ultrasound concerns - Page 5

[Due_in_August]

I'd said that what I was saying was fact............where?

I am saying, to each her own. Read and make up your own damn mind on what you feel is necessary and unncessary. To me, I had one to find out my due date, and one to make sure she was growing. Well excuse me for wanting to know whether or not there will be any risks to her. Gosh, I am such a horrid person for doing that right?

AS for the stupid ass surveys. The one I quoted was from 2001, simply to show that after all the studies they still hadn't proven it EITHER way. The ones you quoted were from...the 1980's? 70's? Think a little research might have gone on since then huh?? Let me quote myself here: "But I cannot prove they are completely harmless, no more than someone else can prove that they are harmful. " Now at what point did that sentence become "I'm right, you're wrong, they are completely harmless." Read and understand before deciding you are self-righteous.

The response of 'whatever' was actually quite childish yes. I used it against my mothers arguements when I was 12. It means you can't read someone else's thoughts and make a thoughtful response to them you just go 'whatever' and brush them off like they don't matter. I didn't say I wasn't childish frankly. I have panic attacks and can at times act quite like a baby. But I'm big enough to admit that. But yet again you seem to think I am trying to prove everything, I'm not. You can try and discredit me all you want and make me look bad, but I'm not the one here having a hard time at using my intelligience to at least realize everyone has different views.

I'm not blowing off the fact that there are risks that haven't been fully proven. They aren't proven, they are possible, but they aren't proven. So no, I won't go and just decide that you are right in thinking that I shouldn't have had one u/s (even if it was to peek) just because you were able to read some studies made 15 years ago that there could be damage in the overuse of u/s. When they are not fully proven (and frankly after 25 years someone should have come up with something by now) don't get on my case for thinking that one or two shouldn't cause major damage as everyone in my freaking town has had that many and none of the children have problems. I don't need some 1980's study to tell me what I've seen with my OWN eyes.

You can respond all you want from now on, you are obviously stuck on needing to be right. So go ahead, everyone who can read/understand will know that the only person able to call themselves "right" in whether or not they should have a u/s is themselves anyhow.

The lady who wanted responses obviously made up her own mind (good for her) so I'm making up my own now and staying off this damn thread seeing as the reason it was started was accomplished.

Hope everyone's pregnancy goes well, and that your choices are ones you can live with. I can and WILL live happily with my OWN, not someone elses.

[kama'aina mama]

This is the first thing you said on the subject

A ultrasound works by soundwaves, not any type of radiation and its perfectly safe. The gel and transducer will not cause any harm , and there have been several studies performed to prove that fact. They were found to be perfectly harmless to both the mother and the child. As each one is harmless then, I doubt if just having a few extra would be cause of alarm. I could be wrong, but in all my research I've always only seen "harmless"
proven.

Then you sited one study that was really just a review of other data. And which fell far short of claiming 'prfectly harmless'. Indeed it sited the obvious need for further study.

Then you said

The higher resolution comes with a higher resolution monitor. It is like your own computer, high resolution, the higher the resolution, the better your monitor, your colors...etc, etc. But it has no affect on your CPU. They function seperately, and combined create a good system.

Not true.

n Vol24, no11 of OB/Gyn News Dr Kenneth Taylor warns about the increased risk of new high dose ultrasounds. "One of the reasons ultrasound energy has increased is that manufacturers have learned it's much less expensive to deliver more energy for a given image quality."

You directly contradict yourself here

As each one is harmless then, I doubt if just having a few extra would be cause of alarm.

Perhaps one every two weeks is too much. Especially if they are going to continue throughout the entire pregnancy.

The fact remains, every baby born where I live in the past 25 years were given U/S exposure at least twice during their time in the womb. Life expectancy as risen, infant mortality has gone down, as have infant defects, miscarriage, birth complications.

You cannot possible prove any of this statement and even if you could you can't show a link between that and U/S. I guarantee you not everyone had U/S. Also, you don't say where you live which makes it tough to check, but you mentioned Canada elsewhere. I could only find five years of infant mortality rates online and they were from the mid 90's. In 5 of the 12 Provinces infant mortality rates went up.

Sorry some of my citations are a little old. I just used what was hand. I don't live in a research library. If you can find anything that specifically refutes those studies I would be interested to see it. The human body hasn't changed since the 70's, but ultrasound has. It is stronger now so those studies should be of more, not less concern.

This is the thing... before I let someone perform a procedure on myself or my baby, unborn or not, I need to know that it is beneficial and that it will not cause unneccesary harm. Ultrasound has not met that standard by a long shot.

As to the whole issue of who is childish... I never left in a huff saying that I had said my last on this topic. I haven't. it will be many, many years before I am done talking about ultrasound. Then again I didn't list "being a brat" as one of my interests.

[kama'aina mama]

bump

[lil' love]

WOW, a little off the topic here??

Anyhow, I wish I had read *parts* of this thread before I went and got an ultrasound yesterday. I would probably have choosen not to. I haven't received any other tests though and it was comforting to know that everything looked fine. Also, my placneta in up front and that is why I don't feel much movements.
I was a little uneasy to begin with so the lady was quick, about 15 minutes. regardless, I felt horribly guilty afterwardsa nd my stomach was upset all last night. My hubby said it was psychosomantic and I was making myself sick. maybe, maybe not..
I just hope now that the babe can forgive me for making it sound like a frieght train can through his/her womb!!

One question, if that is true about the noise level, then way do they perform ultrasounds?? That doesn't seem right. Also, wouldn't the fluid muffle the sound at all??

[Piglet68]

I used an ultrasound machine in my research (I did echocardiograms on sedated guinea pigs to examine their hearts). So I do have a basic understanding of how these machines work. Also, my DH is an electrical engineer and I have enlisted his help in writing this reponse to check for accuracy.

Since I had easy access to an u/s machine any time I wanted while working (the first 20 weeks of my PG), I would often hop up on the lab bench after doing some guinea pigs to take a look at my baby. The sheer wonder/delight of it all was so worth it to me. I was never all that worried about deformities - I just loved seeing my baby. While most of my pregnant friends were envious that I could "check" on baby any time I wanted (and I found out a few of the female cardiology residents used to check in on their babies regularly when they were PG), my father did ask me about the safety.

There was a recent report from a study done in....I think it was the Netherlands....that professed to be the first study to look specifically at safety of ultrasound. They reported an increase in, of all things, left-handedness in babies that recieved ultrasounds at some point during pregnancy. These researchers made the leap that left-handedness was equivalent to brain damage.

The problem with this study is that subjects were chosen retrospectively from a group of women who gave birth in the 1970's. Ultrasounds were not routine then and pretty much only used if a woman had a high-risk pregnancy or if there was reason to believe something was wrong. Also, the machines used in those days were far less sensitive than those used today. Finally, Finally, I think left-handed people might take offense to the extraordinary conclusion that it is due to some sort of "brain damage"!

This is pretty much the only properly designed study for specifically examining the risks of ultrasound (its limitations notwithstanding). It is significant, however, that routine ultrasounds are now performed on millions of women each year and no side effects have been noted.

As for this issue of resolution, a few things to ponder:

What I've been taught is that the higher resolution of modern ultrasound images is due to using higher frequency probes. Note that higher frequency is NOT the same as "louder" and does not mean "damaging". For example, dogs can hear sounds at frequencies that are too high for humans to hear, yet such sounds are not damaging either to us or to the dogs. In fact, higher frequency can imply "less loud" because they are less absorbed by the object you are looking at, so more of the signal "bounces back" to the probe.

The use of higher resolution u/s has more to do with modern digital signal processing (versus "old fashioned" analog signals). This allowed probes to deliver higher frequency signals, and allowed the machines to interpret the results. It is the higher frequency signals that result in high resolution images (and the processing power of the computers to handle that much data and interpret it correctly). It is not a function of the monitor.

I am perfectly convinced of the safety of ultrasounds. Keep in mind that warnings to "limit their use" may be influenced by HMO lobbyists who don't want to have to pay for mothers to get a chance to see their little one swimming around, and have a vested financial interest in limiting the numbers of ultrasounds that can be claimed on insurance.

I feel sorry for anybody who never gets a chance to see their baby moving in utero (unless, of course, that is what you want). It is a totally amazing experience (and I videotaped each and every one, LOL). Especially in those early weeks when I couldn't feel anything. I'll never, ever forget the day we saw our baby on U/S and realised it was a girl. :-)

PS - the difference btwn a level II and level I is merely how many parameters the tech measures with her cursors ;-)

[boysrus]

kama'aina mama, that was a really well presented argument i am sorry that no one has responded to it

[greensmile]

In 5 pregnancies I've only had 2 u/s, one to rule out a placental abruption, due to an abdominal injury, and one to rule out an ectopic pregnancy (severe shoulder pain for two weeks). My 1st one was on my only child who turned out dyslexic, you have to wonder and with multiple sclerosis in the family; it could be years to see effects. I found it gross that the first I saw of him was a cross section of his brain. We requested they just check the placenta and they did a full scan anyways. 2nd is on this baby and I can only pray for it's well being. The stupidest use of u/s is for growth retardation when serial scans have been shown to cause it. Anything that disrupts enzymatic activity in cells can't be good for growth.:

[CrunchyGranolaMom]

I also think you did a very good job, Kama'ina Mama. Due-In, no one is atatcking you here. There's a difference with disagreeing with your views and giving a personal attack, and I think Kama'ina did a nice job of presenting without getting onto *you*.

I'm an RN on my 3rd pregnancy, and I don't get ultasounds. If there was some big overriding health concerns, or the possibility of multiples, I would consider it (although for the multiples, there are other diagnostic ways [if we are only patient enough!], so even then, I might not u/s if my health was fine otherwise).

I am VERY weirded out by the poster whose doctor does an ultrasound at every visit. What on earth is this provider's reason????? According to the American College of Radiology (http://www.aium.org/consumer/standards/obstetrical.asp), "fetal ultrasound should be performed only when there is a valid medical reason, and the lowest possible ultrasonic exposure settings should be used to gain the necessary diagnostic information". I find it hard to believe that this doctor is finding such "valid medical reasons" at every darn appointment....

[BusyMommy]

Gosh, I think the bottom line is that we really don't know. Maybe we will know more in 20 years about the effects of this technology. But, as with all of life, moderation has got to be the key. And, weighing the risks and benefits! The standard practice where I live is to have one u/s at around 19 weeks. That's it. Mine is coming up next week and, yes, I'm excited to receive confirmation that my little dd/s is wonderfully healthy. If I go overdue, as before, I'll receive another u/s at 41 weeks to make sure all is still well.

I have read too many different studies to want any more u/s than is necessary. Both of my children ran away from the doppler so this is another thing that I try to limit.

Just my opinion!
It's a tough personal decision we each have to make. Let's respect each others' differences.

[milesmom]

Think a little deeper

It seems so obvious that if you have a compelling reason to have an (as in one) ultrasound it is worth it. But, how can anyone be so pressumptuous as to definatively state that there are no long-term consequences of ultrasound? How the heck would we know if there was a correlation between the plethura of diseases and ailments that occur so frequently (ie. cancer) and u/s. I am not saying I know but there is no way to convince me that doctors know. So I'm opting to skip it in this pregnancy (I had three in first preg) unless something legit comes up.