ultrasound concerns - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-26-2002, 06:29 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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!"?
kama'aina mama is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-26-2002, 01:30 PM
 
Corriander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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?
Corriander is offline  
Old 03-26-2002, 01:54 PM
 
SagMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?

Single Mom to 3 (12, 17 & 21)  luxlove.gif and dog2.gif.

SagMom is offline  
Old 03-26-2002, 03:41 PM
 
susansea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Washington state
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
susansea is offline  
Old 03-26-2002, 03:43 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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!
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 10:37 PM
jnr
 
jnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
jnr is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 11:28 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 11:38 PM
 
Corriander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
Corriander is offline  
Old 03-29-2002, 12:02 AM
jnr
 
jnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
jnr is offline  
Old 03-29-2002, 05:12 PM
 
asherah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Swimming in the cauldron of rebirth
Posts: 2,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
asherah is offline  
Old 03-29-2002, 06:38 PM
 
Corriander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 587
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I have to say that I just assumed that your doctor was a "he"! I hate it when I do that! :
Corriander is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 11:03 AM
Ame
 
Ame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BA, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Ame is offline  
Old 04-16-2002, 11:54 PM
 
Due_in_August's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
Due_in_August is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 04:36 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 04:56 AM
 
hawleyclan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...). 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
hawleyclan is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 03:30 PM
 
joyful_mamma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: michigan
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!:

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.
joyful_mamma is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 05:41 PM
 
Due_in_August's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Due_in_August is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 08:04 PM
Ame
 
Ame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: BA, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)




<shaking my head and knowing my thoughts in this case are better left unsaid>
Ame is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 08:37 PM
 
Heavenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,743
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.

Shawna, married to Michael, mommy to Elijah 1/18/01, Olivia 11/9/02, and Eliana 1/22/06
Heavenly is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 11:22 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 04-18-2002, 02:18 PM
 
Due_in_August's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Due_in_August is offline  
Old 04-18-2002, 05:00 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
This is the first thing you said on the subject
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
Quote:
As each one is harmless then, I doubt if just having a few extra would be cause of alarm.
Quote:
Perhaps one every two weeks is too much. Especially if they are going to continue throughout the entire pregnancy.
Quote:
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 is offline  
Old 05-02-2002, 07:50 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
bump
kama'aina mama is offline  
Old 05-03-2002, 06:13 PM
 
lil' love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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??
lil' love is offline  
Old 05-03-2002, 10:30 PM
 
Piglet68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada
Posts: 10,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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 ;-)

teapot2.GIF Homeschooling, Homesteading Mama to DD ('02) and DS ('04)  ribbonjigsaw.gif blogging.jpg homeschool.gif

Piglet68 is offline  
Old 05-04-2002, 10:08 PM
 
boysrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In an octopus' garden in the shade
Posts: 4,984
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
kama'aina mama, that was a really well presented argument i am sorry that no one has responded to it
boysrus is offline  
Old 05-19-2002, 06:48 AM
 
greensmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 107
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.:
greensmile is offline  
Old 05-19-2002, 08:23 PM
 
CrunchyGranolaMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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....

Mama to four great girls: 14 , 12 , 7 and 4
CrunchyGranolaMom is offline  
Old 05-19-2002, 10:33 PM
 
BusyMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,605
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
It's a tough personal decision we each have to make. Let's respect each others' differences.
BusyMommy is offline  
Old 06-15-2002, 06:38 PM
 
milesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Woodland Hills, CA
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
milesmom 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