Anyone concerned about ultrasounds? - Page 2 « Back to Group Discussions

[amlikam]

Originally Posted by KDTBabyS613 

Not sure if anyone has seen this...

It pretty much sums up the reasons we don't do routine, prenatal ultrasound.

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp

Thanks for sharing this, it is an important read indeed. I do wonder what it would look like if the sources used were updated to currents stats   I shutter to think. Our family decided on the 2 because it felt right after the losses we have had. However I do agree with the general overuse of u/s and the 3D/4D ones make me so nervous!!!!

I actually had an u/s this morning and all looks lovely. will post another thread so not to hijack.

[Espion]

Originally Posted by KDTBabyS613 

Not sure if anyone has seen this...

It pretty much sums up the reasons we don't do routine, prenatal ultrasound.

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp

(ETA: Sorry about my open mouth insert foot moment.  It doesn't help my cause, and I don't mean to sound like an awful old troll, but that article really touched a nerve.)

I take extreme issue with such an obviously inflammatory piece.  "Medical doctors are inadequately educated on the basics of scientific method"??  Please.  Apparently the author has never heard of the term selection bias.  Perhaps the author needs a course in epidemiology?  We have those in medical school.  Imagine that.  

But then again, doctors have horns, right?  Evil, terrible people who hate babies and people so much that they give up a decade of their lives, $170,000 in debt, to take care of the sick, the angry, and the frustrated.  

This seriously isn't meant for the people posting on this thread.  I know this wasn't where you were going with this.  But I'm hormonal and sick of being portrayed as a money-grubbing low-life.  

Edited by Espion - 10/23/12 at 1:42pm

[amlikam]

Originally Posted by Espion 

I take extreme issue with such an obviously inflammatory piece.  "Medical doctors are inadequately educated on the basics of scientific method"??  Please.  Apparently the author has never heard of the term selection bias.  Perhaps the author needs a course in epidemiology?  We have those in medical school.  Imagine that.  

But then again, doctors have horns, right?  Evil, terrible people who hate babies and people so much that they give up a decade of their lives, $170,000 in debt, to take care of the sick, the angry, and the frustrated.  

This seriously isn't meant for the people posting on this thread.  I know this wasn't where you were going with this.  But I'm hormonal and sick of being portrayed as a money-grubbing low-life.  

I think often we spend so much time demonizing the medical world. I feel there are no bad interventions, just bad uses. Not all providers are bad and we are responsible for our care as much as our provider.

Thank you for reminding me that all providers are human, even if I do not agree with procedural processes most institutions put in place for liability. (which are not always provider driven)

[KDTBabyS613]

I guess this isn't going to be the place for me, after all.  Good luck to all of you with your pregnancies.

[Espion]

Originally Posted by KDTBabyS613 

I guess this isn't going to be the place for me, after all.  Good luck to all of you with your pregnancies.

I don't mean to scare you off or offend.  I'm completely open to other people's opinions; otherwise, this would be the wrong place for me!  It also helps me understand and keep an open mind when people refuse certain things.  I just don't think either side should resort to an I'm right/You're wrong philosophy.  There is so much more to it.  After all, I'm looking for the wisdom of experience, as I've never been pregnant before (or rather, I miscarried the first time).  

Originally Posted by amlikam 

I think often we spend so much time demonizing the medical world. I feel there are no bad interventions, just bad uses. Not all providers are bad and we are responsible for our care as much as our provider.

Thank you for reminding me that all providers are human, even if I do not agree with procedural processes most institutions put in place for liability. (which are not always provider driven)

Thanks for that.  I usually try not to care, but you know, hormones.  

[jr'smom]

Originally Posted by KDTBabyS613 

Not sure if anyone has seen this...
It pretty much sums up the reasons we don't do routine, prenatal ultrasound.

http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp

I appreciate the article. I find it helpful to think about both sides of an issue. It's why I am here. Please stay!!!

[KDTBabyS613]

Sorry, but I am not here to be anyone's punching bag.  I saw (and see) nothing inflammatory or insulting about the article I posted, and I do not wish to be attacked for sharing information on a message board.  Aggressive posters like that are the reason I avoid message boards in general, to be honest.  I don't care if people disagree with me (they often do), but I object to being yelled at for daring to attempt intelligent dialogue.  Quite frankly, I have a feeling I will do just fine without that kind of "support" and "information" from other people.  Best of luck to you.

[Espion]

Originally Posted by KDTBabyS613 

Sorry, but I am not here to be anyone's punching bag.  I saw (and see) nothing inflammatory or insulting about the article I posted, and I do not wish to be attacked for sharing information on a message board.  Aggressive posters like that are the reason I avoid message boards in general, to be honest.  I don't care if people disagree with me (they often do), but I object to being yelled at for daring to attempt intelligent dialogue.  Quite frankly, I have a feeling I will do just fine without that kind of "support" and "information" from other people.  Best of luck to you.

Again, I did not intend my remarks to you and I'm sorry that you felt attacked, because that is not what the internet is for and it makes me feel terrible that you feel that way.  Did you see my PM?  I would sincerely hate to be the reason for you to not enjoy this community, because it is really a lovely one.  

[Espion]

I'm sorry I unintentionally derailed this guys.  :(  I feel rotten.  

[anniegirl]

Espion . FWIW, I didn't find that to be a very well written article either. There are clearly pros AND cons to routine ultrasounds. And while it's unfortunate that middle of the road information can be difficult to find, I'm still grateful that the technology is available and that we have the choice to use it or not.
 

For myself, I must admit I am really hoping to get an early ultrasound next week at my first appointment. I've had a lot of anxiety the last couple weeks with spotting and cramping and being unsure of my dates etc. that I think the reassurance of seeing the heartbeat (or knowing if the pregnancy isn't viable), would be better for me and baby than continuing the anxiety.

I will also have a 20 week scan. The outcome of that scan will help me decide where to give birth (home or hospital).

[realtime]

I am a sonographer (ultrasound technologist) with more than 25 years experience. I would like to piont out that the article questioning the medical need for ultrasound (US) is from 1999. My institution was involved with at least one of the cited large-scale clinical trials that concluded there is no difference in outcomes between patients who did and didnot receive USs. No one disputes the validity of the reuslts but the methods used to acquire the data has come under much scrutiny and, therefore the methods obviously impacted the results.

 Although there are several valid arguments (and cited references to support them) one issue that always comes to mind for me is this: if the use of US catches one abnormality that needs immediate attention at the time of birth and you are the parents of that baby then your perspective on the use is likely very different than looking at the results of large-scale randomized clinical trials. It is the same as using mammography or any other imaging modality for "screening". There will be false-positive cases and false negative cases but if mammography catches an unexpected cancer (as it is designed to do) and it saves lives then it has proven itself.

I am reminded of a time when I was coming back from a medical conference in Europe and while passing through customs the official asked me what I did in EU - when I replied I did ultrasound and was lecturing at a conference his reply was "Ultrasound saved my wife's life because it found a breast cancer that wasn't seen on the x-ray". He whisked me through and couldn't thank me enough - regardless of the fact that I personally had nothing to do w/ his wife's care!

The bottom line is this: the use of US does detect abnormalities and provides peace of mind to expectant mothers and fathers to be. I will add that the accuracy of sonography (US) is DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PERSON PERFORMING THE EXAM. Thus, I encourage everyone who is having a scan done (OB, GYN or any other type of US) to inquire about the qualifications of the person holding the transducer (they should be "ARDMS" credntialled) and / or the accreditation status of the laboratory (there are several accrediting bodies including the AIUM, ACR and ICAVAL).

feel free to contact me directly if I can provide any assistance.

realtime... 

[SweetMama34]

Holy drama...already? LOL

I am SO missing the 'attack' here - I think someone is being too sensitive.

It's all good, ladies...we don't all need to agree on everything. That would make this an amazingly boring community!

[Espion]

Thank you ladies!  

For my part, I would never scoff at any mom who refused ultrasound (full disclosure, I am not an OB-GYN).  Ultrasound has been used extensively since the early 80's and no one has yet been able to prove a scientifically sound hypothesis that ultrasound causes harm.  It is very hard to conduct these studies, because if there is something wrong (like say, your amniotic fluid index is low)...then you get more ultrasounds.  But to say that more ultrasounds caused the defect...well that is circular logic.  (Weirdly enough, they have shown that there can be an increase in 'left-handedness' in males only.  Crazy, huh?)  

The bare facts are that ultrasound can create heat.  The effect of this heat on a fetus is unknown and no one should ever dwell on the belly or vag for a excessive period of time.  (ETA:  ultrasound also has some mechanical effects, but these are generally thought to be nil because the fetus floats in fluid, not gas.  full disclosure, I am not a physicist.  :p)  

It's a "well, it's been done for 3 decades and it doesn't seem to hurt" versus "I'd rather not risk it, because no one really knows" call.  And that call is for mom to make.  

[amlikam]

Originally Posted by Espion 

Thank you ladies!  

For my part, I would never scoff at any mom who refused ultrasound (full disclosure, I am not an OB-GYN).  Ultrasound has been used extensively since the early 80's and no one has yet been able to prove a scientifically sound hypothesis that ultrasound causes harm.  It is very hard to conduct these studies, because if there is something wrong (like say, your amniotic fluid index is low)...then you get more ultrasounds.  But to say that more ultrasounds caused the defect...well that is circular logic.  (Weirdly enough, they have shown that there can be an increase in 'left-handedness' in males only.  Crazy, huh?)  

The bare facts are that ultrasound can create heat.  The effect of this heat on a fetus is unknown and no one should ever dwell on the belly or vag for a excessive period of time.  (ETA:  ultrasound also has some mechanical effects, but these are generally thought to be nil because the fetus floats in fluid, not gas.  full disclosure, I am not a physicist.  :p)  

It's a "well, it's been done for 3 decades and it doesn't seem to hurt" versus "I'd rather not risk it, because no one really knows" call.  And that call is for mom to make.  

Epison, for me I take issue with how the data collected from an u/c can significantly impact a mother's care model. While I see them as a great complimentary care test when needed (or wanted) I have seen through my work the difference women's care based off this test. (I am a doula)

For me it isn't so much the inherent dangers of the test but rather how care can quickly shift to fix a problem which isn't always there. Additionaly the idea of playing with EDD based on size of one growth curve is fustrating. In the end I do believe they are one of the better pieces of modern technology and I am thankful for them.

Whether a woman elects for one or not is of little importance to me and can see the benefits both ways; for me it is more about supporting the fully informed choice of the woman. (including myself, which is why I would only work with a provider ok with me either getting an u/s or not and respecting my choice. this goes for the midwives I am interviewing as well, since I will be making the choice for one more u/s around 24 weeks.)

[dayiscoming2006]

They shouldn't be used excessively, but I've read that doppler is much stronger, so if you are good with doppler, why not have an ultrasound? LOL

I think I might want one around 24 weeks. I've had at least one ultrasound with all of my pregnancies. I was told that 24 weeks is a slightly better/more accurate time for checking overall health and the reason it is done a bit earlier/ around 16-20 weeks typically is for those who would consider an abortion if there was a possible problem - (trisomy 13, down syndrome, etc.)

I have a midwife picked out if all goes well. I would rather she used the fetoscope most of the time, though I may be tempted to have her look with the doppler earlier on after my recent early miscarriage. And she prefers to use a doppler during labor and gave good reasons that I'm OK with.

[mLeroux]

Originally Posted by SweetMama34 

Holy drama...already? LOL

I am SO missing the 'attack' here - I think someone is being too sensitive.

It's all good, ladies...we don't all need to agree on everything. That would make this an amazingly boring community!

Ditto that. About 13 years ago when I was PG with my first you couldn't have paid me to get an ultrasound. I was very against them.  As the years have gone by though I've had humbling experiences.  And now 4 kids later I realize that not everything is always black and white.

With my 4th I decided to get an US to make sure everything was alright and to find out the gender since I had 3 girls already I was curious to know. I also felt that I deserved it since I never had one before.  It was another girl BTW.

This time I was not planning on getting one but I have a strange nudging feeling like I should get one at 20 weeks.  I may find out the gender, DH does not want to know he says. 

But, getting back to the "attack" I learned a long time ago that having a little bit of thick skin when navigating and interacting on the boards helps! 

[SweetMama34]

I'm a doula as well - and just recently went to a prenatal with a "high risk" mama (she's 35 - perfectly healthy, not otherwise high risk) - they do growth scans EVERY WEEK at the end of pregnancy. She was told her baby was upwards of 10 pounds at 37 weeks and that this was 'very dangerous' and mom needed to LOSE weight. Yes, they told mom to LOSE weight. I was appalled. Shocked. Disgusted. Bit my tongue, and did some processing with colleagues. I was scared for my client and her baby at this point...who tells a perfectly healthy (normal weight, fit, active) mama to lose weight in the third trimester?

Baby was born at 41w3d - 7 pounds even.

WTH? Ultrasound for size in third trimester? It's bs, IMO. Ultrasound for viability for a woman who has struggled to get and stay pregnant (me?) - no problem. I see a baby, see a heartbeat, measure somewhat close to what I know my dates are - and I'm good. Anatomy scan? Good info there. Gender determination in the same scan? No biggie. Anything past that doesn't seem useful to me with a normal, routine pregnancy.

[Espion]

Originally Posted by amlikam 

For me it isn't so much the inherent dangers of the test but rather how care can quickly shift to fix a problem which isn't always there. 

Agreed.  Personally, I think this is the biggest problem and something we talk about a lot in academics.  Yes, it can be good to be prepared for the very bad things, but what about the grey things?  We cannot always predict if there truly is a problem, and because of this, not only did you end up with excessive prenatal ultrasounds but you also face the possibility of subjecting your infant to multiple tests after birth.  My perspective can hurt me sometimes.  I know the worst that can happen, but that doesn't have to be every mom's burden.  

Sometimes those tests are a blessing, because they can potentially diagnose problems before they hurt the child, but they can also be a curse for the vast majority of infants who are otherwise fine.  

[mamacatsbaby]

This has been a great back and forth. So many great points being made in this thread. Nice discussion ladies! (not that you need me to cheerlead lol)

[pokeyAC]

Even Consumer Reports recommends not getting ultrasounds after the big 20 week one unless there is specific health issue that needs monitoring.  Its use as a measuring tool is so inaccurate that it causes unnecessary interventions.  My sister had GD and the doctor kept telling her the baby would have a big head an shoulders and could be too big to deliver so she had a c-section.  He did have kind of big head, but he was a perfectly average weight, smaller than what the ultrasound said he would be. 

sweetmama- That is totally ridiculous!  You don't tell a pregnant woman to lose weight.  That's crazy!  It doesn't seem like it would make any difference to the baby either.  I don't think you can put a fetus on a diet.