Reply Hey Mom! Learn more about the Gerber Life Insurance Grow-Up Plan!
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-07-2012, 06:11 AM   #11
Elijah'sMama's Avatar
Elijah'sMama
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: western new york
Posts: 400
My Mood:
Thanks for all the replies and research! I'm still reading thru the links. I'm planning a HBAC in October, my midwife will refer me for a 20 week anatomy/gender scan *if I want one. DH wants to know the gender, but I'm concerned about having one that's not really *necessary*.

Advertisement

__________________
philippa
mama to elijah 08/10 & the sweet baby lost 09/09
... excitedly expecting someone new in October
Elijah'sMama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 06:33 AM   #12
1healthylady's Avatar
1healthylady
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cross Creeker
Posts: 740
Re: Are sonograms really safe??

I know that there are risks, but I don't know exactly what those risks are. Unfortunately there are risks with pretty much anything you do though. I had an u/s at 9 weeks so we could see the baby and the heartbeat and that was really cool. (Even though I knew my ovulation date they insisted on doing that dating u/s since they were telling me my due date was off by a week based on LMP) I'll also be having my anatomy scan at 21 weeks, but not to find out the gender. I'm planning a home birth, so I just want to make sure the placement of the placenta is where it should be and Baby looks healthy. I don't plan on any other ultrasounds unless something unforeseen comes up. DH loves the u/s so he can see the baby. I think it just makes it more real for him.
I have heard or read that the u/s makes really loud noises for the baby, but I don't remember where I read that either.
1healthylady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 06:41 AM   #13
Elijah'sMama's Avatar
Elijah'sMama
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: western new york
Posts: 400
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BooneNicuMama
I certainly hope they are okay. I have to have them all the time with how high risk I am!! We have to monitor baby and cervix or I could lose baby This is scary and sad. In the attempt to keep my baby, I could be causing it brain damage and other issues
So sorry that sounds so scary. IMO this technology is truly a blessing when it can mean life or death for our babies. Please don't feel bad doing what you have to do to keep your LO safe!!
__________________
philippa
mama to elijah 08/10 & the sweet baby lost 09/09
... excitedly expecting someone new in October
Elijah'sMama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 07:46 AM   #14
burnsis's Avatar
burnsis
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,651
My Mood:
Re: Are sonograms really safe??

From what I've read of them, I wouldn't want them done more than 1-2 times per pregnancy, unless of course you have some major issues. I also would suspect that the 3d/4d would be the worst ones to have. That technology is just much too new for me to trust.

I almost rented a doppler with my 2nd DS for entertainment purposes, but quickly decided against it.
__________________

His body, his choice.
burnsis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 08:50 AM   #15
gigismomma's Avatar
gigismomma
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,670
Re: Are sonograms really safe??

From my understanding, the sound of the doppler wave is inaudible to the human ear. The concern of safety might be more to do with the heat generated (very small and extremely unlikely to be harmful during a typical ultrasound). While ultrasounds are not proven safe, I don't know if it is even possible to PROVE they are safe (much like it isn't possible to prove gravity). However, they have not been proven to be unsafe, despite decades of use and some women having dozens of them during pregnancy. I have several friends that have an ultrasound at every routine visit without second thought. But I still don't take them lightly......I agree to the standard ultrasounds (early pregnancy and 20 wk anatomy scan), and will agree to more if the situation warrants it (I have had 1-2 additional ultrasounds during my pregnancies.....one because they couldn't find a HB at 12 weeks, one because DD was breech, a very early one to r/o ectopic, one at 13 weeks due to bleeding). I don't feel comfortable going to a "fun" ultrasound place, nor am I comfortable playing with my own doppler machine to check heartrate. 3D/4D itself dooesn't bother me (my OB has one).....the actual u/s technology is the same, the only thing that differs is how the computer processes the images.
So yeah, I don't think anyone can necessarily prove they are safe, but my doctor assures me that there is nothing to worry about. I have researched this a lot, and I am not convinced that my baby would be better off with me declining them. I worry enough about everything else during pregnancy, I don't need to stress out about this, too. Also, I find myself much less stressed after the 20 wk anatomy scan because I have a better idea what to expect (I usually go into those scans fearing something awful, so I find them reassuring. And if something WAS wrong, I want to be prepared). So, there is added mental health benefits for me, too! Generally, the benefits of sonograms far outweigh any small risk. That said, I still don't think they should be used for entertainment purposes alone.

Last edited by gigismomma; 04-07-2012 at 08:53 AM.
gigismomma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 10:00 AM   #16
BooneNicuMama's Avatar
BooneNicuMama
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Co MO
Posts: 299
My Mood:
Re: Are sonograms really safe??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijah'sMama View Post
So sorry that sounds so scary. IMO this technology is truly a blessing when it can mean life or death for our babies. Please don't feel bad doing what you have to do to keep your LO safe!!



Thanks mama, it's just scary when you're a mama to a 25 week preemie and a 31 week preemie. They are so high of a risk for so many issues and complications, I'd hate to find out I added to those issues. I feel badly enough that my body does not handle jarring/trauma/stress of any kind. I had 3 u/s with dd1. one when I went in cause we had NO idea what the due date was and the one at 20 weeks.


With dd2 though, we had one for due date, for high risk ***., one at 12 weeks for another high risk check, one at 16 weeks to check my cervix, and one every two weeks after that for cervix checks. The day before I had my daughter ( 31 weeks, 1 day) my cervix had shortened to half it's previous length. Then I fell down an entire flight of stairs, and 25 hours later I had my sweet little girl. It's sad, too cause on that last visit I was given a note to avoid going to work. I wonder if I would have made it to term all the time if I would have gone to work instead
__________________
OMG!! Feb 28th, 2012!! Will be final addition to our other angels :

Abby (11) Hailey (9) Katlyn (6) Savanna (2) Grace (1) Angel baby May 2011, and Angel Baby Dec 25th 2011. & ANNABELLE Oct. 17th 2012!!!
BooneNicuMama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 10:44 AM   #17
z2akids's Avatar
z2akids
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,418
Re: Are sonograms really safe??

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaChellsRun View Post
This is suspicious to me. There's barely any research done on these machine used frequently on pregnant women? Often in the medical industry when there's things like this it's not researched because they know the outcome. It's also said here in the US that cell phones and microwaves are generally harmless (although a little info has been coming out about cells). In other countries people are told that yes, cell phones caused your brain tumor. That's unheard of here.

Some of the harm of u/s is actually due to the unnecessary stress it can cause. I've seen often even here on DS, women get an u/s, a call on friday saying that there's something not quite right and they need another one. Of course then you're stressed out until your next appt and can be for nothing.

"Now, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding a project that aims to temporarily sterilize men by blasting their scrotums with ultrasound. The burst of ultrasound energy, it turns out, disrupts the normal biological function of the testes, making the man infertile for six months." (Yet it's totally safe for a baby! Hm...) http://www.ktradionetwork.com/health...-to-the-fetus/

"Ultrasound is loud. It no doubt causes tissue disruption and damage in a fetus, and it certainly creates stress and shock for the baby."

Just because an anchor quoted Natural News does not make this true. The article that this is taken from is on the Natural News website. There are no scientific references and this is basically an op ed piece. While some might find it compelling, it drives me batty when Natural News posts something as fact and then uses itself as a main reference. It goes in circles with one NN piece referencing another and so on until sometimes their posts wind up in a great bit reference circle.


More sites with info...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1509275.html
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articl...p?q=ultrasound
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8674380.stm

Some of these are the also referenced in the NN article above. Again, they are mostly newspaper (and tabloid) articles. The note about attempting to use ultrasound as birth control does not mean that ultrasound isn't safe for babies. Morphine is used every day for pain. Should we stop its use for pain because it is possible to give a person an overdose and kill them? An article that an organization is researching the possibility of using a "blast" of ultrasound for contraception does not in any way make prenatal ultrasound or other diagnostic ultrasound unsafe. The midwifery article is quite old and really doesn't say much. It talks about using ultrasound for screening purposes and says that the ultrasound doesn't change the prenatal outcome. Well, it woudn't. It is used to screen for abnormalities. It is a diagnostic tool, not a therapeutic tool. Knowing through ultrasound that a baby has spina bifida won't cure the condition, but it sure means that the doctors will be prepared once baby arrives. That article also said that there was no difference in prenatal morbidity and mortabilty among those with routine ultrasound and those without - seems to me that that means that the study (which by the way is not referenced so there is no way to actually look at it) shows that they aren't harmful.

I haven't been able to find the info on this again but I recall reading that u/s are not routinely checked and no guidelines and can be giving on much higher dose than it's supposed to or is needed.



"But scientists say prolonged and frequent use of ultrasound could be harmful after it emerged that it causes brain abnormalities in the developing foetuses of pregnant mice.

An American research team emphasises that the benefits of ultrasound for diagnosing problems in pregnancy still outweigh these potential risks (wait a second! Risks? Thought it was safe?? Hm...), which have yet to be confirmed in human studies Ah... It's safe because the risks that have been found haven't been confirmed.). But even though the study, by Dr Pasko Rakic at the Yale School of Medicine, used rodents, his team says it raises concerns about the non-medical use of ultrasound, where low intensity waves are used to take images of the unborn child."


Well DD is up crying with a nightmare or something or other. Pretty sure I have some more info so I'll be back

Anyway, as another posted mentioned, it is generally impossible to prove something safe. All that can be done is continually show that there isn't harm. We take a risk in everything we do. Even eating spinach can have deadly outcomes even though spinach is generally considered safe and in fact healthy. I personally had several ultrasounds with each of my pregnancies. However, they were all for medical/screening/diagnostic purposes. I did not find out gender for any of my babies and never did 4d ultrasounds or anything like that. I chose ultrasound over the AFP/triple screen because I knew that the lab screening would cause me stress while a diagnostic ultrasound would give me information and not just risk.

To the OP, I would not let op ed pieces like Natural News worry you if at all possible. I know that we all question everything we do during pregnancy. However, decades of screening/diagnosic ultrasounds have been considered safe and helpful to outcomes. In my personal opinion, I believe that any small potential (because we don't even know if it's a true risk) risk is outweighed by the potential good that can come from knowing before delivery if baby is going to need extra help.

Knowing that baby had spina bifida might make someone rule out an unassisted homebirth where baby's prognosis would be poor and instead have them deliver at a hospital equipped to care for baby's immediate healthcare needs.
__________________
Jennifer
z2akids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 10:57 AM   #18
raisingcropsandbabies
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,275
Re: Are sonograms really safe??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elijah'sMama View Post
I spent some time last week with an old family friend, she is super crunchy, gives natural childbirth classes, and assists a local home birth midwife. I got the vibe from her that she views routine sonograms as potentially dangerous. Basically an unnecessary risk unless you are having complications. But she didn't give me any reasons or facts about it. Does anyone have any research links about whether or not sonograms are actually safe?
My OB says that they haven't been proven safe or harmful... so I guess the jury is still out as far as scientific research regarding the effects on fetus'. I had read about a study done on mice/rats though... rish I could remember exactly what it said.

Because I'm not high risk, my doc is okay with me just having 1 u/s done for dating purposes during my pregnancies and he lets me wait till after the first trimester. Like week 14. He insists on that one.
raisingcropsandbabies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 11:09 AM   #19
magdalynaa's Avatar
magdalynaa
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by z2akids

That's cute. But, considering that shaking fists isn't a universal or instinctive gesture of anger, I think you're reading into it.
It was a joke.
magdalynaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 02:47 PM   #20
JennTheMomma's Avatar
JennTheMomma
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,820
My Mood:
Re: Are sonograms really safe??

Nothing is without risks. Sonograms are not proven safe or unsafe.
JennTheMomma is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump

Copyright 2005 - 2014 Escalate Media. All Rights Reserved.