ultrasound concerns - Page 2

[asherah]

thanks

I will talk to the midwife about it at my next appointment.
My instincts say not to have the u/s or the doppler anymore.
Thanks for your help.

[violet]

birth junkie you rock

DH and I decided to avoid the U/S and the doppler and the studies you listed just confirmed our feelings on the matter. I think what we are all concerned about is the unknown--- is the baby okay? am i doing the right stuff??? But by putting our trust in machines and tests and technology, we are selling ourselves short. Our bodies create new life. How awesome is that. We need to listen to the wisdom of our bodies. Good luck mamas
C.

[gloriax]

High-risk U/S obsession

I think I run a little more on the conservative end of this group, but you seem nice, so I'll tell you about my "refusing a U/S" story.
I'm also high-risk (had a stroke last year because of an otherwise asymptomatic heart defect), and my OB sent me to a perinatologist for the "routine" 20 week U/S, which I didn't mind. But the guy wanted me to come back every 4 weeks for the rest of the pregnancy so he can "keep an eye on things." I called and asked the nurse what exactly they would do at these visits and her answer was, "we like to watch hi risk moms like you." I told her I don't see how taking an ultrasound every four weeks is going to keep me and my baby healthy, and she just went into this--but you're hi risk! we need to watch you! don't you want to be taken care of? I told her I already had an OB who was doing a fine job of watching me, and didn't feel the need to add to the crowd! It seems to me that if they keep looking for problems, they'll eventually find something and I'm not considering terminating this pregnancy, so what's the point? I told my (very cool) OB that I wasn't going to do an amnio because of the risk and he said, well, then there's no need to do the triple screen. So, no more perinatologist for me! And no more U/S either!

ok--/rant off--Lol

[motherdownunder]

Ultra Sounds

This week on the the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald the results of a (British I think) study on ultrasounds was reported. This is the first large sample study ever done, and with 170, 000 children examined the u/s companies can no longer complain that the studies are too small. To sum it up, if a woman had one u/s in pregnancy there is a one third chance that the baby will have some minor brain damage/irregularites. If there was more than one u/s this goes up by another third. The brain damage was much more noticeable in boys.

My yoga instructor is getting a copy of the study and I can post it here later if anyone is interested.

The point of this is not to cause panic or guilt, but to allow women to be fully informed before having an ultrasound for anything other than a life threatening situation.

[TreeLove]

Oh great. I had 38 ultrasounds during my 1st pg!:

[berglar]

Treelove, I also had a ton of u/s, for a twin pregnancy. I had an ultrasound on a Friday, and had eclamptic seizures on Tuesday, and my babies were born early Wed. morning by c-birth. My son was still born.

Next time, if there ever is a next time, no doctor is going to be able to convince me that I need u/s, fetal monitoring, etc. If they couldn't catch it the first time around, then how can they tell me it's necessary for the health of my baby the second time around?

[TreeLove]

How sad. I'm so sorry.

They failed to diagnose Emmet's heart defect. THIRTY EIGHT ulatrasounds and not one time did they notice it?

I had 1 ultrasound w/ the last baby-checking for a heart defect.

[lil' love]

I would definitely be interested in reading the whole article.

[Kim]

.

[Tigerchild]

I, too, would be extremely interested in seeing the real study...

...not the article that appeared in the newspaper.

You'll have to forgive my cynicism, but often the media portrays scientific studies in their most sensational light, rather than what the study does or does not show.

I think people should be careful with things like this, as it's almost impossible to institute true scientific controls with something like this. Is the u/s the true cause, or could it be that some babies were monitored more closely because of complications that could themselves have influenced this? What about genetic factors and environmental factors (pollution, nutrition, luck) that were beyond anyone's control? How was this accounted for, and controlled, that the scientists felt truly comfortable stating the results with apparently NO caveats or cautions?

Remember...car seats contribute to the death of infants in car crashes...if they are installed wrong or placed in the wrong 'environment', like in front of an airbag or in the front seat. Yet remember how villianized airbags were, a few years ago, when the statement stopped halfway through, without explaining the circumstances and reasons?

It's good to be informed, but serves no one to be alarmist. Mothers, no matter what their choices, get enough crap-guilt heaped upon them. I'll start researching the actual study, though...if I find a link to the real one, I'll let y'all know. If someone finds out offhand what medical journal it was published in, that would be useful info. I tend to like to get my info first hand, rather than have it 'interpreted' for me by people wanting to sell papers, but as there have been concerns about u/s for quite some time, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some side effects. How serious they are for the majority of the population, I dunno.

-Kitty

[Corriander]

does anyone know the name of the journal this was published in?

[sunshinemama]

Is this the study you are talking about?

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/sto...10/833218.html

I am wondering if this also refers to the dop-tone thing they use EVERY visit unless you object LOUDLY.

[bebe luna]

I've just always had a gut feeling that u/s weren't healthy. I was so glad that the midwife and her colleagues that I saw throughout my pregnancy didn't support or perform u/s (unless they had a very good reason to). For the most part mothers have been having healthy babies for a long time without the use of u/s. Sometimes we become far to reliant on "medical science", technology, and western medicine. I beleive in reserving these "privelages" for emergencies and becoming more reliant on the natural way of things, including intuition.

[lil' love]

In the book "Natural Family Living" by Peggy O' Mara it says that

" a study found that u/s scan create changes in the cells. There has never been a sizable, controlled trial to assess the safety of u/s, and there most likely never will be, because the ethical dilemma of denying women access to a diagnostic tool that most people have been conditoined to and believ to be safe. A few smaller studies have indicated a link between children exposed to u/s and symptoms of possible neurological problems in children."

I think I might skip an u/s this time!
Thanks

[berglar]

No flames, please

but I kind of feel like if we were meant to see in there, we would have plate glass windows instead of skin covering our stomachs...

Of course, this feeling didn't stop me from doing the mainstream, "we need to check on your twin pregnancy every other week" thing.

Hey, you live and learn, and you can decide for yourself after reading all the info. I don't think we should be 'penalized' for our choices by anyone other than ourselves.

[motherdownunder]

berglar, I'm very sorry to hear about the loss of your baby. Is the other one OK? You have our support here.

As with some of you, I'm also sceptical about the media's interpretation, as is my yoga teacher who brought this study to my attention. She is doing her best to get a copy of the actual study so I will print that here if she gets it.

Anyway, there has been a lot of concern for a long time about u/s, this is just the first time that a very large sample was studied. The concerns have always focussed on "unecessary" or routine u/s so we shouldn't forget that it can still be a life saving device if used properly.

[TreeLove]

yeah, u/s saved my boys life. It diagnosed them w/ Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome. It's a disease of the placenta which has a mortality rate of 80-100% for BOTH babies. Thru ultra sound we were able to check them every day and make sure they were both still alive and WELL. I guess I have no regrets about it. I did have an early u/s w/ Abe because I was measuring large again and the midwives that I might be carrying 2 babies again and since I'm considered high risk anyway....

I guess, if I hadn't been thru all the ugly medical crud I've been thru than I would want to be left alone to just grow a baby. Now there are just too many "risk-factors" to trust my body.

[iamprego]

I read the article. It was posted on WorldNetDaily.com a couple days ago, on page 2 of their news headlines.

My husband was pretty upset from reading it, but in the end I decided nobody knows yet.... The study was on a bunch of people who had ultrasounds in the 1970s.... The study "found" that a bunch of people were left-handed... According to the study, somehow they interpret left-handedness as brain-damaged!!!!! I never freaking heard that one before. I was always told that left-handedness was a sign of artistic genius. Anyway, I don't remember the numbers, but the incidence of left-handedness was up to 11% or so from a previous 5% or so, and therefore, this "dramatic" increase in left-handedness meant that babies were brain-damaged from ultrasounds.

Sounds like garbage science to me. These results to do NOT consider the impact of societal change over time. For kids born to our grandparents age, kids who showed tendencies toward left-handedness often had their hands slapped and were TAUGHT to be right-handed. Times have changed, and this would need to be factored into the results of the study.

So, if you are really worried about ultrasounds... you can rest assured that the worst these studies can show is that your kid might be left-handed.

In my opinion, big whoop-de-doo. I think ultrasounds can be abused by people who make up excuses to have them, but otherwise they seem to be a legitimate and beneficial tool in monitoring the baby and looking for potential health issues.

Have a nice day.
iamprego

[kibbles]

My midwife does not do them routinely, but I have had two this pregnancy. One before I picked her, but I was having pains that suggested etopic pregnancy, and the second because I was measuring WAY too big for date (as in 8 weeks too big!) and did NOT have diabetes!

Had I not measured too large, she would not have done the u/s, although I will admit there is a certain reassurance in getting them. You know, see a head, 2 legs, 2 arms, etc. . .

[motherdownunder]

iamprego, the study also indicated other signs of minor brain damage such as learning dificulties, and I believe it stated that they discovered u/s have been found to increase the temperature of the baby's brain by up to 10 degrees. Also, the fact that they were done on babies given u/s in the 1970's actually indicates that the damages would be much worse today because the intensity of u/s used now is more than double what it was in the 70's. Plus there are all the other studies that have shown babies given u/s have more intra-uterine growth retardation which is one of the biggest risk factors for death of a newborn.
Believe it or don't believe it. Just keep an open mind and actually research it if you're told to have u/s that aren't necessary.