That said, this article is a bit too sensationalist for my tastes. I don't agree that there is no benefit to USS beyond "getting a peek at baby". The mouse study is interesting and useful but one can't conclude from it that ultrasound exposure causes behavioural problems or autism which is what the article tries to imply.
This article would change neither my practice nor my advice regarding USS which is to minimise exposure and consider what information you are going to get from the test and what you will do with that information once you have it.
Mother of two spectacular girls, born mid-2010 and late 2012
I thought the article was interesting. Even if it's flawed it still seems important enough to follow up. I wish someone would.
I wonder though...for women like me who don't know exactly when they got pregnant (I'm still breastfeeding and don't get regular periods), how do you date your pregnancy without US? I don't care so much about being prepared but how do you know if you're delivering prematurely? I don't love the idea of ultrasound or doppler use but worry about the complications of not knowing how far along I am (if there are any).
Would the benefits outweigh the risks in this case? How do you even make that call? So much to think about!!
|37 members and 18,405 guests|
|amccutcheon31 , anisaer , bdmaidul , cadence.clair , cloa513 , cxsandoval , Dave RW , girlspn , hillymum , JElaineB , Katherine73 , kathymuggle , Letitia , LouiseCD , manyhatsmom , marsupial-mom , MeanVeggie , Mirzam , moominmamma , oaksie68 , philomom , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , sarrahlnorris , SchoolmarmDE , Socks , Springshowers , sren , stephalittle , stephaniepifer , Xerxella , zebra15 , zjande|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|