thoughts on ultrasound/doppler?

[BethSLP]

I always thought I'd find out the sex of my baby and get u/s and then recently found out there's some controversy about their safety. What do you guys think about them?

my midwife says that there are "documented changes to the DNA but they don't yet know what they mean." so the jury is still out on them.

any thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated.
XOXO
Beth

[2+twins]

Okay, I'm very much against the use of u/s, doppler, etc. during pregnancy unless there's a very real medical reason to do so. This is b/c I believe my oldest child has been harmed as a result of routine use. It just makes me cringe when I hear people talking about getting them - even for peace of mind. If you could understand the lack of peace of mind you have when your child has been impaired, then you'd understand what I mean. Plus I've been told that transvaginal ultrasound in the 1st trimester carries an increased risk of m/c, so yuck. A few people have PM'd me for more info so I'll just go ahead and recap that here:

With my first daughter I did all the typical ultrasound exposure - vaginal probe u/s twice (first time they thought it was a non-viable pregnancy so they had to recheck in a couple weeks), doppler to hear the heartbeat at every visit, and the big ultrasound around 18-20 weeks. I had a homebirth (totally uncomplicated) so there was no belly-strap ultrasound monitor during labor - just periodic checks with the doppler to hear her heartbeat. Anyway, I had a beautiful, healthy 8 1/2 lb. girl and all seemed fine. During the first year I had some indications that something was off - mainly she hit the milestones at the end of the normal range, but still did fall within normal. When she learned to walk (at a normal age) she was *very* clumsy and would get these huge goose eggs on her forehead all the time. Much much more than a typical kid, which I now know b/c I have a typically developing child. Then her speech was delayed which was finally officially diagnosed at 2 years old, although I had suspected it for awhile. A neurologist saw her and did an MRI and only found a mild delay of myelination which is the fatty coating over the nerves in the brain. This affects a persons gross motor skills which explained why she was so clumsy, couldn't jump when the kids her age could, wasn't a climber, etc. He didn't find anything at to explain her speech issues. Anyway, we didn't know why any of this happened. I was extremely healthy during my pregnancy and didn't take so much as a tylenol during my pregnancy let alone any drugs at birth. And like I mentioned, her birth was uncomplicated and her heart rate was always good. So there just wasn't any explanation.

Then I decided to become a childbirth educator after the birth of my 2nd child. During my training we were shown this video about the risks of ultrasound. I had heard it mentioned by my childbirth instructor when I was pregnant with my first, but honestly I didn't worry too much about it. I had already had almost all my ultrasound exposure by then anyway. I was a bit nervous but basically didn't keep myself up at night about it. So the video talked about how ultrasound has been introduced into pregnancy without ever having been shown to be safe, and studies have now been done both in mice (or rats - I don't remember) and human control groups (pregnant women who were exposed vs. those who weren't) and have found that the exposure does indeed alter things in the developing baby.

First, the exposure is hot. It heats up the cells by a couple degrees which isn't really a good thing. Under a microscope they show what the cells look like before exposure (nice and round, like how I'm sure you've seen pictures of cells look), during exposure (they shake), and after (they're fragmented). For example, they show a network of nerves growing together. It looks like a bunch of long lines all connecting to each other - literally a network. After the exposure they're a mess! Scattered everywhere. The thing we all have to consider is what does that mean to the child? How exactly have they been damaged, and of course to what degree, because clearly *something* has been done. You'll probably learn this if you do end up electing exposure - babies don't like it. Frequently when the heartbeat is checked, the baby gets active and often moves out of the way of it. This is one of the reasons why hospitals like to keep women strapped to the monitor in bed during labor. It's easier to pin the baby down.

Second, the control groups showed several clear differences in children who's mothers had ultrasound exposure during pregnancy to those who didn't. Some of the side effects to those who had were speech delays, disorders of myelination, left handedness, dyslexia, and hearing problems. My daughter has at least 2 of these conditions. Being that there's just no other explanation, I've concluded that her problems were most likely due to ultrasound and I wish now that I could go back and undue it. There never was a medical reason for any of her exposure so I kick myself for that. But I was a first time mom and did what people do. Oh, I also have heard that ultrasound exposure goes 10 generations deep. I'm not sure if any of my sources state that though. What this would mean is that if you're carrying a girl and you're exposed - especially near the end of your pregnancy - your dd would have all her eggs developed and they would be scanned too. The ultrasound could/would alter those eggs and when she has kids they could be affected. And if she has girls, it's passed on even further.
Anyway, here are a bunch of links I've saved about information on ultrasound. I'd recommend reading them then making whatever decision you feel comfortable with:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/104_images.html
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsuspg.htm
http://maternitywise.org/pdfs/gecpc3ch08.pdf
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articl...oundwagner.asp
http://www.mothering.com/articles/pr...efinition.html
http://gentlebirth.org/archives/preScreen.html
http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol11No4/ultra2.htm
http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol16No4/ultrasound.htm
http://www.mothering.com/articles/pr...und-risks.html

I know that's a lot but I hope it helps. Let me know if you want any more info.

Jenne

[2+twins]

I was just thinking about what I posted above and I wanted to follow it up with something. I figure that a lot of people who read that will think or say that there's no way I can know or prove that u/s was the responsible factor in my dd's developmental issues. And they'd be right - I can't prove it - I'll never know for certain. But please, please consider this. These are known potential risks. Would you really risk your child's ability to learn, to develop just to see what they look like before birth or to know their sex? The issues children like mine face are daily and life long difficulties. I'd do anything - anything - to take back the exposure I had during that pregnancy. Perhaps she would still be exactly the same. But at least then I'd know that I had not inadvertantly caused her such problems. Please think hard before opting for ultrasound. Stepping down from my now.

[celestialdreamer]

I'm scheduled for an ultrasound in less than 2 hours to rule out an ectopic pregnancy...thank you for completely freaking me out...really needed that right now! :

[Earth Angel]

Wow love homebirthing. I'm sorry that you must wonder forever if your daughter's difficulties are due to a choice you made......that must be very difficult. Hugs to you mamma

Just wanted to ask, and maybe you don't know...but I was told that the doppler is even worse than the ultrasound on the belly (vaginal is the worst right??? it is the closest to the baby). I was told that since the doppler is so concentrated that it disturbs the cells even more???? Not sure???

The doppler is easy to avoid though because the fetascope is very easy to use.

I agree with love homebirthing. I would only do it in emergency situations. I had a vaginal ultrasound with #2 due to bleeding and the fact that not knowing for up to 3 weeks if I had miscarried was so stressful for me that the stress would be worse for the baby than the ultrasound. With #2 I used the doppler 1x during pregnancy and during his birth. With #1 we checked more often during pregnancy (at the end of his pregnancy is when one of the MW students mentioned the increased risk of the doppler) but nothing during the birth (I arrived at the birth center fully dilated and had a water birth).

With neither did we find out the sex.

It is amazing how routine ultrasound during pregnancy has become. Have you all heard of the ultrasound stores, where you can just walk in and have one done????? Seems a bit irresponsible to me.

I'm scheduled for an ultrasound in less than 2 hours to rule out an ectopic pregnancy...thank you for completely freaking me out...really needed that right now!

celestialdrmrmama, I don't think that love homebirthing was trying to freak anyone out. And as she said, sometimes these tools are necessary (as in your case) for medical reasons, but to use them simply for finding out the gender or your unborn baby then we need to evaluate the risk vs the gain. Hope everything turns out well and the baby is where she/he is supposed to be and you don't have an ectopic pregnancy.

[Earth Angel]

OOOps I didn't realize this was a thread for your April 2006 due date club....I found it posted on the first page of the board. Sorry to jump in on you guys but this a topic I am interested in and have thought a lot about....after I was subscribing I found that it was for the 4/06 due date club.

If it helps any #2 was born on 04/30/04....so I remember fondly finding my BFP in August 04....Congratulations mammas...may you have wonderful pregnancies and births and healthy and happy babys

[2+twins]

Originally Posted by celestialdrmrmama

I'm scheduled for an ultrasound in less than 2 hours to rule out an ectopic pregnancy...thank you for completely freaking me out...really needed that right now! :

Rebecca, I did not mean to freak you or anyone else out. I just want people to be aware of the pros and the cons before making a choice. That's what informed consent is all about and I wasn't given all the information before making my "choice" (which wasn't so much of a choice as it was a 'going along with what everyone does' kind of thing - my own bad). Anyway, what you're talking about is a true medical reason for having an u/s - a very good reason. If I were in your shoes I would not hesitate to have one done. I'm sorry you took offense to what I wrote. I certainly did not mean it that way.

[2+twins]

Originally Posted by Earth Angel

Just wanted to ask, and maybe you don't know...but I was told that the doppler is even worse than the ultrasound on the belly (vaginal is the worst right??? it is the closest to the baby). I was told that since the doppler is so concentrated that it disturbs the cells even more???? Not sure???

I had heard that the doppler was worse than the visual scan but I believe I read recently that that wasn't actually true. It seems worse in that it gives a constant stream of u/s waves (which is why you hear an uninterupted heartbeat) while the visual variety is pulsating. It's something like 1/900th the exposure second for second. But like I said, I thought I read recently (in one of the articles I put above) that one wasn't any worse than the other.

Sorry I can't definitively clear that up for you.

[mommabear]

Hi Beth! Here are my feelings about ultrasound: With ds we chose not to have any. I did not want to use u/s for *screening* purposes (that's when they tell you your odds of there being anything wrong with the baby). We decided that even if there was the potential for a prob (eg Down's), we would not pursue the more invasive testing (eg CVS) nor would we terminate the pregnancy. If, however, a problem was indicated in another way (eg spotting, high blood pressure), then we would have considered it for *diagnostic* purposes (ie to see if there was a heartbeat). Does that make sense? My pg with ds was beautiful, with no complications, followed by a wonderful homebirth. I have known too many people who have gotten unnecessarily freaked out by false-postives on screenings to want to go down that road.

Having said all that, I have had four ultrasounds:

1. To confirm a missed miscarriage with my second pregnancy. My belly had stopped growing, my blood pressure was elevated, and I had lost all pg symptoms, so I knew the baby had died.

2. To date my fourth pregnancy, which I now regret. I had major period craziness after my third miscarriage (very early loss) so my dates were a little wonky. The u/s showed the heartbeat at seven weeks (I thought I was nine), and the baby died a week-and-a-half later.

3. To find out why I was spotting over once a week for a month after that last ultrasound. It showed the baby had died and my body was taking a long time to miscarry.

4. To see if I had retained tissue and would need a D&C -- I did.

So suffice it to say, I feel sick at the thought of ultrasounds. This is totally personal. My experiences have all been negative and I am choosing, with this pregnancy, to be as low-tech as possible. Love-homebirthing echoed all of my physiological concerns with u/s; I agree that the technology is still very new, and we can't possibly know all of the effects.

The decision to have an u/s is a totally personal one. Like love-homebirthing said, so long as our consent is fully *informed*, the choice is ours to make. Every situation and personal history is so different, I hope you get all the information you need, and I wish you peace in your decision.

[eilonwy]

I don't think that ultrasound should be used capriciously, but if you want to get down to it, you can lay any problem on any doorstep with little to no evidence. I could say that having an ultrasound for dating caused my daughter's kidney problems, but that's ridiculous: by the time I had the dating ultrasound, my daughter's kidneys had already formed improperly. Even though I was upset when I found out about it, I was glad that I had the ultrasound that told me that she has a problem with her kidneys (prenatal ultrasound at 20-odd weeks). And I don't hesitate at all when she has her ultrasounds of her kidneys now.

The idea of capricious use of ultrasound is appalling to me, but I feel the same way about new technologies in general. Of course everyone should make an informed decision, and everyone should make their own decision, but I really loathe scare tactics and I'm sorry but your post really reads that way to me. I'm going to stop talking now, because everything else that I want to say will come across as mean. :

[mommabear]

Rynna, if you are referring to my post as 'scare tactics' I would like to point out that the op specifically asked "what do you guys think of [ultrasounds]?" I answered in accordance with what I think of ultrasounds and what my experience has been. I clearly stated that my feelings are of course biased because, *for me*, ultrasound has always been associated with the diagnoses of negative pregnancy outcomes. Also, I think the technology and its effects are not completely known, and every woman needs to make the decision that is best for her in her own unique circumstances.

[eilonwy]

I wasn't referring to your post, Gen, and I apologize. I should have been more clear.

[2+twins]

I'm sure you were referring to my posts. I'm not trying to use scare tactics, Rynna. The OP asked for opinions and I gave mine - along with data to back it up. Yes, a lot of that information is scary but people have a right to know what the risks are before choosing any procedure. So go ahead and say whatever mean things you like. My situation is very real to me and my family on a day to day basis. Only we know how hard it is and I'd do anything to change the choices I made but I didn't have the information at the time to lead me to any other decision. Others have the right to ALL sides of the information. I'm not just making stuff up.

[mommabear]

Thank you for the clarification, Rynna. I just re-read my last post and hope I didn't come across as snarky -- this is just obviously such an emotional topic for so many.

[JennInSeattle]

Well man, I'm a little floored. I knew that ultrasounds weren't to be taken lightly but I didn't realize how serious they could be.

Nathan had an ultrasound at 8 weeks, 20 weeks and we had a 4-D done by the same u/s technician as his 20 week. I also used a doppler every single day until he was born. He does have a very mild speech delay (as is common in boys). He says some two to three word sentences and has about a 100 word vocabulary - he just turned 2 yesterday so it truly is very mild but it's enough to concern me. His development otherwise has been great although he's not a climber. He does jump and as of today I realized he can run faster than I can!

So here I am, I have an u/s scheduled on Wednesday due to previous m/c's. I've had no spotting and no indication of a m/c (plenty of symptoms for the most part). So my question is whether I should cancel it or not and how in the world I'd explain that to my doctor.

I haven't read all of the documentation presented but I'm not sure about the sources either so it's hard to believe what I'm reading. I'm really not sure what to do but I'll be praying about it and in the meantime I'll look for some additional information. If anyone has anything else they'd like to share whether positive or negative or more links I'll happily absorb it all.

[PinkPixie]

Of course there are risks associated with everything we do... what we have to do is weigh the risks vs. the benefits and make a clear informed decision.

I do agree to one (after 18 weeks) ultra-sound per pregnancy because I believe it is a good detection tool for heart abnormalities, or any growth abnormality in the organs which could be life-saving in the case that something would be wrong. I refuse however, all other tests (serum screening, glucose etc, etc...) because I find them useless with risks I am not willing to take.

I do believe that there are probably side effects to ultra-sounds, because there are side effects to everything all around us: Cell-phones (radio waves are aiming directly at your head) , microwaves, computers, chemicals in food... Anyhow, we could litterally freak out and find that the only way to have a healthy baby would be to lock us up in a sterile room for the next 9 months.

But, I do also believe that the human body, especially in the very early stages of development, is capable of amazing cell regenaration and healing. Nature is amazing. For example, my friend on a routine ultrasound for her 3rd pregnancy found out that her baby had a tumour on his brain. At her scheduled hospital ultra-sound appointment to confirm the nature of the tumour 1.5 weeks later, the tumour had receeded to almost nothing. Eventually it completely dissapeared. We have to believe that nature does want to produce healthy babies.

I just think that as mothers we have to do the best we can and weighs risks vs. benefits.

Love_Homebirthing: I respect your opinions and thank you for the info, but I don't agree that left-handedness should be classified as a "side-effect" or disorder. There have been left-handed people since way before ultra-sounds and modern technology. Having a dominant right-brain is not abnormal.

[zion]

:

[JennInSeattle]

Still thinking and reading..

[celestialdreamer]

Originally Posted by PinkPixie

I do agree to one (after 18 weeks) ultra-sound per pregnancy because I believe it is a good detection tool for heart abnormalities, or any growth abnormality in the organs which could be life-saving in the case that something would be wrong. I refuse however, all other tests (serum screening, glucose etc, etc...) because I find them useless with risks I am not willing to take.

I do believe that there are probably side effects to ultra-sounds, because there are side effects to everything all around us: Cell-phones (radio waves are aiming directly at your head) , microwaves, computers, chemicals in food... Anyhow, we could litterally freak out and find that the only way to have a healthy baby would be to lock us up in a sterile room for the next 9 months.

But, I do also believe that the human body, especially in the very early stages of development, is capable of amazing cell regenaration and healing. Nature is amazing. For example, my friend on a routine ultrasound for her 3rd pregnancy found out that her baby had a tumour on his brain. At her scheduled hospital ultra-sound appointment to confirm the nature of the tumour 1.5 weeks later, the tumour had receeded to almost nothing. Eventually it completely dissapeared. We have to believe that nature does want to produce healthy babies.

I just think that as mothers we have to do the best we can and weighs risks vs. benefits.

Love_Homebirthing: I respect your opinions and thank you for the info, but I don't agree that left-handedness should be classified as a "side-effect" or disorder. There have been left-handed people since way before ultra-sounds and modern technology. Having a dominant right-brain is not abnormal.

:

I am sorry if I was pissy in my previous post. I was having a BAD day and rather stressed out. I did find out via u/s that everything is as it should be as of now, which I'm very thankful for. I want to clarify that I'm NOT ok with lots of routine u/s, those u/s 'stores', etc. I think they should be used only when really needed. I do think that one diagnostic u/s around 20 weeks is a good idea (but doesn't mean I think EVERYONE has to have them). I was a pediatric cardiology nurse before Anna was born, and I think of many children that might have died at birth if their conditions had not been found on a routine u/s. I also would want to know if my child had some sort of serious problem before they were born if I possibly could find out an u/s. I personally choose to have an u/s if I need to, so I can feel comfortable that my child does not have any serious birth defects that would make it neccessary to birth in a hospital. I do think there might be some risks to an u/s just like any medical procedure...BUT I have a hard time buying into some of the theories listed above.

[eilonwy]

I read the articles, love_homebirthing, but apparently you didn't do me the honor of reading my entire post. I'm also living, every single day, with a child who has problems due to a congenital defect. I understand that desperate search for answers, and the desire to lay the blame somewhere, I really really do. The problem is, not one of the articles which I read among those you cited to back you up is conclusive evidence in either direction. I saw a lot of bias and a lot of people saying what I said, which is that people should think before they act.

It's not your opinion that I have a problem with, but the way that you drew your conclusions and expressed them. Yes, it does look like scare tactics to me. It looks to me as though you're trying to terrify everyone into sharing your opinion, with almost nothing in the way of logic or conclusive evidence backing you up. When it comes to the internet, you can find evidence supporting just about any conclusion you want to draw about anything, but that doesn't make it logical, rational, or correct. I'm not one of those people who can stop doing research just because I've found a few people who share my opinion, I have to learn the whole story. I don't see conclusive evidence in either direction. I'm not saying that everyone should have an ultrasound or that noone should. I'm not saying that I personally cringe at the thought of someone making a decision which differs from my own. I'm only saying that the sources you cited and your posts do not, as far as I can discern, add up to anything conclusive at all.