ultrasound concerns

[Serenity]

I've chosen not to have an ultrasound done for my (1st) baby after much thought and research. My midwife doesn't recommend them routinely so no problem there. I'm having trouble dealing with well-meaning family members and friends who seem to think I'm dancing with the devil not to have a look-see. How do I address their concerns without becoming taken in by their anxiety?

So far, I've said, it's not a necessary procedure, I feel everything is fine, I'm perfectly healthy, my lab tests look great, and even if there was a problem, there's nothing they can do about it now anyway. After all that, I always get stumped on, "But how do you know for sure everything is ok?" My dh is absolutely no help, he is terrified that there is something wrong with the baby and we just don't know it. Probably because his sister has a birth defect (although it is not genetic). Advice, suggestions?

[peggy]

That's a hard one. I am an "older" Mom and ultra-sounds were not routinely done for my first 4 pregnancies. No one thought it was "strange" back then not to know what the sex was or the health of the baby. With my last two babies they were available, and being an older Mom it was recommended I have them. I had one for baby number 5, was told she was perfectly "normal". She was born with a genetic condition. So that may give you an idea of what I think of ultra-sounds!
Tell your well meaning friends and relatives that US's are not fool proof, they are really only best when the size of the baby is a concern or the dates seem off. In my opinion it seems that many women today have them done to have a "picture" for their baby book or to see if they can find out the sex of the baby. Very frivilous reasons for doing medical tests!
Good luck!
peggy

[momma22]

"It's out of my hands - it is in God's hands"
"My mom never had one for me and I am fine!"
"Did your mom/Grandma have one?"
"I have a feeling that this baby is shy and doesn't want it's picture taken just yet - after all, it's naked!"
"Would you want someone taking a picture of you in your birthday suit?"

Or lie, tell them you did and everything is as ok as an US can tell! And that either the baby wasn't in a good position to tell the sex or that you are choosing not to find out, after all, there are so few real surprises in this life, why not keep one that was intended to be kept?

Or just tell every one that it is your body, your baby and you both are in the care of a very good medical professional and if it is deemed necessary, you will do what you need to when the time comes! And that it is none of their business.

Good Luck and God Bless!

[kama'aina mama]

It's just a tiny white lie, "My doctor doesn't reccomend one for me." Okay, it's really your midwife, but if you have to go toe to toe with people who persist in worshiping at the altar of medical technology invocing their gods goes a long way.
I had one at about twelve weeks so I have a picture of the lima bean. I also let my original clinic use doppler at every checkup. If I had it to do over I wouldn't permit any of it. I could tell Bonnie didn't like the doppler, she would leap to the other side of me every time they started chasing her with it. Keep standing up for your baby. You are doing the right thing. They really learn very little useful from ultrasound and most of it they can learn from less intrusive methods.

[bloobug]

Well actually the AAP, I think it's them, does not recommend routine ultrasounds. Ultrasounds have never been proven safe, and in lab mice they changed cell growth at a fraction of the power used on human babies. That gives people something to think about. My best reply to well-meaning people: It's none of your business.
Megan

[3 little birds]

The American Medical Association does not recommend us's for determining the sex of the child, determing the gestational age of the child, or for any normal pregnancy.

At my first prenatal visit for #3 the Dr. ordered an us to determine gestational age because he said I felt too small. After doing some research I decided no way (It doesn't get more mainstream or allopathic than the AMA). Then I ended up in the ER with severe pain in my back on the right. After ruling out my kidney, an ultrasound was ordered to see if I had an ectopic pregnancy. I asked the technician to make it quick, she got offended and proceeded to try to get the baby (who is in the right place) to move around by using the sound waves. I almost lost my mind. I could care less about a picture of the baby (in which I can't tell what is what anyway) if it might endanger my child.
Anyway, I didn't feel justified in getting the first ultrasound because it was for a frivolous reason. I didn't want to die from an exploded fallopian tube either, so the one I did have made sense to me.
When people ask about future us, I tell them that I am not convinced they are safe.

[BusyMommy]

Try,
there's not adequate research to show they're safe in the long term; ie. theorised link to hearing damage

and

possible damage to eggs of a female fetus

But...if you do end up getting one, they can do a "quick" version of it instead of the long tour.

[Len]

I regret I didn't do any research about US's before having one at 19 weeks with my DS. Well, we wanted a "picture" of our baby as (most) everybody else, right? It happens that they saw a cyst on the baby's brain (which we later found in our research that it's perfectly normal) and they made it sound like a perfect match for a genetic problem (Downs or trisomy 18) because of my "old" age (I was 31!) they were about ready to perform an amnio that same afternoon (yikes!) Needless to say we ran away from the hospital and (I) spent the next few days crying. After that "incident" and after doing my research about the subject I decided to forget about it for the baby's sake and have a happy rest of my pregnancy. My DS is now almost 2 1/2 and he is perfectly healthy. If I ever get pregnant again, I will most definitely keep my unborn baby away from hospitals in all respects.

[Sierra]

If you think it's hard explaining your US refusal as is, try being in one of the major high risk categories:eek: LOL! I'm a type 1 diabetic, and in diabetics, US are done very frequently, but you know what? I don't do an US when I'm preggers unless there is a very specific purpose and intended outcome and unless I am absolutely certain the benefits clearly outweigh any known or unknown risks. Anyway, try explaining that LOL! :D

[motherdownunder]

I find myself in the same position of always needing to explain why we haven't had an u/s and it's very annoying. There are all kinds of things you could say like the only real action you could take from u/s info. would be termination and you're not prepared to do that, etc. but there isn't really any point. It seems that about 99% of women have them these days and to tell any of them that u/s aren't actually safe just makes them defensive and worried. I find it refreshing and reassuring when I get the chance to speak to older women, like grandmas at playgroup, because they didn't have them either and are supportive of my choice.
Ultimately, you know you're doing the best thing for your baby so just stick to it.

[Serenity]

Thanks for all the support and encouragement everyone, it is good to hear from like-minded women. I know I'm doing the right thing for my babe but sometimes my family/friends can make me have doubts. I guess this is just the beginning of choosing my own path to AP parenting. My new mantra: I'm the mom so I get final say. :D

[mamakarata]

my battle was with my MIL about having a midwife instead of a Doctor. I have had a "high risk pregnancy" complete with a miscarried twin and hemorhaging, and finally stopped picking up the phone during the crucial times of this pregnancy, because I had to field questions like "what did you do?", and "don't you want a real doctor to look out for you?".

My DH and I would make up lies to give her like "well actually, we have installed a 24 hour monitor in Cheryl's vagina that will track the growth and developement completely..." . Of course we never told her that, but it sure felt good to laugh when we were already stressed out enough ourselves without having to answer to questions like that!

EDD is now 11/29, so we must have done something right to get this far!

Good luck.

[Julie]

Wow I had No idea U/S may not be safe!

[in8]

My husband and I are both chiropractors who come from very "mainstream" families. We plan to do a lot of things differently with our children. At first, we were very vocal about our different choices. Since we were met with battles by well-meaning, but ill-informed people, we have learned to be a bit more quiet. As far as the US is concerned, it has come up. In both of our families, a "research" type answer combined with emotional understanding works best. We have made statements like this: "Well, research shows that there is really not a medical need for US. Often, when they are performed, women are worried unneccesarily by false-positive results. Although I would love a picture of my baby, I am just not ready to risk the anxiety of a picture that is false-positive for Down's or something else. If something changes in my pregnancy, and it seems that there is a medical need, I will not hesitate to have an US." That seems to pacify them. I think that they just need to know that I am not being too "radical" about the whole thing.

in8

[Clarity]

I agree with the pacifying strategy...in my first pregnancy I just said we weren't going to have one unless there was a medical need and most of the family/friends were cool with that. Esp. the family since most of them remember before U/S. Of course, then it did get complicated at the end and I had a bunch. And this time I had 30+ u/s...but I got a live baby out of it. But with a normal pregnancy, right back to none again.

Clarity

[Sierra]

Julie, nothing is definitive about US right now, but if you are interested in the less-common opinion, you might want to do a search on the Mothering site. Mothering recently had an issue with some big articles about US.

[Birth Junkie]

The following is some research I've done on ultrasound. Whnever approached about it, I just always say the U/s hasn't been shown to improve outcomes in studies. Usually shuts them up right away.

Ultrasound
Weighing the Propaganda against Facts

The use of ultrasound is big business, with lots of marketing. Women have been led to believe their baby’s well-being is ensured by ultrasound scans for early detection of problems. That is not necessarily so, and there are a number of studies which show that early detection can be harmful.

Miscarriage & Preterm Labor
A 1990 Michigan study: 57 women at risk for preterm labor were studied. Half had weekly ultrasounds, half had standard care.
Preterm labor was more than doubled in the ultrasound group – 52% - compared with 25% in the controls. Although the numbers were small the difference was unlikely to emerge by chance.

A 1990 Helsinki study: 9,000 women were studied. 4000 were scanned at 16-20 weeks, 5000 weren’t scanned at all. 20 miscarriages occurred in the scanned group and none in the controls.

A 1993 London study: 2475 women studied. Half had Doppler ultrasound exams of the umbilical and uterine arteries at 19-22 weeks and at 32 weeks. The other half had no Doppler ultrasound. There were 19 perinatal deaths of normal infants in the Doppler group. Only 4 deaths in the no Doppler group.

A 1990 Helsinki study: if an ultrasound technician were pregnant, handling the ultrasound equipment for more than 20 hours a week significantly increased the risk of miscarriage. Also the risk of miscarriage occurring after the tenth week was significantly increased for deep heat therapies given for more than five hours per week and ultrasound more than ten hours per week.

Diagnosing Placenta Previa
The 1st 1990 Helsinki study also revealed: Of the 4000 women scanned at 16-20 weeks, 250 had a placenta previa diagnosis, a potentially life threatening condition for mother and baby . At delivery only 4 of the 250 diagnosed women actually had placenta previa. Interestingly in the unscanned group there were also four women with placenta previa. Sadly 246 women underwent an unnecessary cesarean section and spent their pregnancies worrying about the surgery and possibility of sudden hemorrhage.

Detecting Infant Defects & Growth Retardation
A Norway study: 36 babies with hernias, abdominal wall defects, bladder extrophy, and meningomyelocele were studied. Only 13 of the 36 were detected before birth (36%), even though mothers had an average 5 ultrasound scans.
~3 of the 13 properly diagnosed babies died after birth. Only 1 of the 23 undiagnosed died.
~ All 13 diagnosed were delivered by cesarean. 19 of the 23 undiagnosed had an uncomplicated vaginal delivery.
~ The 13 diagnosed had lower birth weights and 2 weeks shorter gestation. Although the diagnosed received surgery earlier than the undiagnosed, outcomes were the same. Knowing about defects in advance did not benefit these babies. More of them died, were delivered sooner, had lower weights, & longer hospital stay.

A 1998 German study: out of 2378 scanned pregnancies (average 4.7 scans ) , only 58 of the 183 growth retarded babies were diagnosed before birth. 45 infants were wrongly diagnosed as being growth retarded. Only 28 of the 72 severely retarded babies were detected before birth. 74% of the diagnosed babies were delivered by cesarean, while only 30% of the undiagnosed were, with pre-term delivery being more frequent in the cesarean group. Intensive care admission rate was 3 times higher in the diagnosed group.

Emotional Impact
Not bonding with or loving the fetus for fear they may have to part with it.

Abortion, especially devastating if a diagnoses was wrong and the baby was normal and healthy.

Seeing the baby as defected, even if it was born healthy and normal.

Additional Risks
Because ultrasound has been developed rapidly without proper evaluation it is extremely difficult to prove subtle effects. Nonetheless:
A 1984 American study: Compared with a control group children who had not been exposed to ultrasound, aged 7-12, those exposed were more likely to have dyslexia and have been admitted to the hospital in childhood.

A 1993 Calgary study: Compared 72 children with delayed speech of unknown cause with 142 controls who were similar in demographics. The children with speech problems were twice as likely as controls to have been exposed to ultrasound in the womb. Note that the scanners used in the study emitted very low doses of ultrasound – lower than exposures emitted from machines nowadays.

Studies are now underway to examine the effects of scans on I.Q., attention span, organ & ear abnormalities, fertility, & other behaviors.
Adapted by Amy Jones from Ultrasound? Unsound and www.midwiferytoday.com/library/articles/ultrasound both by Beverly Lawrence Beech and Jean Robinson




Ultrasound Weighing the Propoganda against the Facts Miscarriage & Preterm Labor :eek: diagnosing placneta previa detecting infant defects & growth retardation emotional impact additional risks

[asherah]

This is really disturbing stuff.
I've already turned down the triple screen and the amnio, which already has everyoneI know thinking I am a nut case since I am a 39 year old crone.
I was thinking I'd have the high-res ultrasound, but after reading all this I feel unsure.
Is it safe and ok to have NOTHING at all?
Not even the doppler? Hearing that heartbeat has meant so much to me, but I don't want to do it again if it isn't safe.
Can I just have faith the baby is ok?
AARGH. These are hard decisions.

[Birth Junkie]

you need to go with what's at your comfort level. Personally I'm forgoing u/s and doppler and using fetoscope only except during labor i'll use a doppler. If there's no improved outcome, what's the point? And there's no point even discussing it with other people unless they're genuinly curious.

Amy

[kama'aina mama]

First off, of course it is safe and okay to have nothing at all! Millions of babies have been born with no prenatal tests. Your mom probably didn't have you scanned. If you really feel nervous about not having one, then have it. Personally I didn't enjoy having them and found that just getting them done made me anxious. The decision is yours. You are a mom now, so you will be making lots of decisions, but I expect a mature, beautiful fruitful goddess like yourself can handle it.

[asherah]

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]

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]

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]

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!:eek:

[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]

...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/story.html?f=/stories/20011210/833218.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]

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.

[ishta]

I have been doing a lot of web surfin these last few weeks about u/s and found the study that's being refered to. It was published in the journal Epidemiology. The title is Sinistrality - a Side-effect of Prenatal Sonography: A Comparative Study of Young Men. I wasn't able to view it directly because you need to subscribe, but they have an abstract about it that gives some details. The website is www.epidem.com/

The reason I've been so concerned about u/s is that I've just found out that one minute of doppler use exposes your baby to an amount equal to 35 minutes of u/s. For me, I am against having an ultrasound done, yet we tried the doppler on my first prenatal visit just to hear the heartbeat. I ended up having the equivilent to 1hour and 45 minutes of u/s! I knew it had some risk attached, but I never imagined how much. I urge you to think twice next time they start gelling up your belly.

[mel]

:eek: yikes! I had no idea that doppler use was dangerous. I have to admit though, that I always wondered alittle about it since I HAD heard that u/s is dangerous. I wondered how the doppler could be much different. I am 24 weeks pregnant and have had the doppler used on me five times already! How can I find out more about the dangers of the use of dopplers ~ ishta, do you remember where you found your information? I'm wondering just how much damage has been done already by 5 uses! Why would a midwife who does not do u/s turn around and freely use doppler?? I had a feeling that I should be researching more aggressively!

[lunarmomma]

I had posted this in Alt and Comp Medicine bause I didn't want to freak anyone out in htis forum.
I know how sensitive pregnant mommas to be are and I figured that guilt wasn't going to help any, but as it is here I will repost the link that was in the BBC online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1699000/1699905.stm

[ishta]

mel- I first found out about it through the "I am sending my babybeat back" thread in this forum. There's a link there to gentlebirth.org that has a little info. It was hard for me to find much more over the web, it seems like it's kept pretty hush hush. I asked my midwife about it during my last visit and she confirmed the 1 min=35 min thing.
I would also love to know more about it if anyone can find anything. To my knowledge there have been no studies on the effect of dopplers.
I think I'll start a seperate thread to see if anyone else has more info.

[momagain]

I'm currently 17 weeks pg w/my second child, and today I had a check up with my ob-gyn; we listened to the baby's heartbeat...which I thought was a non-invasive procedure (hm!)

I'm confused: what's the difference between ultrasound and doppler? Is u/s when you see the image on the screen, and doppler when you just hear sound? Or ???

I only JUST heard today that u/s is *not* a good thing, and that in fact even the designer of u/s said it was not to be used for pregnancy but for other medical purposes (this info, per my chiropractor). So far, I've had one intravaginal u/s, one belly-top u/s, and one [what I guess is] doppler to listen to the heartbeat. I'm scheduled for a Level II Ultrasound in a couple of weeks because I'm "long in the tooth" (39 yrs old), but there's no history of genetic probs in our families. So that would equal 4 such procedures within the first half of the pregnancy.

So, who knows or can point me in the right direction: how much more invasive is a Level II u/s than a regular u/s (if it is more invasive at all) and what kind of damage potentials are we talking about with u/s and/or doppler?

BTW, I had many u/s with my 1st baby, who is now 20 mos old, and there are no (apparent) ill effects that we can tell...but then again, perhaps angels were working overtime for us throughout that pregnancy!

Thanks for any leads / info.

[Bluegrass]

I was looking for ultrasound info on the HipMama.com boards, and someone posted this link which offers some good info and other links:
http://gentlebirth.org/archives/preScreen.html#Routine

Hope this is helpful.


-We must be the change we wish to see.
-Gandhi

[organicmama]

I can see this issue from both sides. When I was pregnant with my first 6 years ago, I worked in labor in delivery. We were right next to the U/S department & my friend in U/S scanned me several times, just for fun. During one such scan, he kept going back to the heart. He saw something was "off" but wouldn't tell me what it was. He suggested I schedule an official U/S asap. Turns out my son had several life-threatening heart anomalies. If they hadn't been detected by U/S he might have died or suffered severe brain damage before they figured out what was wrong with him after birth. On the other hand, I've always wondered if all those "fun" U/S could have caused the mutation resulting in the heart defects.

With my 2nd son, I had one U/S at 25 weeks to screen for a heart defect. That was it. I avoided U/S like the plage BUT I had to know he was ok before I could birth at the birthing center. He had a beautiful, peaceful birth in stark contrast to the birth of his older brother. (For those who don't know, my 5 y.o. has been through 3 major surgeries & I nearly lost him after the last one, but he is doing really great right now. The light of our lives.)

I am expecting our third baby (15 weeks) & planning a home birth. I am planning to have an U/S again at 25 weeks to screen for heart defects or spinal anomolies (since I don't believe in using the AFP screening). I am comfortable with this compromise. U/S can be used appropriately or it can be misused & over used. I think cautious use is very wise.

Oh, I am also avoiding doppler use. My midwife uses a feta scope. You have to wait a few more weeks before you can hear anything but, you avoid the potential unnecessary risks.

[jjquilter]

I am a scientist and can get the article in full, if anyone is interested. It will be too long to post here, but I can send it to anyone who's interested. Or mail it... whatever. Let me know if you're interested and I'll forward it along.

Erin

[amsvensk]

I also read about a/the ultrasound study in the Swedish newspapers here and realized then the probable cause of my first son's lefthandedness!! Because of a miscarriage in the 12th week with my first pregnancy I agreed to be part of a university study about the effects of caffiene and more on pregnancy. Mostly this involved hair samples, cord-blood samples, and questionnaires on diet and health history. No big deal. But it also involved two extra ultrasounds. I didn't really know of any dangers at the time and being so worried after the first miscarriage, I was only happy to have the extra u/s. So now my son is four and very definitely lefthanded, which has always struck us as odd as no one else in our family is. So there you go. Interestingly though, the reports on this study in the Swedish news just said that extra ultrasounds tended to make boys lefthanded and there was no mention of brain-damage. Still, scary to think it can do even that!

[copslass]

I would be very interested in reading the study in its entirety, Erin.
Thank you.
Tracy
copslass@aol.com

[truly_sarah]

I had posted a question about this under the mammography thread. WOW - I am amazed, but maybe not so amazed : ( that it is true. Well, my first baby I lost due to a major defect - amniotic banding, that was discovered by an OB/GYN/Geneticist (friend's husband) doing one of those just-for-fun ultrasounds. So baby #2 I got a couple ultrasounds to make sure. He's 11 now and perfectly OK, above average intelligence, right-handed, etc. LOL. Baby #3 a decade younger, me a decade older, refused amniocentesis, but agreed to high-level ultrasound, had to go back for a second because the dates/AFP were messed up...baby is also seeming to be of above-average intelligence, ahead developmentally, even-tempered, and is um, left-handed. Course, I work in statistics, also am ambidextrous so go figure.

But...seeing someone started a thread about this, I did a little searching and enclose the following...seems safety of ultrasound and doppler is not really a given. I'm thinking my next baby I will refuse all testing, what's the point if it's not safe...not like I would terminate my pregnancy (though with baby #1 it was good to know not to try to stop a natural miscarriage at 5 months along, and to know what to expect). I only had the one ultrasound so I know that's not what caused the defects, BTW.

Quote to follow, I'm sure there are other articles...but this is from a reputable journal. When they refer to thermal...what they mean is that if the operator stops moving the imaging probe for about 30 seconds, it can heat the bone up and cause damage to the surrounding tissue. Oh that is gross - like microwaving your fetus practically. Oh my! Ultrasounds are not something for just anybody to play around with. I feel better that my doctor sent me to a high-risk pregnancy center where they at least had technicians who were properly trained...but I have heard in other countries, these machines are used by who-knows-who to determine sex of baby. Maybe a lot of misuse by untrained people. Poor babies.

1: J Matern Fetal Med 2001 Apr;10(2):75-84

Guidelines and recommendations for safe use of Doppler ultrasound in perinatal
applications.

Barnett SB, Maulik D; International Perinatal Doppler Society.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Lindfield, NSW,
Australia. stan.barnett@tip.csiro.au

Technological development has led to significant improvements in
ultrasonographic capabilities in recent years, and this has been accompanied by
increases in acoustic output. Meanwhile, there is a developing trend to use
ultrasound at early stages of pregnancy when the developing embryo is known to
be highly sensitive to damage by physical agents. The advent of pulsed spectral
Doppler and color flow imaging has revolutionized perinatal applications.
Doppler ultrasound has become widely accepted as a valuable diagnostic tool in
obstetric medicine, where it has particular benefits for high-risk pregnancies.
The benefits of Doppler screening are less well established. United States Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations now provide an option whereby
equipment that provides a form of output display can be used to apply
substantially higher acoustic output to the embryo or fetus than equipment
approved for use under application-specific intensity limits. The Output Display
Standard recently adopted by the FDA, in the USA, encourages self-regulation of
acoustic exposure by the ultrasound user, on the basis of assumed knowledge of
the implications of biophysical interactions. When modern sophisticated
equipment is used at maximum operating settings for Doppler examinations, the
acoustic outputs are sufficient to produce obvious biological effects, e.g.
significant temperature increase in tissue or visible motion of particles due to
radiation pressure streaming effects. The risk of inducing thermal effects is
greater in the second and third trimesters, when fetal bone is intercepted by
the ultrasound beam and significant temperature increase can occur in the fetal
brain. Non-thermal bioeffects may be more significant in early gestation, when
the relatively loosely tethered embryonic tissues are exposed to an ultrasound
beam in a liquid path. The likelihood of producing cavitation-type non-thermal
effects is enhanced by the presence in the sound-field of gas-encapsulated
echo-contrast media. To ensure the continued safe use of ultrasound in
obstetrics, it is important that international ultrasound organizations, such as
the International Perinatal Doppler Society, issue advice to members to allow
sensible assessment of risk: benefit and the practical implementation of the
ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle.

Publication Types:
Guideline
Practice Guideline

PMID: 11392597 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[truly_sarah]

And here is a link to more info that confirms the previous postings in this thread:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergy&synergyAction=showFullText&doi=10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00296.x

Sarah

[wren]

jjquilter, can I get a copy of the article too?

wren422@hotmail.com

Thanks in advance

wren

[jjquilter]

All right -- after a fairly thorough search of the medical literature, here is what I found:

Searched: Medline 1966 to present

1. The epidemiology article is all about how it is suspected that ultrasound leads to greater incidence of left-handedness among boys. The study was done as a follow up on children around about 10 years ago. I did not consider this relevant to anyone's concerns about u/s being particularly harmful.

2. Most of the other literature I found pertains to how u/s is used to predict fetal abnormalities and what effect this has on the outcome of pregnancies. A few of the articles were sociological ones about what percentage of abnormal fetuses are diagnosed as such and whether a mis-diagnosis causes and increase in rates of abortion. All in all, most of the studies concluded that u/s did more good than harm because it is a good tool for predicting fetal abnormalities, which allows medical people to plan and intervene if necessary.

3. The few references I found to u/s being harmful were inconclusive. One of the pieces of info that I DID find was that the u/s intensity that is used today is much lower than that used ten years ago. So if it was the case the u/s caused problems in children about ten years of age now, the incidence should be lower in babes born today.

As for me, I had my midwives use the fetoscope (like a stethoscope) on me instead of a doppler after I started doing research. Then last Friday night I spent 4 hours hooked up to a doppler to make sure that I wasn't in premature labour. Now, I've just given up. I'm scheduled to have a visual u/s next week because I'm 3 weeks too big for my date. If I make it that long, that is.

Sorry for the disappointing results -- if I find anything of more interest I'll post it.

[truly_sarah]

Try Pubmed...that's where I found my articles...moreover, they are recent. Did you have a chance to look them over?

I searched on +'ultrasound' +"prenatal" +"safety"

And various combinations thereof. I only posted the two that were of any relevance to the discussion.

Sarah

[joyful_mamma]

i have some questions/concerns regarding the safety of ultrasounds, and since it was brought up in another thread, i thought i'd start one soley about this.

i've been diagnosed with a potentially incompetent cervix. i had my dd via c-section, and during the procedure, the surgeon cut my cervix. it now appears shorter than normal and has scar tissue at the top. my midwife & ob decided to send me to a specialist to determine what exactly it meant. so far, it has been determined that yes, the cervix does not appear normal, but there has been no dilation or effacement, and i've had no pre term delivery symptoms. (though apparently there can be no symptoms at all when ci is involved..but i've also had no bloody show at all, which is a common sign with c.i. cases) however, my doctor wants to keep a close eye on me, and is having me come back every two weeks for an ultrasound on my cervix. so far, i've had 3 cervical ultrasounds, as well as 4 ultrasounds for my baby specifically. so far, the baby looks very healthy, but i've noticed that every time an ultrasound is done, he (or she..) gets very squirmy and moves away from the source of intrusion.

i'm wondering-is having so many ultrasounds done safe for my baby? what exactly are the risks involved? i absolutely do NOT want to put my baby in any danger from the ultrasounds, but i also don't want to lose him/her or have him/her too early due to c.i. so i feel as though i have to continue having this many ultrasounds as a precaution.

does anyone have any advice or know where i can get some good info on this? thanks!
~danielle

[kama'aina mama]

I certainly hope I haven't made you nervous by posting about ultrasound. Part of the whole thing is that no one really knows the risks. There hasn't been much study at all considering they are in such wide usage. Mothering did I set of articles on the subject just after my daughter was born, in sept of 2000. You could probably find the magazine at a library and read those articles.

The biggest issue to me is routine ultrasound. There may be some risk, small as it is, and I don't hear docs discussing it with anyone... thay act like it is as harmless as getting your picture taken. And it probably isn't.

In a situtation like yours it is all about risk vs gain. The risk is probably very small and the gain could be considerable. You have a reason for the exams so it makes more sense, in my opinion.

Oh, and I also noticed that my daughter really didn't like the use of the doptone to hear her heartbeat. She would flee from it all over the place while the nurse chased her around my belly. That didn't seem right to me, so I asked more questions. DH and I decided at about 6 months... no more ultrasound, no more doptone, nothing! Then DD stayed breech past 37 weeks and we decided to have an external version... full series ultrasound, continuous fetal monitoring for a couple of hours, the whole nine yards! But at that point we felt the gain of avoiding a section was greater than the potential risk.

Best of luck with your pregnancy!

[Due_in_August]

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.

I've had two U/S so far and both times the baby practically "smiled" for the camera. The only time she really got po'd was when the technician made the transducer "jump up and down" on my belly, in the hopes it would make the baby move. Well, she didn't move, stayed sitting on my bladder and put her hands over her hears! So this obviously wasn't from the transducer or the soundwaves (they are inaudible), but just merely from having my belly bounced on.

I've never seen her "run away" or try and squirm from the view. If anything she performs for it and enjoys getting looked at. I'm sure every u/s will go differently for every person because we all have to realize that the babies temperament has already begun while in the womb. And he/she will react differently at different times. It really isn't anything from the U/S itself that makes the child squirm, its just the fact that the transducer is "pressing" down slightly and making her maybe move when she was happy right where she is. Babies will have their cranky days, their actives days and their sleepy days in the womb, and sometimes they just don't want to be bothered!

Also, I think the mothers reaction has a lot to do with how the baby is reacting. If the mother feels nervous, or worried or slightly irritated, the child gets the idea and acts accordingly. Often by having an increased heartbeat themselves and getting squirmy and irritable.

But thats just my two cents on the topic. I don't think there is any real harm in getting them done, except for one they are done and the results aren't full explained to a momma and then she gets upset and thinks something is wrong with her baby when there is actually no need for concern! The lack of explaination from the technician/obs really pisses me off sometimes.

Good puck!

[kama'aina mama]

I would be very interested to see a study that proves ultrasound is perfectly safe as the only ones I have ever seen were either inconclusive or showed some potential for harm. Of course ultrasound is not radiation. It is physically tangible pulses of sound. Ultrasound can be and has been used as a weapon. At high levels it can stun healthy adults into unconciousness. The ultrasound used on pregnant women is not only undertested but every couple of years a new machine comes out that is 'higher resolution' which really just means more ultrasound when the levels already in use have not been proven safe.

[Due_in_August]

Quote edited due to copyright issues

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.

The thermal question is this: the babies skull, and bones can be heated with prolonged use of a U/S. But even this has not been proven to cause injury.

U/S have been in use for 25 years or so. If they were TRULY damaging to the fetus they wouldn't be in use anymore, I think. They ban drugs and poor equipement all the time. I refuse to believe if the damage was permanent and serious and directly caused by the use of U/S they wouldn't be trying to come up with better systems all the time, and instead would just discontinue the use of any and all machines.

But I cannot prove they are completely harmless, no more than someone else can prove that they are harmful. 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.

I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves I'm just stating my opinion and everyone has a right to their own without having to be right about their opinion. I may not be right about mine, I may not be wrong.

IMO, I think the benefits of a couple routine U/S during a pregnancy FAR outweigh any small risks that there could be. I think unneeded stress and worry of wondering how your fetus is doing, could be more harmful to their emotional well-being than getting a u/s performed a few times during pregnancy. Plus, some miscarriages, infant defects, and risks during childbirth can be pre-determined and changed for the benefit of the child and mother. I just think that going the whole pregnancy without at least 1 u/s to make sure the baby is developing is too worrisome on the parents.

Perhaps one every two weeks is too much. Especially if they are going to continue throughout the entire pregnancy. I recognize in myself that just before a u/s I'd get anxious and nervous. But once I saw my baby and everything was said to be normal, I walked away happy in the knowledge my baby was developing physically normal. And I seriously doubt that will change because of the couple u/s I've had. If the doctor wants to continue u/s for every two months until you deliver, I'd sit him down and have a talk with him. Perhaps u/s during once visit, and a physical during the next. Something so that the u/s don't become too overbearing and put more stress on you.

Anyways, this is again my two cents, and my last two cents on this topic as I'm not into arguing my point to try and make myself right, especially as I know in this case, there is no positive right or wrong.

[kama'aina mama]

A 1984 study published by the Institute of OB/Gyns sites rates of dyslexia occuring between 33% higher and 120% higher in children aged 7-12 who had been scanned with ultrasound in utero than in their unscanned counterparts.

A 1987 study in Experimental Nuerology sites significant reduction in the developement of myelin in neonatal rats scanned at the same rate and duration typical for fetal ultrasound. Myelin is the sheath surrounding nerve fibers all through your body. For an idea of what someone with damaged myelin will experience Multiple sclorosis is a disease that destroys myelin.

In 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."

The FDA in 1984 issued a public letter stating "ultrasound energy delivered to the fetus cannot be regarded as innocuous... exposing the fetus to ultrasound with no anticipation of medical benefit is not justified."

I have lots more but that is the jist of it. I cannot justify the use of routine ultrasound. I think that part of the problem is that doctors have had so much success in convincing us that there is something basically pathological about pregnancy so that they can have something to test for and reassure us about. Millions of babies over thousands of generations have been born just fine without this intrusive technology. We need to examine what the medical profession tells us is important and necesary and decide for ourselves. Bear in mind, this is the same group of doctors that tends to believe that the female body is only rarely, if ever, capable of delivering a baby vaginally without high doses of narcotics or other painkillers and a slice in the vaginal opening for good measure. The same doctors who will look you right in the eye and tell you that epidurals and spinals don't get to your baby.

Ask yourself this: How much does that machine in your doctors office cost? How is he going to pay it off if he doesn't use it a lot? Is he motivated to build up my confidence that I am having a healthy and normal pregnancy? or to introduce doubts in my mind that he can then allay with the use of a fancy, expensive machine that goes "Ping!"?

[Corriander]

When making any kind of decision like this it is important to be able to weigh the risks and benefits. The risks of ultrasound may exist, but they are not fully proven. The benefits, in your case, may exist also. Talk to your dr about this. What is the real benefit of these ultrasounds. What kind of problem is he looking for and if he finds it what can he do about it? Is there another less invasive proceedure that can give him the same amount of information?

With more information about the risks and benefits you can more clearly make a decision.

I know that this must be stressful.

BTW, this first dr who cut your cervix, was that really necessary? How often does that happen? Any chance of suing this guy?

[SagMom]

can anyone elaborate on the difference between a "regular" ultrasound and a level II ultrasound? I know level II gives a more detailed pic, but technically, how do they differ? (I've never had either, but want to be prepared in case the issue comes up.) Anyone know of a good site that explains the level II? thanks.

ps--on the cervix issue, wouldn't a simple vaginal exam do?

[susansea]

I agree with above posts that doing frequent u/s in your case may make sense b/c the benefits probably outweigh any risks. Maybe you could get a second opinion to be sure, or talk with dr about whether you could do less than every 2 wks.

Also, as daughter of a doctor & sister/sister-in-law to 3 osteopathic docs, I must take issue with the post above that assumes a "profit making" motive to giving lots of u/s tests. 1st, I think the vast majority of docs become docs b/c they want to help people, not to make $$. 2nd, I think there is a better explanation for over-testing & the tendency of drs to give more tests to pg women and that, frankly, is legal liability. If something ends up wrong w/the baby, many many Americans run to a lawyer to try to sue someone (& OB have been sued when I child is up to 18 yrs old!). OB's malpractice ins is extraordinarily high & they are sued often b/c they are seen as a deep pocket. If they don't do the tests & something goes wrong, there's a high likelihood they will be sued. So if we want to do something about that, we need to reform the way we deal w/personal injury in the U.S. There, off my soapbox.

[kama'aina mama]

That is an excellent point Corriander!

After reading it I wanted to smack myself in the head. What is the 'worst' thing they could see on the U/S? What would they want to do about that?
Is there some A-Okay thing they could see on the U/S that would let everyone relax?


Joan, I don't know that there is any such website. The thing is that there are a lot of variables, ie how old is the machine, how skilled the operator, how well maintained the machine is...
then there are probably manufacturing variables too... Probably the best you could do in terms of specific research would be to ask the birth attendant you plan to use if they have an ultrasound machine and how much they use it... Do they insist on regular U/S or just if there is something specific thay are concerned about. Ask the make and model of the machine and call the company that made it and question them!

[jnr]

I see my doctor every three weeks and get an u/s every time. I am not considered high risk. I would like to cut back severely on the number of u/s. I am at 22 weeks now. Does anyone have any suggestions as to when the u/s will be helpful? How many times in the next few months? I was thinking of asking for the next one only in the last month. I am curious to see what other doctors are recommending as far as when the u/s be used.

Thanks!

[kama'aina mama]

Personally, I will never have another ultrasound unless there is a specific medical concern that the doctor wants to investigate. Not 'just to see' or anything like that.

[Corriander]

jnr,

That seems like a lot of u/s. In my first preg I had one at 41 weeks because I was postdates. In my second preg I had one at 20 weeks (different practice), and that was it. I think the 20-25 week u/s is pretty standard because the baby is big enough to see alot of what is going on. The one I had at 41 weeks was only to check on fluid levels, otherwise she was so big we could only see one body part at a time.

So does your dr. have the ultrasound in his office? Does he get to bill your insurance every time he uses it? That was my first thought for why so many in a normal pregnancy.

There are people who think that u/s can have negative side effects on the developing fetus. I don't happen to be one of those people. But the biggest negative side effect of so many u/s is that if he is looking for something wrong, he will probably find it.

I would also be nervous about a dr. who relies so heavily on "technology" as opposed to his experience, what he patients tell him, etc. I would bet that he will also want continuous monitoring during labor. If you want a different experience then that, he may not feel he can deliver a baby without all these machines.

OK, that was really more than you asked for. My 4 cents.

[jnr]

Thanks to the both of you for responding. So it is not even routine for the latter stages of pregnancy?

I'm not sure why she uses the machine so much. She's so conservative in other aspects (no nail polish, no flying, strict diet, etc.) It is in her office. She's not affiliated with any insurance company. I pay her directly and then my insurance will reimburse me about 60%.

Anyway, my gut feeling is that you are both correct. This will be a big learning experience for me. She's asian - as am I (originally from Maui, Kamaa'ina!) and I hate to cause conflict. No time like the present, I suppose.

Thanks!

[asherah]

I am 35 weeks and I have had three ultrasounds during my pregnancy.
The first two were early in the first trimester because I was bleeding. The U/S helped my caregiver determine that the bleeding was not coming from the fetus. The source was later found to be a cervial polyp, which at first had been too small to see during a regular exam.

The third was a level II ultrasound at 20 weeks, because I had rejected all the other tests and felt like I wanted to know if there were any obvious problems at tht point. Yes, I did it "just to see" as others might say.. and might criticize me for. But I made the choice I felt was right for me.. and it was an educated, considered choice.

I will not have any more U/S unless there is a solid medical reason, but I am comfortable with my decision to have the other three.

I do let my midwives use the Doppler for short checks.

In your case, it sounds like there are legitimate reasons for the u/s. Why not just ask your doctor why he/she thinks ultrasounds are the way to go, and whether there are any alternatives? Why not discuss your concerns?

I think it is important to educate ourselves about these things and to make informed choices. I also think it is important to have a care-giver you trust... and to make decisions with them.

I have a healthy skepticism toward the medical establishment, and I have no problem making choices that are outside the mainstream.

But I do not find it helpful to have an adversarial relationship with my caregiver, or to make negative assumptions about why they are making their recommendations. If I didn't trust them, I would not be letting them care for me.

Ultrasounds are tough to wrestle with because there is really no definitive, absolute proof either way.
So you have to do what you feel is best.
If you have concerns, discuss them. If you are uncomfortable with the U/S, ask about alternatives.
Then make what you think is the best choice.

Good Luck.

[Corriander]

I have to say that I just assumed that your doctor was a "he"! I hate it when I do that! :rolleyes:

[Ame]

I have two children and one on the way.....

I have had regular ultrasounds with each at each Dr. visit. My Dr. is very thorough, checks everything and follows it up with an ultrasound. It lasts no more than 30 seconds, and does not bother me or seem to bother the baby. Both of my children are extremely healthy and intelligent. Neither shows any signs of adverse affects. My doctor has the machine in his office, he uses it on all pregnant patients (unless they request otherwise) and some non pregnant patients. He does not charge any more or less for the ultrasound.

Personally, I find the ultrasound exciting. I am not concerned in the least. If in fact the baby can hear the ultrasound, it cant be much worse than all the other sounds he/she hears in utero (serious digestive rumbling, gas, and other annoyances).

I am not arguing my point, dont need to be proven wrong or convinced otherwise. I just thought the original poster might like another view to help in her decision.

[Due_in_August]

Amen Ame! I can't prove they are harmless, no moreso than they are harmful, but seeing as everyone I've never known (including my mother onwards) has had at least one (sometimes 2 or 3) and every child has turned out completely fine will no ill effects, that tells me it can't possibily be so horrible! Innocent until proven guilty!

Plus, to each their own, you don't have to do something because someone else prefers not to. Everyone has their own opinion and I hate trying to argue with those who "have to be right". As far as I know, no children have been born with three heads yet because of u/s. And the only thing thats been "proven" is the fact that left-handedness is more common in those that have u/s. Well big deal, they'd prolly be left-handed regardless!

Bah! We have enough to worry about and I for one, am not going to go insane worrying about something that most likely (like 99.9%) won't have any ill-effects. Just not important enough to cause myself stress over. I have pictures and the comfort in my mind that my baby is fine. (I've only had 2 so far and don't expect anymore until near my due date to make sure lil one isn't breech as earlier - blech - is a c-section the only way to go with a breech BTW?).

Oh but one thought I had to throw in for Canadian's. All my medical is covered here. And so are the u/s. So the doctor doesn't in fact get paid at all for use of it, he gets paid for my visit, and my visit only. He doesn't even use the machine, a lab technician does. So I know he isn't doing it for any financial benefit at all. And we get the regular "routine" u/s here. One at 18 weeks, and one near 36-37 weeks (you may have a third such as myself (a trans-vaginal) due to trying to figure out my elusive due date!).

I'm not pushing my views on anyone, I give my two cents. Basically, do what makes you feel more at ease. If you want them, have them, if you don't, then don't. Not much point in arguing the topic anyhow when there are so many different views on it, and views are neither right nor wrong, they are just views. :)

Thats my view and I hope no one takes offense!

[kama'aina mama]

Originally posted by Due_in_August

Anyways, this is again my two cents, and my last two cents on this topic as I'm not into arguing my point to try and make myself right, especially as I know in this case, there is no positive right or wrong.

Whatever.

[hawleyclan]

Hi Everyone! :) I just wanted to mention a new study that was brought to my attention... An MD decided that he wanted to explore the cause of the increased fetal activity during ultrasound, and used equipment which revealed that everytime that Ultrasound wave is pointed at your baby, the waves travel through the amniotic fluid, which is also in your baby's ears, and are picked up as 100 decibel noise! That is the equivalent of a SUBWAY TRAIN in your baby's room (womb...:D). I think I would move too! Just a thought.

Also, the doppler ultrasound waves are stronger and more directed than those of the regular ultrasound. Which makes sense from my experience, when the dopplers were used on my babies, they would always move and have to be chased down for heart tones... Now I understand better why... :)

The Lord bless you,
Zoie :)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Godsbabycatchers

[joyful_mamma]

Hi everyone-

Sorry I haven't replied sooner to this thread...but I seem to be developing serious 'pregnant brain' and literally forgot I started it!:confused:

Thank you all for the information-it seems to me that, although there are potential risks involved in ultrasound, in my situation those risks have been less than the risk of miscarriage/pre term delivery due to incompetent cervix. I also discussed it with my doctor, who agreed that I'm better off to have the U/S done than to just wait and hope for the best.

Also, at my last visit to the specialist (2 weeks ago) there still had not been any changes to the cervix, so I do not have to go back until I'm 28 weeks. Also, my ob said that, at this point, the main risk involved is that I will might deliver 2-3 weeks before my due date, which poses very little risk to my baby (and which might make it possible for me to delivery naturally, as a smaller baby might pose less of a problem for my narrow pelvis) So, as it stands, things look good & my risk of complications have gone down considerably now that I've made it past 20 weeks.

Oh, and Corriander~the Dr. who cut my cervix was a woman. Oddly enough, she was a woman who was at the time around 8 months pregnant & performing my c-section at 2:00 in the morning. I've often wondered if she had actually made a serious error, or if the cut had been unavoidable. However, in talking to my specialist I learned that sometimes a cervical cut IS unavoidable during c-section. Then again, that made me wonder if this is really the case, or if he was basically trying to avoid saying she had done anything wrong (I get the feeling sometimes that Dr.'s have a sort of 'we must stick together and not question each other' mentality..) As for suing, I honestly don't know what my options are. How would I prove that she was negligent? Also, is there some sort of statue of limitations on such cases? (my daughter was delivered 9 years ago) Even if I have a good case, how would I go about doing anything about it? There are a lot of questions involved for me, and at this point I'm not really sure how to proceed.

[Due_in_August]

Wow...what a long thoughtful unchildlike reponse. *G*

I don't really care to continue this, but seriously...some people need to grow up and not get all po'd because someone has a difference of opinion. This is a free country...unless Osama took over while I wasn't looking...either way...get over the fact that not everyone else thinks the way you do. You can quote me again if you like, I really don't give a flying fig at this point.

[Ame]

:jaw



<shaking my head and knowing my thoughts in this case are better left unsaid>

[Heavenly]

I personally believe that if there is no indication then it is not worth the POSSIBLE risk. Is even a possible risk to your baby worth it just to get a peek? I'm not talking about one at 20 weeks to check for deformity or whatever I mean the people who get one every time or get more than one or two with no medical indication. I was not planning on having any this time but it turns out I might have twins so I have one on Friday to check. If it is twins I personally feel the possible risk is worth it to get a few more in the pregnancy to make sure both twins are growing properly. I went through so much to get this baby (babies?), had two miscarriages and I will do whatever I can to make sure they're okay. But I won't get one every time like another woman I know who is having twins because there is no medical indication for that and I personally feel it's putting your wants above your childs needs.

[kama'aina mama]

Let me understand this... by insinuating that I am childish and telling me I need to "get over it" you are proving your maturity? Very interesting. Here's the thing though. I'm not the one posting unsupportable comments and trying to call them facts. You quoted only one study and even that report acknowledged that further study should be done! You continue to state your opinions as fact and I can't just let that sit unchallenged.

There are facts available and you can debate whether or not they actually prove U/S is harmful but you can't deny that they call their safety into question. You can continue to treat this as a little difference of opinion along the lines of Coke or Pepsi but I think that the question of whether a particular widespread practice is unsafe for unborn children is important.

[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.:confused:

[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!:D
It's a tough personal decision we each have to make. Let's respect each others' differences.:bgbounce

[milesmom]

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.