quoting x_Starr_x:


did I say anything about the test NO I DIDNT. clearly stating a fact.





Quoting nicki.hemingway:

Still does not mean that taking that horrible innaccurate test is good for you.  My midwife pulls my A1C twice with other routine bloodwork and Insulin levels after 28 weeks. These are much more accurate diabeties tests and not the horrible drink that can cause even non-pregnant women to fail. 

Quoting x_Starr_x:

just because you don't eat crap DOES NOT MEAN you won't get it GD is WAY different that type 1 or 2.








Quoting Heather2001:

Because I never put that amount of processed, high-sugar crap in my body at any one time ever in my pregnancy, why would I for a test?  It makes me feel horrible afterwards.  I allowed my doc to do a couple random blood sugar finger pricks at my appointments and that was enough to know that I didn't have GD.










Please excuse my typos. I baby wear at the computer and I have to type around a bobbing head.


Lilypie Third Birthday tickersLilypie Second Birthday tickers

Daisypath Anniversary tickersLilypie Pregnancy tickers
nicki.hemingway
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 3:25 AM

GD is by and large a dx without a disease.   A large baby is not a medical emergency unless other factors are present.  If you dr really thinks you have diabeties then ask for a A1C and Insulin draw as these are the gold standards for Diabeties diagnosis. 

Quoting Plus-size-mommy:

So, I took my one hour the other day, my level was 135 which is their cutoff so now they want me to do the 2 hr fasting test. I, technically, did not fail. I'd love your opinion on this. I asked if I could decline and she went to scare tactics and said the baby's lungs may not develop, lungs may be too large, or baby could even pass away from Gd.

Quoting doulala:


GESTATIONAL DIABETES Gail Hart (Gist of Midwifery)





  • A
    certain portion of people are unaware they have diabetes Mellitus until
    their symptoms become severe enough to send them to the doctor or
    hospital.



  • Some of
    these unknown diabetics are women who will become pregnant, and their
    diabetes will first be discovered during routine prenatal care.



  • A
    certain portion of women with very mild diabetes – often unknown
    diabetics – will demonstrate symptoms of diabetes only under the stress
    of pregnancy.



  • Diabetes can be a dangerous disease with serious risks for the baby and for the pregnant woman.





Diabetes mellitus



  • Diagnosed by symptoms and clinical signs, confirmed by lab results





Gestational diabetes”



  • Diagnosed solely by lab values (elevated screens or GTT)



  • No symptoms or signs





Risks of Diabetes mellitus in pregnancy



  • fetal malformations (possibly caused by medications). Most common is poorly formed hips.



  • A baby who is under-mature for his gestational age (still “premie” at 37 weeks, lungs not mature)



  • Maternal high blood pressure, PIH, pre-eclampsia more common, more severe



  • Stillbirth more common



  • Very large baby more common (risks of birth trauma)



  • Unexplained late term stillbirth risk increased if diabetes poorly controlled



  • Risk of hypoglycemic baby after birth (cure is to feed baby!)



  • Diabetes mellitus symptoms, signs, and blood sugars all increased in pregnancy.



  • Increased symptoms require increased insulin





Risks of “Gestational Diabetes”



  • No risks to mother or baby



  • SOLE risk is of having a larger than average baby (above 9 pounds)





Discussion:


Women
metabolize sugar differently when they are pregnant. The swings between
high and low are larger (it’s one cause of morning sickness). The normal
blood sugar levels are slightly elevated from non-pregnant. This makes
it harder to distinguish between normal elevation and mild diabetes.


Diabetic
women frequently spill glucose, but occasional glycosuria is common in
pregnancy among non-diabetic women. Daily testing shows that most women
will spill sugar a few times during pregnancy (generally after a high
sugar meal).




Diabetes
Mellitus can elevate maternal and fetal risks in pregnancy. Every
effort should be made to discover the “hidden diabetic” or the
“borderline diabetic” who may develop the condition while pregnant.
Testing methods have recently been devised to detect hidden diabetics.
These tests rely on large doses of glucose to force a “stress situation”
and expose the hidden diabetic. The tests are controversial because it
is does not mimic a normal situation, and high numbers of women will
fail the test, even though they do not have diabetes. Most of the women
who fail the test, will pass it on another day (test is not
reproducible).a better test to detect Diabetes Mellitus is the A1c. The
A1c will be normal in many women who fail the Glucose Tolerance Test.






Even
though normal non-diabetic women’s blood sugar NORMALY runs higher, the
levels used to “discover” diabetes in pregnancy are actually set LOWER
than when not pregnant! (the levels seem to be rather arbitrary. I can
find no data to support lower ranges in pregnancy; the levels are based
on theory)




The test
recommended by the ADA to discover diabetes in non-pregnant people is
the 75 gram two hour screen. Normal values are at:


fasting <115


1 hour < 200


2 hours < 140.




Often,
pregnant women are arbitrarily given the 50gm 3 hour challenge, with
varying “normal” results listed by different sources (results seem to be
based purely on opinion)




NDDG scale


Fasting <105


1 hour < 190


2 hours < 165


3 hours < 145




or another one: (Carpenter and Coustan)


fasting < 95


1 hour < 180


2 hours < 155


3 hours < 140.




Each of these scales is equally acceptable. The decision to call a woman “gestational diabetic” rests upon which chart the careprovider prefers.


Queston
without answer: Is this logical? Why should pregnant women be assigned
normal values LOWER than the levels which would trigger a diagnosis when
they are not pregnant? A “logical” approach would be to assign levels a
bit higher – or even a number unchanged from the non-pregnancy “normal
values”.




The
American Diabetes Association recommends that every pregnant woman be
screened with a one hour 50 gram test (values taken at fasting and at
one hour).


This test is similar to a simple post-prandial screen (values taken one hour after a meal).


A
value over 140 requires a follow-up 3-hour GTT. However, because blood
sugars run higher in pregnancy – even in non-diabetic women -- about 15%
of women will “fail” the 50 GM screen and become candidates for the
3-hour GTT.


The
timing of the test is also important also. The most accurate time for
screening is between 24 to 28 weeks – although many people do the tests
without respect to gestational age.








According to ACOG, women who fit all the low risk categories do not “need” to be screened:



  • under 25 years of age,



  • not “morbidly obese”



  • no family history



  • not a high risk ethnic group




A
competing view is that EVERY woman should be screened – regardless of
risk status – because of the theoretical chance of discovering a case of
hidden diabetes.




Gestational diabetes in and of itself – does not actually exist as a “disease process”


Distinction between Diabetes Mellitus and “Gestational Diabetes”



  • Gestational Diabetes” is without symptoms, signs or effects on baby



  • Fasting glucose and post-prandials normal or only slightly elevated



  • A1c is not elevated



  • No – or rare – gylcosuria



  • No ketosis





A woman
with diabetes mellitus – regardless of when it is first discovered –
has blood values far in excess of those used to diagnose “gestational
diabetes”. She will usually have a history of insulin-dependent diabetes
among family members, and show SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS of diabetes:



  • excessive weight loss or weight gain



  • extreme thirst



  • poly-uria (increased frequency, and larger amounts of. urine)



  • glycosuruia. —sugar in the urine



  • ketonuria – ketones in the urine



  • Possibly cardiovascular symptoms – leading to high blood pressure



  • Poor healing of cuts and scrapes



  • Frequent infections, including vaginal yeast infections





In pregnancy:





  • the fundal heights will usually be large-for-dates



  • the baby will be large-for-dates;



  • excessive amniotic fluid (hydramnios) is common





The rate
of large babies is statistically the same even when a woman follows a
“gestational diabetes diet” . Studies of women who followed a diabetic
diet and also took insulin, show an average reduction in fetal size of
about a quarter of a pound –not obstetrically significant.




. Most babies can be born vaginally – even very large babies.


Avoid induction.i


Avoid induction


A prospective study of 262 women with macrosomic babies as predicted by sonography (over 90th
percentile). Half (115) had an elective induction with macrosomia as
the only indication. induced for macrosomia. With elective induction,
the cesarean rate was 57%, significantly higher than the 31% rate with
spontaneous labor (P < .01). The induced group also had a
significantly higher EFW and birth weight. When logistic regression was
used to control for birth weight, parity, and care provider, elective
induction was still associated with a higher risk of cesarean delivery
than was spontaneous labor (adjusted odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence
interval 1.2-5.9; P < .02) Obstet Gynecol 1993 Apr;81(4):492-6 Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Combs CA, Singh NB, Khoury JC.




Induction of labor for “impending macrosmia” raises the cesarean rate, without improving outcomes.ii




The
antenatal prediction of fetal macrosomia is associated with a marked
increase in cesarean deliveries without a significant reduction in the
incidence of shoulder dystocia or fetal injury. Ultrasonography and
labor induction for patients at risk for fetal macrosomia should be
discouraged”


Am
J Obstet Gynecol 1995 Oct;173(4):1215-9 Fetal macrosomia: does
antenatal prediction affect delivery route and birth outcome? Weeks JW,
Pitman T, Spinnato JA 2nd.











Debate over screening for gestational diabetes


From: C-upi@clari.net (UPI / Stories of modern science...from UPI., Bill Clough (UPI))
Organization: Copyright 1997 by United Press International ** via ClariNet **
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 0:51:14 PST


BOSTON, Nov. 26 (UPI) -- Toronto researchers say too many mothers-to-
be are getting unnecessary blood tests for pregnancy related diabetes.


The scientists say they have developed a simple screening technique
to determine who is really at risk. They estimate the technique could
cut the number of such tests by one third, eliminating hundreds of
thousands of tests a year.


The new screening method, an evaluation based on a woman's height,
weight, age and race, would also limit false positive readings, which
lead to more complicated, time consuming tests, the scientists say.


In a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, investigators from
the University of Toronto used the method to screen more than 3,000
pregnant women, who were also given the standard blood test for
diabetes. They found that nearly 35 percent did not need the blood
tests.


Dr. C. David Naylor says the new method is "dead simple," and "picks up just as many cases as universal screening."


Naylor, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, also
says the study found that false positives dropped about 5 percent with
the new screening method.


Pregnant women are usually screened for gestational diabetes with a
simple blood test, which costs around five dollars and takes an hour.


But if a women gets a false positive from the first test, she is then given an oral glucose tolerance test.


Naylor says this involves a two-day high-carbohydrate diet, fasting
and giving blood four times during three hours in a blood-letting
station. The woman also must drink large, sometimes nauseating, amounts
of sugar water.


Naylor says, "This falls under the heading of serious nuisance for women who are already busy enough."


In a NEJM editorial, Dr. Michael F. Greene of Massachusetts General
Hospital says that the study supports the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Diabetes Association,
which call for selective screening.


But he says, "busy obstetricians are unlikely to wend their way" through a complex diagnostic screen for each pregnant woman.


(Written Mara Bovsun in New York)












Please excuse my typos. I baby wear at the computer and I have to type around a bobbing head.


Lilypie Third Birthday tickersLilypie Second Birthday tickers

Daisypath Anniversary tickersLilypie Pregnancy tickers
Devious103102
by Ruby Member on Dec. 2, 2012 at 3:56 AM

I've refused it with my last pregnancy because when I did it with my youngest (and with the pregnancy before that) it made me so sick that I literally passed out in the office.  I wasn't going to put my body through that again, esp when my chances of getting GD are slim to none (NEVER had it nor has anyone in my family (or DH's, if it even matters) ever had it.

Rayawni
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 4:16 AM
2 moms liked this
Where in the world did you get this info?

Posting one study does not make absolute truth. There are many studies and many things that conflict.

Some women are on insulin during their pregnancy for gestational diabetes. After pregnancy there glucose goes down and they don't need insulin at all.

Op- my advice: don't ask people in this forum any questions about docs and tests because you will get bashed. This is a very doctor/ nurse/ medical intervention hating group. I've given up for the most part even replying unless it has something to do with inductions etc. and processes if you come to the hospital that i can give info on since I work L and D.


Quoting nicki.hemingway:

You clearly are very ignorant about the horrible glucose drink that they make you take to take the test.  It is pure refined sugar.  No one consumes that much pure sugar without health consquences.  A child could take this drink and they will test out of normal glucose ranges.  GD is by and large a made up condition.  It is a dx to explain a large baby.  Yes true diabeties is a very serious condition, GD has no side effects other than a large baby.  GD is not and never will be diabeties.  Now can a woman develop true diabeties (I or II) yes, but the GTT will not diagnose it, you need a A1C or Insulin levels to diagnose diabeties.  I have been diabetic for 13 years, and my Endo has stated thatthe GTT is inaccurate and does not show diabeties. So I am caliing this, TROLL POST!!!!

Quoting x_Starr_x:

did I say anything about the test NO I DIDNT. clearly stating a fact.


Quoting nicki.hemingway:

Still does not mean that taking that horrible innaccurate test is good for you.  My midwife pulls my A1C twice with other routine bloodwork and Insulin levels after 28 weeks. These are much more accurate diabeties tests and not the horrible drink that can cause even non-pregnant women to fail. 

Quoting x_Starr_x:just because you don't eat crap DOES NOT MEAN you won't get it GD is WAY different that type 1 or 2.


Quoting Heather2001:

Because I never put that amount of processed, high-sugar crap in my body at any one time ever in my pregnancy, why would I for a test?  It makes me feel horrible afterwards.  I allowed my doc to do a couple random blood sugar finger pricks at my appointments and that was enough to know that I didn't have GD.



Diamondblue1
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 4:53 AM
i just had my 4th baby 17days ago. I was borderline GD so they told me to watch what i ate and i had to check my sugars 4 times a day and my urine once a day.that was the first time i had it and my second child was 10 pounds at birth but we didn't know she was going to be that big. This baby i just had was 9 pounds 14 ounces but my hubby side of the family is big boned and solid but i'm glad i took the test so i could know what to look out for and the risks.
jessymoka
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM
2 moms liked this
The past three times I have taken that test it's been horrible, absolutely horrible!
I break out into a cold sweat, ears ringing, vomit, vision blurs over, and I pass out. All three times.
The second time I took it, the lab lost my blood work. }:-(
I refused to do it a second time.

With my last pregnancy (before this one) I took it in my midwifes office. She saw what a wreck I was and told me if I was ever pregnant again, insist upon a diet controlled GD test.
I just don't understand why they don't do THAT to begin with?!?!?
It just seems to make more sense. Who pumps themselves that full of sugar besides a Mountain Dew junky???
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
TLQSlovesME
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 9:55 AM
1 mom liked this

If someone chooses not to take the test, let that be their decision. It's not you, so don't worry about it.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)