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/articles/ultrasoundwagner.asp
http://www.mothering.com/articles/pregnancy_birth/birth_preparation/ultrasound-definition.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/pregnancy_birth/birth_preparation/ultrasound-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 :soapbox 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! :irked:

[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 :love

[2+twins]

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! :irked:

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. :hug

[2+twins]

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. :hug

[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. :bag:

[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. :rainbow

[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! :eek

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. :throb

[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]

:lurk:

[JennInSeattle]

Still thinking and reading..

[celestialdreamer]

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.

:yeah:

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.

[2+twins]

Hmm, I thought the articles I sited were from well respected sources, but I guess that's up for debate. It's not like I pulled these off the Enquirer or something for crying out loud. And you're so missing my point. I've never ever said nor implied that women should not use ultrasound during pregnancy. What I said is that I cringe when I hear women talk about using it so casually, without knowledge or research that it does indeed carry risks. I did say even for peace of mind and that doesn't sound very fair of me to say. I can see that. I guess I said that b/c I'm on both sides of that fence - the side that believes that you should have a very real medical reason for an u/s (not just peace of mind) and the side that has had multiple m/c's, one of which nearly took my life (and could use it as a source of peace of mind). So I sympathize but at the same time I figure it doesn't change the outcome so why take the risk.

Anyway, when someone like you comes along and tells me that I'm just a whiner looking for someone to blame, well, first you're wrong and second it's like a slap in the face. The reason why it matters to me WHAT did this to her is because I'm not done having children and I do not wish to increase any future dc's odds at having problems they weren't already going to have. It does not benefit me in any way, shape or form whether or not other women choose to have scans. I don't get off on "scaring" them. But I do care about informed choice and I can't help but want to promote this. You blame me for research pointing to some scary findings. Perhaps the research isn't conclusive at this point, but there certainly is cause for careful consideration and concern before opting for such a thing (and incidentally, I didn't call left-handedness a disorder but an increased rate of it in the ultrasound group indicates that some change IS made - that's my point). Isn't is so nice that ultrasound was just thrown into the arena of prenatal care WITHOUT any research or testing first, just like the x-ray? Or maybe you forget that we eventually caught onto the problems that wonderous technology caused and yanked it. Sheesh. I just want people to have the chance to hear the other side of the story - the side that isn't readily offered up at your routine doctors visit.

Oh, and I DID read your whole post. I'm not sure what you think I missed. Was it the part about your dc having a kidney problem which was detected at a 20 week ultrasound? What's the point? I didn't claim anywhere in what I wrote that kidney defects were known potential side-effects of ultrasound exposure. But speech delays and issues with myelin development are and these issues DO affect my dd. Try going up against a mom who's dc has a side effect of a more well known disease, say Autism, for example. Would you expect her not to crusade for change? Would you tell her if she claimed that her dc's symptoms appeared within 48 hours of the MMR that plenty of research says there's no coorelation and that she's just trying to scare people into not doing that vaccine? I doubt you'd be so insensitive then. I guess you just want people like me who want to speak out for the sake of knowledge to just shut-up and let ignorance prevail. What's your motivation in this? I just want to help and you act like I'm some kind of horrible person. :irked:

Not sure why I got so beat up over this. I guess that's what I get for trying to help. Thanks for the lovely day.

celestialdrmrmama - I'm glad that things worked out for you.

[kirstent75]

I haven't posted much here at all lately, but I read every once in a while, and this thread just screamed at me...

I must say in love_homebirthing's defense, if I thought for one second that some procedure that I "allowed" my child to receive (however common or routine) ,DAMAGED my child in any way, shape, or form - a procedure that is used so commonly, that some women receive this procedure once a month for the first part of pregnancy, then every two weeks, then weekly (some dr's offices routinely use u/s for every visit - (my sister HAD one of those doctors!) - or heck, honestly even ONCE during pregnancy... and I honestly felt in my heart that this procedure CAUSED this damage to my child, I would shout from the rafters to whomever would listen regarding the risks this could potentially pose!!!!

Not to mention if I found even one study to back up even a POTENTIAL link - with further research needed... Do you honestly not see this from her perspective?

call it scare tactics, call it what you wish, but it is soooo obvious to me WHY someone would be PASSIONATE about something like this, when you live every day with a child who does have special needs, however major or minor.. and to think (however rightly or wrongly) that something you did so casually might have contributed to it - To think, if I *just* would have had this info, then maybe I would have researched it more....

well, it was love_homebirthing's OPINION, as well as links to info SHE has found. She simply presented her thoughts on the matter, never did she say "you should....." except to say perhaps do your own research!

I don't know if it that we fear hearing that something so commonplace could potentially damage our kids, or if people don't want to deal with the alternative. It is simply a cost/benefit analysis - and it is personal choice. I agree with her that what we NEED in this country is true access to INFORMED consent.

Sadly, with almost EVERY aspect of obstetrics, this is truly lacking.

and I speak all of this with two cesareans under my belt, as well as my own homebirth of a special needs daughter who is doing beautifully in life with only 10% of her cerebellum present.

If I were ever to find a study that links this to something I have done (and like love_homebirthing - I am not looking for it, but when it is presented to me, I will sit up and listen...) - you can be damn sure that I will post about it, probably to a FAULT, in hopes that no one else has to go through the stress of wondering like I would have to.

So, however much it sounds like "scare tactics," I wish people would know where the info comes from - from a place of caring and concern about the safety about such common "tools."

I certainly never heard that "doppler could change the CELLS in a fetus," no matter if someone knows what that means longterm or not.... certainly my OB or midwife never told me that before running all over my abdomen and my unborn child.

and do I sound bitter? Well, honestly I am - because I had 5 u/s with my now 2 year old - and no, it didn't damage her in any way I know of - but it also didn't give the doctors or ME any indication that my daughter practically DIDN'T HAVE A CEREBELLUM? What the hell kind of helpful tool is this, or the amnio that I regretfully agreed to as well!!!!

so even if someone GETS THEM DONE - it doesn't, in my mind, rule out much.

and I know that probably will just make people more angry - but that is my own personal truth, those are the facts as I experienced them with my own DD, and that is my opinion. Feel free absolutely to disagree with me!!!!

[squeakermansmom]

i feel too sick (nausea, fatigue) to get into a big debate on the topic....but i do have this question??? i read some of the links and one stated that doppler is actually more harmful than u/s. that one minute with the doppler is equivalent to 35 minutes with the u/s. if this is true, it seems to me we should be more concerned about the use of the doppler at each visit then the infrequent use of u/s. thoughts?????

[eilonwy]

Maybe you should read over your post again, because that's not what you said at all. You can't be relied upon to quote yourself accurately, but we're supposed to take your paraphrasing of others at face value?

I didn't mean to start a confrontation here at all, I said the same thing twice which is that people should think and have balanced and conclusive information (which isn't always readily available, but can often be found) before they make a decision. I'm finished with this, I give up. It's all yours.

[KKmama]

Okay, let's everyone take a deep breath and slow down. This is getting out of control...

For the record, I'm in favor of limited, informed use of u/s.

LH, I read most of your links, and for the most part, I found them to be fairly neutral, just giving the reader more information about u/s and how it should be used properly. I'm all in favor of that, and that's useful. I found the gentlebirth and aims pieces to be not as well-documented/well-argued, though. And you *do* make some claims in your posts without saying where you got your information (as far as I could tell, it wasn't in the links you gave).

With each pg, I've had a nuchal u/s. I will have one with this pg. I think it's a good alternative to an amnio, particularly if the mother is young. I've also had a couple of late u/s along with NSTs which have allowed me to continue my pg on into the 42nd week (or beyond). In my last pg, I had several large, painful ovarian cysts which were monitored by u/s regularly (and to the extent possible, I'd ask the tech to stay away from the baby). I believe these u/s helped to ensure that I wasn't going to lose an ovary to torsion. I will also have a dating u/s in about a week and a half (basically the best timeframe for accurate dating) because I really have no idea when I conceived.

[amyjeans]

this is an interesting thread.
W dd1- got the usual 4-5 U/S....why? to date the pregnancy, to check for ectopic pregnancy, to see how much fluid, to make sure the heart was in the right place and all vitals were functioning properly, and finally to gestimate the weight of the baby.
Then, dd2- did about 3- then fired the OB and went UC (another thread)
It was then I realized that aside from ectopic(I have NO history in myself or my family of this) all other u/s were completely worthless to me. Simply because what would the doctor do if there was a problem at 15 weeks/24 weeks/36 weeks? Well, I am sure you can guess! And the way my dh and I feel- none of her options were acceptable to us.
So baby #3- no U/s.
Only under extreme circumstances do I feel u/s are needed.

[BethSLP]

Elionwy, you are completely out of line and aggressive. Sorry, but I'm saying it because it needs to be said. I ASKED the question wanting honest answers. Love_homebirthing's response was very helpful for me and she has many articles to back this up. People get SO PERSONAL when it comes to this issue which is stupid. Love_homebirthing is not commenting on YOUR choices, only what she believes hurt her daughter. I believe the autism comparison that someone else made is completely appropriate here.

My midwife (who has delivered 1,500 babies over 27 years) confirmed to me (yet again) that the cellular changes happen. What we don't know is what that means? Well, I don't know about you, but that is something we need to be INFORMED ABOUT. No one in the field talks about the risks of u/s and that is DEPLORABLE.

According to my midwife, most birth defects declare themselves in other ways. Midwives measure your belly to determine growth (and can see if a child is measuring 21 weeks when you are 26 weeks, etc). There are many other ways that they can determine red flags that then warrant a u/s. In all her years of midwifery, I asked her if she EVER had a u/s change their plan from the information they gained. The answer was absolutely no. One time they had a placenta previa that they diagnosed other ways, and the u/s just confirmed what they already knew. Further, most of the heart defects people are worried about are typically not operated on for days, weeks, and even months after birth.

I say all these things because I honestly think most people have this generalized fear about defects but have not really researched:
a) is there another less invasive way to find them out?
b) would I do anything differently even if I knew?

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 (such as intrauterine growth retardation, which is measured through exams).

Again, I have not completely resolved this issue, as I have not had time to talk to my midwife in person about it (only over the phone briefly). At our first appt, we will discuss it further.

I just think that many people have this fear thing but they have not done any research either way.

REGARDLESS, I am deeply offended by people who make accusatory remarks to someone who is sharing information that is helpful because it goes against their own beliefs. You can disagree without attacking someone and insinuating that they are in denial and placing blame, etc. Love_homebirthing's post was completely appropriate for my question. Elionwy, bad style!!

XOXO
Beth

[celestialdreamer]

Further, most of the heart defects people are worried about are typically not operated on for days, weeks, and even months after birth.

Like I said before, I was a pediatric cardiology nurse. Believe me, I DO know what I'm talking about. *If* a baby had a serious heart defect that would require surgery early on there is a big chance they would need special care after birth. So finding out BEFORE birth via u/s would be very helpful. Of course, chances are your baby is fine. Obviously do what you feel is best for yourself and your baby.

I think you should have made the title 'reasons not to have an u/s?' and made it clear that you were ONLY looking to hear the reasons why not to have an u/s, to make you feel more secure in your choice.

[Chanley]

Ok folks, I am just posting to remind everyone to play by the rules even if you are really angry. I know it can be really hard to NOT lash out but all that does is get a thread closed.

[BethSLP]

I think you should have made the title 'reasons not to have an u/s?' and made it clear that you were ONLY looking to hear the reasons why not to have an u/s, to make you feel more secure in your choice.

That is actually not true at all. I have vaccilated on this issue many times and have only started researching this in the past couple of weeks.

Your experience as a pediatric cardiology nurse is actually quite valuable to me (as our decision is really only hinging on the heart issue). From what i read, this is really the only thing I can find that may require immediate surgery. You probably know A LOT more than I do on this.

My other big fear is a child with multiple disabilities (but I have read these are often chromasomal and I would need an amnio to discover this....which I'm not comfortable with).

Its actually a big dillemna for us and a topic of conversation nightly at the house.

I just think it is totally lame for people to be so negative on someone who is coming from the heart and feels her child was negatively affected by u/s. Like someone said before, NO ONE would react that way to a mom who felt vaccines harmed her child. Why the double standard?

And WHY is everyone so personal about it? Scare tactics?? What is her motive for doing that? I prefer honesty any day. Ultimately its up to me, but I believe it learning from everyone's experience.

If you don't mind sharing yours about your experience in cardiac nursing, I would be interested.

Also, what is everyone's feelings about the recommendations against routine u/s during otherwise normal pregnancies by the FDA and World Health Organization? That makes me wonder.....

XOXO
Beth

[luvmy3boys]

Like I said before, I was a pediatric cardiology nurse. Believe me, I DO know what I'm talking about. *If* a baby had a serious heart defect that would require surgery early on there is a big chance they would need special care after birth. So finding out BEFORE birth via u/s would be very helpful. Of course, chances are your baby is fine. Obviously do what you feel is best for yourself and your baby.

:yeah: Sadly, I know because my middle ds had 2 serious heart defects.

I would also like to address the comments some have made about how u/s should not be done for peace of mind. I disagree and think in certain situations they should be done (even just for peace of mind). Stress in pregnancy can cause severe side effects. Maternal stress and/or stress in utero are the only known cause for meconium being passed in utero (which if aspirated can be deadly). *Note-I am not saying u/s can show whether meconium is present or not as it can't...I am saying, however, if you are worried about your baby in utero because of a previous loss(es), or previous child(ren) with congenital defects or growth issues, or lack of movement, etc and it is to the point that you are stressing over it IMO/IME it is better to get that peace of mind than to be at higher risk for meconium being passed in utero.* I am not trying to use scare tactics, I am just speaking as a grieving mother who lost a child due to complications from meconium aspiration.

[KKmama]

Beth said
Also, what is everyone's feelings about the recommendations against routine u/s during otherwise normal pregnancies by the FDA and World Health Organization? That makes me wonder.....

I'd like to see a link to something saying the WHO is against u/s (because I haven't seen it--not saying it doesn't exist). The link posted earlier about the FDA, by the way, is mainly warning consumers against "keepsake" u/s (ie, u/s in a non-medical setting). Further, the FDA's site says:

Legitimate Uses for Ultrasound Imaging
# Diagnosing pregnancy
# Determining fetal age
# Diagnosing congenital abnormalities
# Evaluating position of placenta
# Determining multiple pregnancies


I don't think that anyone on this thread who has spoken in favor of u/s has mentioned anything outside of this list.

Again, I ask that everyone try to keep this as friendly and polite as possible.

[Stayathomemommy]

can i ask a question?? with my first pregnancy i had a doppler used maybe twice so i could record the heartbeat for my hubby who was in the military and living away from us at the time. but my midwife was great and loved that i made her use the fetascope.

with my second pregnancy i asked on the first visit if my midwife would use the fetascope and she said she wasnt practiced at it anymore and had to use the doppler.

QUESTION: What do you do if your midwife cant use a fetascope?? dont they have to monitor the heart rate at some point? i dont think they would go for just never hearing the heartbeat, thats basically all they do at visits.

[AdinaL]

Well, it is all a matter of perspective.

I will be having an early ultrasound, at approximately 7 weeks. I know the risks, I am well informed about them. In fact - my mother refused all ultrasounds with both me and my sister...that was 30 years ago, and 25 years ago. So I have had a whole lotta time to think about it.

That being said, I conceived via IVF. Certainly not the most natural thing ever...and not my preferred way of conceiving. Due to the fact that they transferred two blastocysts back, I need to have one to insure there is only one that stuck. I also do want one for peace of mind. I tried to conceive for three years. I spent three years thinking/knowing that something was wrong with me, I didn't work. If one ultrasound can alleviate the feeling like there is no possible way I could actualy gestate a baby, I will take the risks. I am also an asthmatic, so I have to weight he risks of those meds, and of the progesterone shots that I get every morning. Sometimes you need to use the tools that are presented to you. Even with a hammer you can break a finger or a hand or a foot. It all depends on how you use it. :)

I will likely have one near the end of the first trimester, to confirm dates, make sure all is well, and then that is it. After that I will be declining all tests I think, as I will be moving to midwife care. But while I am on these shots I need to be monitored.

:shrug Like I said, it is all a matter of perspective. A year ago, I never thought I would be able to give myself three shots/day, much less get an intramuscular shot every morning. :) Now, it is just what I have to do.

[Earth Angel]

with my second pregnancy i asked on the first visit if my midwife would use the fetascope and she said she wasnt practiced at it anymore and had to use the doppler.


I've been watching this continuing passionate discussion from afar....but had to reply to this. To me, this is VERY sad. The fetascope seems to be very easy to use IMO??? And even still, the doppler should never replace it for any midwife. I understand that the doppler is easier for them, but what if the batteries run out and they need to check the HB during labour??? Or the doppler stops working, the fetascope will work....no batteries or electronics needed.
Stayathomemommy, maybe you can convince your MW that you will be the client that will help her re learn how to use the fetascope??? I would explain the importance of not using the doppler to me and see what she says...


Blessings mammas on your pregnancies and may you all be able to make the decisions that feel right for you with ultrasounds and everything else that pregnancy/birthing and children bring


:love

[aweynsayl]

:love thought this thread could use some love :love

[BerniceH]

I know you all are saying to make informed decisions...

Honestly - this thread has scared the living crap out of me and I'm way stressed. I had a u/s and a transvaginal done on the same day to see if it was ectopic.. At 5w3d they said there wasn't a heartbeat... The doc said that it's not too abnormal, but I should be checked at 6 or 7 to see if there was one.. I'm scared shitless. I don't know what to do, I'd never forgive myself if I went into something knowing it could harm my child, and it did.

I figure if my child doesn't have a heartbeat.. my body would try to expell it, right? I'm going through all the normal [afaik and read] pregnancy stuff.. So I feel I'm okay. And I'm having dreams about my baby.. so hopefully everything is good.

I don't know what I want to do and I'm just lost.

[mommabear]

:hug to you Bernice. First of all, you are right -- if the baby doesn't have a heartbeat there are other ways to find that out. That does mean though, that you won't have the reassurances you might be looking for (ie. if you had an u/s and it showed a heartbeat). I hope you can find peace with yourself with the ones you have had -- I'm sure we all have situations we would change or rethink if we could (I know I do). You are not lost -- you are in the process of making a decision. But I know that can be scary. Just look inside yourself and try to weigh the positives and negatives of each decision. What could you personally live with? If you feel the need to have an u/s done now, you can still refuse later ones for other reasons unique to those situations. I hope you find the peace you are looking for -- your baby is blessed to have a mom who is already looking out for him/her. Peace mama.

[aprilushka]

I think all of us agree one shouldn't get u/s every other week just because you can (like some women who are on the more mainstream sites would do) and you like to see the baby growing, etc., and that one shouldn't get the higher powered ones also just because you can see the baby more clearly, etc. It seems to me that the standard 1-3 in pregnancy is probably not going to cause huge problems in most cases, though we can't be sure. I'm inclined to think it's not a bad idea to get just the 20 week one in case there is some defect that can be treated at birth but needs to be treated immediately, especially if it would relieve pregnancy worry and stress which can also be harmful, as already noted. I probably will do just the one at 20 weeks in the absence of any other signs something is wrong. I just want to be able to do it without having to sign up with an OB.

I don't think that either the proponents of moderate use of u/s vs. none at all are definitely right or wrong-- I think we are all in agreement here that it shouldn't be used for nondiagnostic purposes and it shouldn't be overused.

[BethSLP]

well said, aprillushka!!! :wink

[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. :hug

[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]

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. :heartbeat

[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]

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]

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

:yeah: 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. :)