thoughts on ultrasound/doppler? - Page 3

[KKmama]

I wanted to mention, Bernice, that 5 wks may be too early to see a heart beat... I thought it was much more normal to be able to see one in the 7th week. So try not to worry. I don't know if this makes any sense, but they have to *grow* a heart; at some point, they just don't have one yet.

[Mommy To Baby Roni]

The answer in my case is that I would NOT want to know ahead of time if the child had Down's etc. I am not going to terminate this pregnancy anyhow. If there is a serious serious defect (like no brain), it will likely show up in other ways

You may say that now because you have not experienced it. And, Down's does not always show up in other ways. A friend on another board I'm on had what she thought was a healthy baby boy. I'm not sure how many u/s she had, if any at all. I'm sure she probably had at least one. They had problems with bf'ing and there were other things that were just "not right". I think he ceased to breathe and he was flown to a hospital in a nearby state at a couple of months old when he was finally diagnosed with Down's. My friend was shocked and devastated. And, all the pieces (re: the different issues) fell into place when she learned about symptoms of Down's children. She says that she wishes that she had known before he was born. Not that she would have terminated the pg, but because they would have been educated and emotionally more prepared, expecting the challenges and known how to handle them, what special medical care he immediately needed, etc.

Now I'm off to read the links given in the beginning of this thread.

[BethSLP]

Originally Posted by Mommy To Baby Roni

She says that she wishes that she had known before he was born. Not that she would have terminated the pg, but because they would have been educated and emotionally more prepared, expecting the challenges and known how to handle them, what special medical care he immediately needed, etc.

Now I'm off to read the links given in the beginning of this thread.

This is a valid point, and true for her. But I just met someone at a birth class who found out with her first child (she has a healthy girl now) that it was anecephalic and would not live. She found out 2 weeks before it was birth because the midwife was seeing signs something wasn't normal. The u/s confirmed what they were thinking, and showed the ancephelaly. The woman told me that she was immediately SO grateful not to have found out, because she would have carried the baby to term regardless and it would have changed her whole pregnancy.

I think grieving happens regardless. However, some people prefer to know earlier, and some don't. My buddhist teachers have told me that being in the womb is a very uncomfortable experience for a baby (bones growing, etc. is traumatic). The best thing for a pregnant woman to do, is to try to remain happy and send positive feelings to the baby. This would be very difficult for me if I was grieving. I think I want my child regardless of how they are to experience things the best most positive way. When they are born, I will love them the best I can regardless.

Everyone is different, thats why this is a very personal decision with no right answer.
XOXO
Beth

[mommabear]

Beth, your post brought tears to my eyes. Just beautiful.

[Pinky Tuscadero]

Hi! Popping in from the Sept DDC to comment on the left handedness issue with ultrasound. Obviously there is nothing abnormal about being left handed. However, handedness is genetic. The studies that found this to be an issue found babies who were left handed, even though there was no left handedness in their family. The researchers believe that the ultrasound altered something in their brains that caused them to be left handed when they should have been right handed. This may not sound like a real big deal but it raises the issue of what other changes might there be that we can't see. There is truly no way to know that a baby is perfectly fine since we don't know how that baby was supposed to be, had they not had the ultrasound (or whatever other thing you may think damages a baby). We really can't ever know for sure.
There have also been studies of ultrasound on mice fetuses where they simply stopped growing after the ultrasound. Their cells simply stopped dividing. No one knows exactly why-which is truly the scariest thing to me.
It appears that ultrasound does have some effect on living tissue, we just don't know to what extent.
Suzy

[AdinaL]

Well, I only buy the lefthandedness thing so far.

I am left handed - NO ONE in my family is left handed. At all. Either side.

My mother refused all ultrasounds.

So that may truly be chance.

Not arguing for or against u/s...but after a life time of being made fun of/told to do things different because I was left handed - that theory kinda irks me. It again makes it sound like being left handed is a deformity or mutation and not the way the baby was supposed to be.

[Titus2fam]

I don't know where I "fit" in this conversation. Ultrasounds scare me because like Beth said, I DON'T want to see certain things ahead~i.e. Down's, cleft palate, etc. I don't want it to become the focus of my pregnancy and then lose sight that I've still birthed a beautiful baby!

I had one ultrasound in three pregnancies~my last one~to help determine due date. My midwife also said it might be something "fun" for me. It was! Though for the reasons cited above, it scared me sooo much beforehand~I was afraid of what we might find.

Y'all have given me a lot to think about. I can only continue in research and trust God with my decision. It's kinda like vaccinations~something really can happen either way, it comes down to what decision you're personally comfortable with even if something happens.

Before this conversation, I was hoping for no u/s. Time will tell, I guess!

(((((HUGS))))) sandi

[applejuice]

To the OP: I have read most of these posts, not all, so I hope I am not repeating.

Ultrasound technology was developed during WWII to look for submarines...during WWII and up to about 1968, most women received some X-ray pelvimetry to determine the size of the pelvic outlet compared to the baby.

Now we know that pregnant women should not be getting X-rays, so we turn to an equally unknown technology, non-ionizing radiation or ultrasound.


Any Chiropractor will tell you one danger of ultrasound, cavatation, in which the fluid in the tissues begin to rise in temperature ...this is why ultrasound is such a good therapy for soft tissues and why pregnant women need to stay out of hot tubs. Your amniotic fluid can rise in temperature and that can endanger your baby.

Doctors have used many treatments for generations and suddenly stopped when they find another treatment to use....and that is the only time you are told the dangers of the treatment they replaced. For example, X-rays were used for three generations in pregnancy, yet we only knew of the teratogenic side-effects after it was replace with ultrasound technology.

Time will tell.

I have been pregnant four times and refused any and all scans. I am glad I did.

[applejuice]

Besides the u/s scan at the radiologist, you will find ultrasound at:

• the obgyn/midwife's office when they put the doppler on your tummy to hear the baby's :heart. It is continuous wave u/s

• the needle of the anmiocentisis is guided by ultrasound.

• the external monitor on your tummy during labor is intermittent wave ultrasound.

There is virtually no way to avoid u/s technology during pregnancy.

[BethSLP]

Originally Posted by applejuice

Besides the u/s scan at the radiologist, you will find ultrasound at:

• the obgyn/midwife's office when they put the doppler on your tummy to hear the baby's :heart. It is continuous wave u/s

• the needle of the anmiocentisis is guided by ultrasound.

• the external monitor on your tummy during labor is intermittent wave ultrasound.

There is virtually no way to avoid u/s technology during pregnancy.

You do not have to have doppler, you can use a fetascope.

Amnio is optional and can be refused....and is dangerous for other reasons.

The only time we will have u/s is during the actual birth, because my midwife wants to hear the baby's heart intermittently. I think this is a good compromise because the risks of not are kind of high. Also, the baby is fully grown by then and ready for birth. Not just a tiny sack of cells. You know?

Everyone has to make this decision for themselves. But there IS a way to avoid most u/s exposure. and there ARE some people who choose not to have monitoring during labor.....for me this is too extreme, but some do.

XOXOXO
Beth

[applejuice]

BethSLP - I am referring to patients who frequent an obsterician. An obstetrician will not accept a patient without at least 3-4 scans a pregnancy because of their malpractice insurance; one for due date, another at 20 weeks and at least one or two at the end to ascertain position of the baby and the placenta.

I do not believe that most obstetricians know how to or are proficient in palpatating for position of the fetus or to listen with a fetascope for the placenta.

I do not believe that most obstetricians know how or are trained to use a fetascope.

Doctors like to use their machines. Technology looks better in court.

Ultrasound is consider the standard of care in today's obstetrics.

No one will sue if a scan is done, but the doctor will be sued if something is amiss and it can be shown a scan SHOULD have been done.

[KKmama]

Applejuice, I think you're painting with a really broad brush, making generalizations without any substantiation.

[applejuice]

I really do not know what you are talking about...broad brush?

I have been a CCE and I worked with lawyers, midwives, and had my own four children in addition to being the daughter and sister of doctors.

I can substantiate everything I say.

Which "generalization" in particular stands out blaring and outrageous to you?

[squeakermansmom]

Originally Posted by KKmama

Applejuice, I think you're painting with a really broad brush, making generalizations without any substantiation.

: ITA - i have to agree those we're some very broad generalizations regarding obstetricians. First of all, many obstetricians will accept patients that refuse all u/s. And while, many obstetricians may offer u/s it's not always b/c of legal issues - it's b/c the vast majority of women WANT an u/s. maybe not the women on mothering, but definitely the majority of women who see an obstetrician. i work with an ob/gyn now and have worked with several others in the past. most that i have known/worked with only offer 2 u/s per pregnancy - in the first trimester for dating and another around 16-20 weeks. sure, some patients may get more, but that's b/c of a concern or problem. so not quite sure where you're getting the 3-4 scans per pregnancy.

the comment about 'doctors like their machines, technology looks better in court'......um, are we forgetting that most women (again, maybe not the women on mothering) but the vast majority of women here in the states WANT the doppler used and WANT u/s. so let's not just blame doctors. the women that frequent our ob/gyn clinic would look at us with three heads if we said we we're going to listen with a fetascope instead of a doppler. and they would get downright p*ssed if we said they shouldn't have an u/s. and yes, this is the majority of women.

honestly, i've looked at the research - and the only effect that seems to be substantiated so far is the left-handedness. so yes, i think more research should be done. but i am definitely in favor of limited use of u/s. it has it's place as does everything.