ultrasound concerns - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 90 Old 11-20-2001, 04:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
Serenity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
Serenity is offline  
#2 of 90 Old 11-20-2001, 05:11 PM
 
peggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: MA
Posts: 4,147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
peggy is offline  
#3 of 90 Old 11-20-2001, 05:43 PM
 
momma22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NE Pennsylvania
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"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!
momma22 is offline  
#4 of 90 Old 11-20-2001, 06:09 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 21,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
kama'aina mama is offline  
#5 of 90 Old 11-20-2001, 11:50 PM
 
bloobug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
bloobug is offline  
#6 of 90 Old 11-21-2001, 01:49 AM
 
3 little birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

wave.gif
3 little birds is offline  
#7 of 90 Old 11-21-2001, 03:27 AM
 
BusyMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
BusyMommy is offline  
#8 of 90 Old 11-21-2001, 04:42 AM
Len
 
Len's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sea to Sky
Posts: 2,490
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Len is offline  
#9 of 90 Old 11-21-2001, 05:04 AM
 
Sierra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you think it's hard explaining your US refusal as is, try being in one of the major high risk categories: 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!

I'm pro-adoption reform, but not anti-adoption.
Sierra is offline  
#10 of 90 Old 11-21-2001, 09:16 AM
 
motherdownunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
motherdownunder is offline  
#11 of 90 Old 11-21-2001, 11:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
Serenity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Serenity is offline  
#12 of 90 Old 11-21-2001, 08:24 PM
 
mamakarata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sonoma County, California
Posts: 346
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mamakarata is offline  
#13 of 90 Old 11-21-2001, 10:39 PM
 
Julie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Port Coquitlam BC Canada
Posts: 293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow I had No idea U/S may not be safe!
Julie is offline  
#14 of 90 Old 11-22-2001, 12:22 PM
in8
 
in8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
in8 is offline  
#15 of 90 Old 11-22-2001, 11:54 PM
 
Clarity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Clarity is offline  
#16 of 90 Old 11-23-2001, 05:34 AM
 
Sierra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

I'm pro-adoption reform, but not anti-adoption.
Sierra is offline  
#17 of 90 Old 11-23-2001, 05:50 PM
 
Birth Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sin City Nevada
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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 http://www.midwiferytoday.com/librar...les/ultrasound both by Beverly Lawrence Beech and Jean Robinson




Ultrasound Weighing the Propoganda against the Facts Miscarriage & Preterm Labor : diagnosing placneta previa detecting infant defects & growth retardation emotional impact additional risks
Birth Junkie is offline  
#18 of 90 Old 11-24-2001, 04:19 PM
 
asherah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Swimming in the cauldron of rebirth
Posts: 2,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
asherah is offline  
#19 of 90 Old 11-24-2001, 09:18 PM
 
Birth Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sin City Nevada
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Birth Junkie is offline  
#20 of 90 Old 11-25-2001, 01:02 AM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 21,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.
kama'aina mama is offline  
#21 of 90 Old 11-25-2001, 10:19 AM
 
asherah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Swimming in the cauldron of rebirth
Posts: 2,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
asherah is offline  
#22 of 90 Old 11-26-2001, 07:34 PM
 
violet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
violet is offline  
#23 of 90 Old 11-27-2001, 02:49 PM
 
gloriax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
gloriax is offline  
#24 of 90 Old 12-11-2001, 07:45 AM
 
motherdownunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
motherdownunder is offline  
#25 of 90 Old 12-11-2001, 09:57 AM
Banned
 
TreeLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh great. I had 38 ultrasounds during my 1st pg!:
TreeLove is offline  
#26 of 90 Old 12-11-2001, 10:26 AM
 
berglar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
berglar is offline  
#27 of 90 Old 12-11-2001, 10:29 AM
Banned
 
TreeLove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
TreeLove is offline  
#28 of 90 Old 12-11-2001, 11:34 AM
 
lil' love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 277
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would definitely be interested in reading the whole article.
lil' love is offline  
#29 of 90 Old 12-11-2001, 12:02 PM
Kim
 
Kim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
.
Kim is offline  
#30 of 90 Old 12-11-2001, 12:26 PM
 
Tigerchild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle Eastside
Posts: 5,005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
...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
Tigerchild is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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