[EarthyLady]

<p>It was published in <em style="color:rgb(66,71,74);">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences </em>and all of the authors are with the <em style="color:rgb(66,71,74);">Department of Neurobiology and Kavli Institute for Neuroscience at Yale Medical School.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Something to consider, for sure.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-10-11/ultrasound-causes-brain-damage-in-fetuses/" target="_blank">http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-10-11/ultrasound-causes-brain-damage-in-fetuses/</a></p>

 

[jennmk13]

<p>My midwife actually told me years ago that ultrasound could interrupt cell migration, so I guessing that these ideas have been around for a while now.  Even when I was pregnant with my DS who is now 5.5 years there was some talk that ultrasounds might not be the best idea.  At that time I had decided that I wanted to avoid them if I could, but I ended up having 3 with him anyway. Ultimately, we ended up having a planned homebirth with our son, but our first plan was to have him at the hospital with the CNMs there.  After changing our plans and going the homebirth rout...no more ultrasounds.  From my experience it was difficult to avoid ultrasounds in the hospital/clinical setting, mainly as a result of scare tactics.</p>
<p>With our DD who was a planned homebirth from the beginning we didn't have any ultrasounds done.  In fact, this MW never even used a doppler for heartbeat.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm not completely against ultrasounds, but as with so many things they should be used with some moderation.  </p>

 

[Dandy Lion]

<p>I hadn't seen it. Thanks for the interesting link. I had a lot of ultrasounds with my first because I was clueless, but with my second I only had the one because I wanted to keep the risks to a minimum. I think we'll still take a peek this time, but I'll ask to keep it as brief as possible. I wondering if </p>

 

[berrypavlova]

<p>The link above isn't working for me, it says the site is temporarily down bummer. My big question is what conditions when diagnosed in utero can be fixed before birth or treated shortly after, saving a child's life? I feel like that'd be the only reason to do one as we wouldn't choose to abort no matter what the outcome. Are there certain conditions/defects that you can see on an ultrasound and then save the babies life because of that knowledge?</p>

 

[amyrobynne]

<p>I'm an ultrasounds are okay in moderation believing person. I'm always surprised and disturbed when people get them at every appointment.  I didn't have any in my first 2 pregnancies. I ended up with 3 in my third pregnancy. (12 weeks during bleeding, 20 weeks to check standard stuff, 23 weeks because I really wanted to know the sex. Hey, I'm not perfect.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If I go with the birth center this time, they require a 20 week u/s if you want to deliver there. I'm fine with that, especially now that some problems can be treated in utero. If everything goes well, that'll be my only u/s. I'm with berry's reasoning above. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I do think a lot of u/s cause people to freak out about potential problems that aren't there and that needs to be balanced with real knowledge gained.</p>

 

[EarthyLady]

<p>yeah, the link is temporarily down!  What a bummer!  It addresses the idea that they are helpful and can save a life vs. the inaccuracy as well as damage they cause.<br><br>
In my 1st pregnancy we learned about how ultrasounds affect cells in our Bradley birth class.  That was first time I'd EVER  heard anything negative about ultrasounds.  Admittedly, I was not very researched on most things, in hindsight.  Although in my 1st pg I only had the 1 20 week scan and then again right before c section to verify breech lie.<br><br>
With my 2nd pregnancy, I didn't have ANY ultrasounds and actually had an OB drop me because I refused it.  She most certainly didn't like me quoting her own ACOG rules that u/s are not right for every woman nor every pregnancy and should not be a routine practice but be warranted.  She tried to tell me that since I was 19 weeks and "without prenatal care" (wth? what care does a person need before then?  I'd gone to her to have the pg confirmed via blood test at 5 weeks! Although I did cancel the ultrasound to determine dates because "women can be wrong" in spite of knowing my ovulation date).    ANYWAY!!!!  <br><br>
My 3rd pregnancy, again no ultrasounds, another homebirth.  And this time we didn't even do doppler.  The first time I heard her heartbeat was at 27 weeks, at home, laying in my bed one night using a standard stethoscope.  <3<br><br>
Then 2 miscarriages, the 2nd one was confirmed via ultrasound after spotting for several days.<br><br>
4th baby, I had a 9 week viability ultrasound after lots of cramping one day and I was totally freaking out because of my previous 2 losses.  But that was it.  No other ultrasounds.<br><br>
This pregnancy, the ONLY reason I would get an ultrasound was if something seriously warranted a NEED for one, like there was a suspected reason of something very wrong, or if viability, needed to be determined when it couldn't be done any other way.</p>

 

[charliemae]

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>berrypavlova</strong> <a href="/community/t/1391505/so-anyone-see-this-new-ultrasound-article#post_17486428"><img alt="View Post" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br>
 
<p>The link above isn't working for me, it says the site is temporarily down bummer. My big question is what conditions when diagnosed in utero can be fixed before birth or treated shortly after, saving a child's life? I feel like that'd be the only reason to do one as we wouldn't choose to abort no matter what the outcome. Are there certain conditions/defects that you can see on an ultrasound and then save the babies life because of that knowledge?</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>Not many from my understanding.  We choose to not do any ultrasounds unless medically necessary with our first. The doppler picked up some irregularities with his heart beat that the midwives immediately noticed and monitored with the Doppler. We decided we didn't need to get an u/s in that situation.  What we did end up doing was getting a biophysical profile at EDD+9 days as required for our home birth.  A part of that is an u/s to check fluid levels, that for us was the medically necessary.  </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess the point of my anecdotal experience is that most things can be caught with a Doppler or other screening, but ultrasounds are an important medical tool that should be used appropriately. Also "medically necessary" is going to vary by pregnancy and person. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Truly though, more than anything else, my husband and I loved letting our little person develop unobserved.  </p>

 

[Dandy Lion]

<p>It's interesting, during both of my pregnancies there were some concerns after the ultrasounds. I was so worried after them, and everything turned out to be okay. I think I'll be having a good chat with my midwives about the risks/benefits this time. Especially since we don't want to find out the sex.</p>

 

[BabyKaykes]

<p>The link is working now.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have read only the title, but I can understand. Ultrasounds have been shown to cause damage to developing cells so it makes sense. I have never heard her say flat out that she believes they cause issues, but I noted in More Business of Being Born that Ina May made it a point to say there are no u/s on the farm...and no kids with autism, either.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I personally don't find u/s medically necessary as far as general prenatal checks go, so there won't be any. My midwife said that she offers one, after 24wks if people like, at an additional fee, but most choose not to.</p>

 

[HopefullyMama]

<p>I'm a little nervous because of my previous losses.  I had 4 scans (not including the one done immediately prior to my d&c) early in pregnancy with my last miscarriage.  I had never made it to 6 weeks before, and things seemed to be going great, but I got a blood test done to confirm pregnancy, which showed low -- and dropping -- progesterone, which set off a chain reaction of interventions that I never thought I would have / want / need.  Suppositories, blood tests every 2 days, ultrasounds every half week, the works.  I was in shock, and although I was very educated on the topic, I felt compelled to do EVERYTHING possible to keep that baby around and give her a chance. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Long story short I managed to stay pregnant for 8.5 weeks, but the baby stopped developing at 8 weeks and the heartbeat that had been very clear vanished.  Heartbreaking.  In the end, with THAT pregnancy, nothing we could have done would have kept the baby going. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So with THIS pregnancy, which I know is going to be different in many ways....I'm torn.  I know I don't want to do the suppositories because there's little evidence it helps.  I have an appointment with a midwife this time, at 10 weeks.  I'm so nervous that I'll have another missed miscarriage, and go on planning the baby's existence only to find out at the 20 or 22 week ultrasounds that baby stopped developing at 8 weeks again....</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ugh.  I guess I just needed to get that off my chest.  I'm nervous.  About ultrasounds and their potential drawbacks, but more so about missing a miscarriage.  </p>

 

[BennyPai]

<p>I was not informed of potential risks of ultrasounds during my first pregnancy, nor my second.  I agreed to a "confirming dates" ultrasound for DD2 in 2005, and a low-lying placenta was discovered.  The OB/GYN I was seeing terrified me about it, and placenta previa.  I finally started researching ultrasounds, and also placenta previa.  I found before and after images of cells exposed to ultrasound, and I was shocked at the cellular changes.  My placenta research was also enlightening.  It turns out placentas are known to move about the uterus wall sometimes, and frequently move out of the danger zone on their own.  Having seen the first ultrasound, though, I remained nervous about my placenta placement throughout the pregnancy.  I switched care providers because I was mistrustful of the first OB/GYN and her scare tactics.  I had one more ultrasound later in pregnancy, and confirmed that my placenta had moved to a safer position.  I remember being frustrated with all the unnecessary worry over the placenta all those months.   In the end, my DD (with 3 separate EDD, adjusted due to ultrasound results, was born at home perfectly healthy and 17 days past the last of the EDDs.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That was the last ultrasound in our family.  My third and fourth daughters had limited doppler exposure as well.  If there were cause for concern, we would be open to it of course.</p>

 

[activia]

<p>I plan to have one U/S at about the 20 week mark... but that's it...unless t here is a COMPELLING reason to have another. I would also be concerned about doppler...which actually might be worse.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Here is an interesting article: <a href="http://chriskresser.com/natural-childbirth-iib-ultrasound-not-as-safe-as-commonly-thought" target="_blank">http://chriskresser.com/natural-childbirth-iib-ultrasound-not-as-safe-as-commonly-thought</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am going to ask the clinician to use a fetoscope even if I have to buy my own for other heart rate monitoring!</p>