Christy84065 said:I am afraid I am getting off the beating path here, but I
have recently heard conflicting information. 1)Ultrasound
does not hurt or harm the baby at all. 2) Ultrasound
should be used sparingly... Is this another one of those
"we don't know the damage it could cause, so just don't do
it." explanations?
Well, no one can say that u/s does not hurt or harm
the baby at all because you can't prove a negative.
The best you can do is say that no study has
demonstrated any harm. That said, there *have* been
studies that have raised questions about u/s. In
vitro studies have showed that it can produce
cavitation. Multiple in vivo studies have shown
that it increases left-handedness in boys (which is
not earth-shattering in and of itself, but raises
the question if it can affect handedness, what else
can it be affecting that we haven't measured yet?).
Beyond that, there are studies that are
controversial and uncorroborated and not as strong
as one would like methodologically that raise the
spectre of other possible problems, some of which
are more serious. Because it cannot be proven to be
safe, and there are some niggling possibilities out
there than haven't been squashed, most responsible
medical bodies recommend against the use of routine
u/s. The ACOG, for instance, says that NO u/s
should be done in pregnancy without a medical
indication, not that most OBs follow that
guideline. On the other hand, most people set the
bar pretty low for "medical indication" because it
seems like it's pretty safe, so there's not much
impediment to using it if there is actionable
knowledge to be gained from using it. People also
often overestimate the value of the information to
be gained from routine u/s.
Quoted message said:I found myself running into those excuses alot in my
pregnancies. I found it extemely annoying and sort of
offensive, like "We don't care enough about researching
about such an important time of your life."
That's not a particularly fair characterization in
this case. There have been multiple large,
longitudinal studies of the use of u/s in pregnancy.
But no study is perfect, and when you're talking
about the use of u/s in pregnancy, I'll bet even you
can't sit down right now and list all the possible
effects one might look for. After all, would you
have put handedness on a list of the things to look
for in a study on the safety of u/s? Just think of
all the diseases, conditions, behavioral issues,
etc. that would have to be studied, ideally with
long term prospective double blind studies, before
we really could say that we knew it was safe with a
straight face? In fact, right now it would be darned
hard to get large numbers in a double blinded study
because you'd have a heck of a time getting study
volunteers to be in the control group! How many
women do you know who'd be willing to go through a
pregnancy without an u/s? I went through two of my
three that way (and had u/s in the third at the end
only for medical indication), and most people
thought I was stark, raving mad, if not
insufficiently interested in the health of my baby.
Yes, it would be better if we had more data. Yes, it
is offensive (to me, at least) that obstetrics has a
history of being somewhat cavalier about the
introduction of new, unproven technology (x-ray
pelvimetry and DES, anyone?). Yes, it would be
better if clients were more critical of the use of
technology/testing (evidence is weak on *many* of
the tests routinely performed in pregnancy, not to
mention many of the procedures used in childbirth).
But it's not as simple an issue as people being
unwilling or uninterested in doing the research.
Best wishes, Ericka