Curious- What's with all the Ultrasounds? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-22-2010, 06:27 PM
 
MyFullHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Margaret View Post
Word on the system sucking! I have about half a dozen personal awful stories (such as right now... not getting chiro care paid for, for severe and acute torque and sciatica, can't take meds obviously) but with regard to ultrasounds, I had to pay $400 for the u/s ith my first pregnancy/miscarriage. Which was clearly needed, to ensure I was all clear and wouldn't say die of retianed matter. SIGH. I wasn't strong enough at the time to stay on the phone that long arguing about my dead baby, and DH tried but it had to be me, they said. They get you any way they can!

MyFullHouse, that is HILARIOUS. Not the terrible emergency or having to deal with them, but their mistake... ugh! If Kafka were alive today he'd be writing some awesome stories about all this!
It is all insane. Personally, I have to laugh or I'll lose my mind.

Our ins. JUST paid on our girls' dental work after 4 months, because they spent so much time disbelieving that both of them would have the same coded procedures on the same day. Well, how many times do YOU want to haul a bunch of kids to the dentist?

And I'm sure I don't have to explain what a mess it was when I was admitted to l&d with ds during the day, our insurance coverage changed at midnight, and ds was born at 12:23am.

Now I'm all worked up, lol!

Carrie .. 
Raising a full house- Kings (12, 3, new) over Queens (8, 7)
 
MyFullHouse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-26-2010, 11:30 AM
 
butterflies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by WifeofAnt View Post
I really wouldn't jump out and say its 'totally' safe. Nothing is totally safe. Until there is a study saying they followed 10,000+ kids from conception to 10 years old and there was no statistical difference between frequently ultrasound-ed children and un-ultrasound-ed children people should be cautious. Possible danger until proven safe or have people forgotten Thalidomide already?
I'm late to the party but I just wanted to say that I did a lot of reading on u/s once i realized that I would be getting many extra ones with my twins. (They are mono/di and my providers recommend extra monitoring for twin-twin transfusion, IUGR, and cervical changes...). I'm a scientist so I have access to a lot of primary medical literature through the university library. And I absolutely did find many studies that followed children out to 8, 9 and even 12 years. Many of these were summarized in a 2009 systematic review (a meta-analysis) by the WHO that can be found here http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...2447/HTMLSTART
No study is ever perfect but here they looked at data on adverse maternal outcome, adverse perinatal outcome, growth and neurological development in infancy, school performance, behavior scores, childhood cancers and found no correlation to ultrasound exposure. The only correlation found was was a weak association between ultrasound and left-handedness in boys (odds ratio 1.26 vs 1.17; pretty small difference).
butterflies is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off