Question for those against routine use of ultrasound... - Page 2

[MyCalling]

I just don't understand why people would be against ultra sound. It is sound waves, not a lazer beam. Your regular preservative laidened foods are more harmful to your child then a sound wave.

I personally have u/s each pregnancy and will continue to have them. This pregnancy I found out Friday I am having twins. I have a lot of special needs to take care of because of this and it is something important to know about. The same thing with placenta positioning, possible defects, growth retardation, etc.

If you were to leave the probe on one spot for weeks on end, you might have a change in the cells. This is obviously nothing that will happen in an ultra sound and you would do far more harm playing classical music to your womb too loudly.

[Chiromom]

Ummmm...actually ultrasound is not "just a sound wave".

The original sound wave is converted to a mechanical wave when it hits a fluid medium. Cells are also made largely of fluid and there are several studies showing a dramatic response/shift in the form of the cell when subjected to an ultrasound wave. This is part of why a fluid barrier (gel) is needed between the mother's skin and the machine to protect the cells in the mother's skin from a burn. Do a quick search for ultrasound studies on these boards to find links to these studies.

I do not mean this statement to judge the OP for considering an ultrasound but it is inaccurate for the previous poster to state that there is no possible danger. This is simply not factual and there is much evidence (albeit contraversial) that ultrasound is not harmless.

My personal vote is no ultrasound because it would not change the way I managed a pregnancy (ie, I wouldn't terminate) and in this particular instance there are too many variables which could allow for a false negative or a false positive which would not serve the purpose of easing the mother's (my) mind. However, I am not in this situation, so I cannot and do not presume to judge.

Please continue with your discussion as before my interruption.

[rachel]

I agree with the above/previous poster!

[jessitron]

If nothing else, ultrasound can cause problems psychologically. Yesterday, on babycenter, a poster was devastated when her doctor told her that the ultrasound found a serious heart defect in her baby, requiring open-heart surgery immediately after birth. She freaked out, hyperventilated, couldn't function the rest of the day until her doctor called back. He had called the ultrasound tech and learned that the reported heart defect was a TYPO!

That chance of false positive is the main reason we're skipping the ultrasound.

[mollyeilis]

nak

only posting b/c of a few posts above...

in all the research i did, the actual studies done (once you get through all the happyjoy puff articles) almost all conclude with "this could cause problems due to the nature of ultrasound, it would be hard to prove but we're woirried about its widespread use and we need more research."

It's sonar on tiny baby cells that are differentiating. Big huge Navy sonar is causing changes in the physiology of bug huge whales, causing their innate senses of direction, and they are beaching themselves in areas of major sonar use. DH was and FIL is a sailor and they are both aware that sonar boils water and the things in the water.

All that said, I agreed to doppler in labor, and doppler is way worse than ultrasound (much stronger). Due to a LONG labor I had huge amounts of doppler, and the last day of labor I was squirming away from the wand b/c it was burning me, and the baby was thrashing when they dopplered us. So if given a choice between doppler and ultrasound, even if just to hear the heart, I'd go with ultrasound.

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by Chiromom

Ummmm...actually ultrasound is not "just a sound wave".

The original sound wave is converted to a mechanical wave when it hits a fluid medium. Cells are also made largely of fluid and there are several studies showing a dramatic response/shift in the form of the cell when subjected to an ultrasound wave. This is part of why a fluid barrier (gel) is needed between the mother's skin and the machine to protect the cells in the mother's skin from a burn. Do a quick search for ultrasound studies on these boards to find links to these studies.

I do not mean this statement to judge the OP for considering an ultrasound but it is inaccurate for the previous poster to state that there is no possible danger. This is simply not factual and there is much evidence (albeit contraversial) that ultrasound is not harmless.

My personal vote is no ultrasound because it would not change the way I managed a pregnancy (ie, I wouldn't terminate) and in this particular instance there are too many variables which could allow for a false negative or a false positive which would not serve the purpose of easing the mother's (my) mind. However, I am not in this situation, so I cannot and do not presume to judge.

Please continue with your discussion as before my interruption.

ITA

How about discussing the effect of "cavation", wherein the fluid boils with the introduction of ultrasound, non-ionizing radiation.

[annakiss]

I know the arguments against ultrasound and I agree. We used a doppler with my last pregnancy, but I was really aware then of the effects or that the doppler was perhaps worse than an ultrasound. Now knowing, I don't want to use either device for a subsequent pregnancy. However, I also have extenuating circumstances that leave a question in my mind.

I didn't want to start a discussion on the merits of ultrasound.

[Chiromom]

Annakiss,

I appreciate that you are informed as to the pros and cons of ultrasound. I just couldn't sit by while another poster inaccurately portrayed the "risks" as non-existant, in case another underinformed person was reading this thread.

As I said before; I think I know what I would do but I am not in your shoes and can see that you are really in turmoil over this. I truly wish you the best of luck in finding the right path for you in your unique and emotional situation.

Best wishes,

Mar

[annakiss]

Thank you, Mar. I truly appreciated your explanation of ultrasound. I just do not want to start a whole discussion about it. I'm just trying to see why people would or would not have an ultrasound in this situation, hoping to shed some new light on mine. I think your post did answer that question and I am glad that you took the time to write it. I just don't want it to take off any further in the direction of discussing the merits of ultrasound. That's another thread. I intended this one to be about this situation.

[Jane]

Anna, I think I remember that you were really startled for a while about your son's appearance, that that bothered you a lot, his look and your reaction.
Do you think knowing in advance would have helped you avoid the things you didn't like about his newborn days? Do you even think you'd react that way again, having been through it before?
I'm only against ultrasound for me. I'm for thinking it through, and learning, and pondering hypotheticals for everyone else. Then I think you come up with whatever you have to do, and that could be an ultrasound or not.

[candiland]

I voted "maybe", because right now I "know" I wouldn't have one done... but I've never been in the shoes of a mom with this issue, so my view could have been different, if that makes any sense.

[candiland]

Originally Posted by MyCalling

I have a lot of special needs to take care of because of this and it is something important to know about. The same thing with placenta positioning, possible defects, growth retardation, etc.

Actually, any midwife could easily determine twins simply through measurements. "Placental positioning" does not even matter until the last week or so, as the uterus stretches and almost always carries the placenta away from the cervix. If the placenta is partially or wholly covering the cervix, mom and midwife would notice unusual bleeding during labor and plenty of time would be had to make other arrangements. Possible defects? Such as growth retardation? Again, simple things like measuring accurately detects these things.

Sorry, AK, I can't let misinformation slide

[annakiss]

Originally Posted by candiland

Sorry, AK, I can't let misinformation slide

No it's cool. Information here is for everyone. I just don't want to start debate.

[annakiss]

Originally Posted by Apricot

Anna, I think I remember that you were really startled for a while about your son's appearance, that that bothered you a lot, his look and your reaction.
Do you think knowing in advance would have helped you avoid the things you didn't like about his newborn days? Do you even think you'd react that way again, having been through it before?

We were confused for sure by my son's cleft. And I really believe that I missed out on something at his birth because of the confusion I felt as a result of his cleft. I feel like I missed out on the perfect baby after all the work I did. I don't love my son any less, but it's still something that I grieve. I would really like the opportunity to have a perfect baby - I see them everywhere, so it's gotta be easy enough, right? If that's not what happens, then we'll deal with it. We dealt with Alex's cleft just fine. I still have grief, but I don't think it's inappropriate or misplaced. I just haven't decided totally if I would want to know ahead of time or not. Or if I would like some reassurance.

I took a lot of time to make sure that I never accidentally got pregnant again - I wanted to plan subsequent children carefully to make sure that I did everything in my power to prevent a cleft from happening again. I'm not sure if an ultrasound will put my mind at ease at all. I'm not sure if I could trust it.

Interestingly, when we went to the cleft and craniofacial clinic when he was five days old and spoke with a genetic counselor, she explained that 3D ultrasound would be available to us for any subsequent pregnancies and that we could always use it as a means to find out ahead of time. I told her then (and Jon as well) that we hadn't had any ultrasounds with that pregnancy and I wasn't interested in them, and I didn't see what difference it would make because we would still have to deal with it one way or the other.

I'm thinking that it's most likely that I won't choose ultrasound. But until I'm pregnant, and maybe even well into that pregnancy, I can't know for sure how I will feel and I've got to leave it on the table for that reason alone. It's not something that I would resort to lightly, however, which is why I started this poll.

Thanks so much to everyone for your input.

[Jane]

And I really believe that I missed out on something at his birth because of the confusion I felt as a result of his cleft.

Going T but I remember the first few months after he was born you had a sig that was "born at home into his grandmother's hands" or something similar, and I read your birth story and thought that had the most perfectest wonderfulest birth ever.

I'm thinking that it's most likely that I won't choose ultrasound. But until I'm pregnant, and maybe even well into that pregnancy, I can't know for sure how I will feel and I've got to leave it on the table for that reason alone.

I think that sounds appropriate. This is a neat thread to read.