Ultrasound safety

[allismom]

I know there are many people here that think ultrasounds are harmful to baby. Frankly, I haven't done the research, so if anybody has some good articles, links, I'd love to read them.

My question though, is this......is a 3D ultrasound any worse than a regular ultrasound? I have the 'option' to have a 3D ultrasound at 20 weeks and I think that would be really neat for us to see and for DD to see her sibling looking 'real'. But I don't want to put my baby at greater risk just because it would be 'cool'.

thanks

[KoalaMommy]

The ultrasound technology (that is what is aimed at the baby) is exactly the same in 3D as in regular. What is different is the equipment interpreting the data. As long as you don't go to one of those novelty places that spend an hour giving you a 3D glimps of your baby by a non-trained "technician", it doesn't make any difference which kind you have.

[Pinky Tuscadero]

http://www.mothering.com/articles/pregnancy_birth/birth_preparation/ultrasound-risks.html

Here is a good one right here at mdc.
Suzy

[alegna]

My issue with ultrasound is that it has not been proven safe. Even the organizations of OB/Gyns say not to use it except for real medical purposes. Well in my book- having a look-see and finding out gender are not medical purposes.

just my $.02

-Angela

[MrsMoe]

it can be argued that nothing is truly proven safe or unsafe... it depends on your personal slant to research.

http://abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1257089.htm

[2+twins]

I'm personally of the stance that ultrasound should not be used for non-medical purposes (I have my own reasons for believing they're less than perfectly safe). Anyway, for the FDA's stance on keepsake ultrasound such as what you're talking about, read here:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/104_images.html

[allismom]

thanks for the links. I would not do one just for the sake to do one. Maybe I should have mentioned that in OP. I had preterm issues first time around so I know they are going to watch me like a hawk from 28 weeks on.....I am assuming more frequent u/s's will be a part of that.

[ZeldasMom]

I'm personally of the stance that ultrasound should not be used for non-medical purposes

This is how I look at it too. I did choose to get one. Then a few weeks later I got a flyer from the local teaching hospital (affiliated with my family practice doc) saying if I wanted to I could be paid $$$ for letting medical students practice giving ultrasounds on me. Ugh. Would love to see the info they give participants when they get their "informed" consent. It depressed me because you know the people who do it are going to be folks that are low on cash and are doing it for the money. I feel this is exploiting people with low-income. There has to be a better way to train medical students about ultrasound than letting them practice on live babies of poor mamas.

[beachcomber]

I agree it's exploitative to offer money for allowing training to be done on you. I don't think it's ethical.

However, I agree with Mrs Moe's opinion on this. Much as it'd be great to do nothing that isn't proven safe for our babies, there are a lot of things out there we can't exercise that amount of control over. And the whole "proven safe" concept is more based in medical liability than it is in the health of mothers and babies. That stance simply isn't pushed in other parts of the world (and I'm talking the "west" here) to the extent that it is in N.America.