Re: [ozmidwifery] FW: [birthnews] Social use of Ultrasound in Pregnancy

[Kirsten Blacker]

What about the Raine study done in Perth in the 1990s? I thought that showed a link between multiple USS and decreased birth weight (albeit only 30g) and an increased risk of being SFGA? Kirsten in the USA where they do a USS every darn visit ----- Original Message ----- From: Debby M To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] FW: [birthnews] Social use of Ultrasound in Pregnancy I had a chat with my hubby about this issue as he is a sonographer.  On the accuracy of the image representations they are actually very accurate.  Yes the image is a computer composite of ultrasonic images but the information received is accurately calculated into a composite picture - not an interpretation - based on the measurements that bounce back off the item being ultrasounded be that a kidney, bloodflow or a baby.   The images are an exact representation of what the ultrasound wave bounced off not an average or range in the same way that percentile graphs are.    Hubby indicated that the best analogy for how an ultrasound image was produced was a photograph.  The only difference being that normal photography uses light waves while ultrasound uses ultrasound waves.  They are all the forms of energy just osillating at different frequencies and thus the energy's ability to penetrate and the output as visualised by the human eye differs.  What ultrasound scanning does via the computer is allows us to see what ultrasound energy can see that is usually not visible to the human eye.    As for the safety, hubby has indicated this is a very contentious issue in the industry.  Whilst there have been no studies that prove that ultrasound is safe - there is nothing but anecdotal evidence and weak correlations that prove it is dangerous.  It is a naturally occuring form of energy in our environment - given - not usually at the intensities used in ultrasound scanning.  Realistically to choose to or not to have ultrasound - whether for fetal wellbeing or anything else - is just a risk analysis.  The only difference between this and other things related to pregnancy and childbirth is that we don't have a specific bad outcome that says its risk percentage is X%.    Using the arguement that it hasn't been proven safe will never work as I am sure that I could also prove using statistics that of all the babies born with Downs Syndrome that 80%+ of their mothers ate potatos or rice - does this then mean that these cause Downs Syndrome or alternatively if you eat these you have a X% risk of Downs Syndrome.   Until we have a specific outcome that can be proven to be caused by ultrasound, whilst eliminating other possible causes, we have no choice but to assume it is safe - if we don't then women should also be counselled against a myriad of other normal life activities that have at one time or another been questioned for links to medical problems (I remember computers and photocopier radiation to unborn babies being an issue in the early 80s).   By all means exercise caution and do not recommend unnecessary procedures but don't scare women of possible consequences when no such consequences have ever been proven.  Women get enough fear instilled in them from the obstetricians.   Far more valuable is to spend time educating women of the ones we know are dangerous with proven risks like drugs in pregnancy and unnecessary caesarean sections.   Debby   >From: "Rhonda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] FW: [birthnews] Social use of Ultrasound in Pregnancy >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:22:54 +1100 (AUS Eastern Daylight Time) > >At the time I thought that the ultrasounds that i had were lovely but they >also caused me a lot of confusion. >With katyelyn I did not want to know the sex of my baby but at 26 wks raced >into the labour ward - terribly hperflexic the doctor called for an >ultrasound machine and announced - "she is about 750grams and it looks like >a girl to me." I instantly said - "But it could be a boy." I would not >believe her and I did not want to know. Just because I was sick and having >a premature baby didn't mean that i had wanted to know the sex before it was >born. And when she was born she had gained a week and was a much better >weight at 1010grams. > >Then with George they did an ultrasound (for a suspected false labour which >i know/knew was a pulled muscle) and told me that my baby at 29 weeks was >1800grams and was going to be huge! Well, I am sure this contributed to me >fears during labour - I had a c/s for a 1010gram baby and this "HUGE" baby >who was 1800 at 29 weeks >Nobody explained to me that his growth slowed down and that he was a normal >size at 42 weeks and that I wasn't having a monster. > >On that note I am sure that my body made sure that he grew fast just in case >someone took him out at 27 weeks. I really believe that my body put all in >to make this baby develop quickly and then once the danger time was over I >settled into enjoying being pregnant and his growth slowed to a normal pace. > >Regards >Rhonda. > > >-------Original Message------- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:47:17 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] FW: [birthnews] Social use of Ultrasound in >Pregnancy > >Just a couple of 2 cents on this. I think it is sad that people think this >makes the pregnancy real or more real, surely by 20weeks there are other >more real signs that signal this. On the other side these are computer >generated images: some very clever person wrote a program that puts together >all of the measurements from the sono and so produces a visual image, it is >no more accurate or real for that matter than the measurements from which >the percentiles for gestational age are generated. At best it is a >sophisticated cartoon image of the baby. I should be careful I could be >getting into a complicated esoteric discussion on reality. > >Oh well. In Seattle there lives an ultrasound technician who has bought her >own machine and sells in utero u/s images to mums and dads who had no >clinical reason to get an insurance paid u/s, there is always a business >opportunity around. Amazingly, even a few (a very few) of our homebirth >mums, who wouldn't have an anomaly scan for ethical reasons had one of these >because they were cute?? > >ahhhh!!! > >ps. I really do think this technology is great to have when it is needed!! >However, because this is rare, people find reasons to use it more often for >no good reason. > >marilyn >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sally Westbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:27 PM >Subject: [ozmidwifery] FW: [birthnews] Social use of Ultrasound in Pregnancy > > > > > > My hesitation around ultrasound is that no-one can produce research to > > prove that this is a safe thing to do. Until this is clarified I remain > > one who will advocate the use of ultrasound for clinical indications > > only rather than as a routine intervention. > > > > Sally Westbury > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jodie Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, 13 November 2002 2:16 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [birthnews] Social use of Ultrasound in Pregnancy > > > > Just an anecdote to add... > > > > Yoga pals and expectant friends of mine recently had > > their 20 week scan at the Royal Women's Hospital > > Brisbane and they came home with, not only the regular > > B&W prints, but a set of *extraordinarily* detailed > > colour "photos" of their baby's face in utero. The > > technician got so excited at the quality of image that > > they were achieving and printed off some 8 or more > > wonderful pictures for the parents-to-be to take home > > and enjoy. > > > > I must say the images gave me shivers! The level of > > detail achieved was amazing... who could blame parents > > for wanting to take advantage of this opportunity to > > "meet" and bond with their baby? > > > > I've heard of ultrasound being used to help couples > > accept their baby in unplanned pregnancy or of women > > using the ultrasound scan to reign in a dad-to-be in > > denial. > > > > My own two (soon to be three) experiences of the 20 > > week anomaly scan were extremely warm and wonderful > > like a verification and validation that all was normal > > and healthy with the added bonus of allowing us the > > opportunity to learn our babies' gender - something > > that I felt helped me to bond with my babies in utero > > just that little bit more. I made every effort to > > call my husband to attend if I was referred for an > > impromptu scan in later pregnancy and we always walked > > away with a warm glow and a sense of familiarity with > > our unborn member of the family. We framed ultrasound > > pictures and emailed scanned images to distant family > > so that everyone was able to share our joyful > > expectation. > > > > I realise that this technology is over-applied but > > it's hard not to get excited when we are offered the > > opportunity to see the unseeable. Suddenly a > > pregnancy becomes real, the baby becomes real and, > > once actually viewed, it becomes easier to think of a > > future with baby in it. > > > > Just my two cents, > > Jodie Miller > > > > > > --- Jan Cornfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Joanne > > > > > > Not on social use > > > but informed choice etc > > > http://www.aimsusa.org/ultrasnd.htm > > > > > > What about some of the sites for mothers? > > > > > > Jan Cornfoot > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos > > http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 > > > > BirthNews is sponsored by CAPERS Bookstore & the Birth Issues Journal. > > www.capersbookstore.com.au > > > > To unsubscribe, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > > Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe. > > >-- >This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. >Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe. > >. Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit to subscribe or unsubscribe.