Thanks for posting these items Leanne. I've recirculated them far and
wide on my other lists. Funny how the AMA gets worried about private
operators making money off the things from which physicians are making a
fortune.
I guess the doctor who stated
And although there is no evidence to suggest that exposing a fetus to
unnecessary ultrasound is harmful
has never read the large Swedish study which says the effect on the
brain is definite. Here's some easy-to-distribute and research u/s info
that might be of interest. Gloria
With Woman
by Gloria Lemay, compiled by Leilah McCracken
Ultrasound
Abdominal ultrasound can be either "imaging" or "Doppler". Imaging
ultrasound gives a fuzzy photographic image of the developing fetus and
is
famous for being inaccurate. Obvious problems have been missed and, on
the
other hand, women are told they have problems and then the problem is
not
present when the baby is born. Surprisingly, it is the "Doppler"
ultrasound
that is used to simply pick up the heartbeat in prenatal visits that is
the
higher dose of ultrasound radiation (non-ionizing).
There have been studies that have shown Doppler ultrasound can alter
cellular activity. According to Anne Frye, midwife and author of
"Understanding Lab Work in the Childbearing Year" (4th Ed.) p. 405:
"Doppler Devices: Many women do not realize that doppler fetoscopes are
ultrasound devices. (Apparently, neither do many care providers. Time
after
time, women are assured by doctors and even some nurse midwives that a
doppler is not an ultrasound device.)...Not well publicized for obvious
reasons, doppler devices expose the fetus to more powerful ultrasound
than
real time (imaging) ultrasound exams. One minute of doppler exposure is
equal to 35 minutes of real time ultrasound. This is an important point
for
women to consider when deciding between an ultrasound exam and listening
with a doppler to determine viability in early pregnancy...If you have a
doppler, put it aside and make a concerted effort to learn to listen
yourself! Save your doppler for those rare occasions when you cannot
hear
the heart rate late into pushing or to further investigate suspected
fetal
death. " -copyright l990, Anne Frye, B.H. Holistic Midwifery.
Also, from A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth by
Enkin,
Keirse and Chalmers. (This book is a guide to a huge two-volume book in
which the studies done on most everything done in obstetrics have been
evaluated and conclusions drawn. This work is also the basis for The
Oxford
Database of Perinatal Trials.)
"There has been surprisingly little well-organized research to evaluate
possible adverse effects of ultrasound exposure on human fetuses...The
place
of ultrasound for specific indications in pregnancy has been clearly
established. The place, if any, for routine ultrasound has not as yet
been
determined. In view of the fact that its safety has not been
convincingly
established, such routine use should for the present be considered
experimental, and should not be implemented outside of the context of
randomized controlled trials."
Now, in 2002, we do have respected scientific (epidemiological) evidence
of
ultrasound causing changes in the fetal brain which consumers should be
fully informed about. Swedish researchers found that ultrasound scans on
pregnant women can cause brain damage in their unborn babies. Doctors
from
the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm compared almost 7,000 men whose
mothers underwent scanning in the 1970s with 170,000 men whose mothers
did
not, looking for differences in the rates of left- and right-handedness.
The
team found that men whose mothers had scans were significantly more
likely
to be left-handed than normal; and that men born after 1975 (when
doctors
introduced a second scan later in pregnancy) were 32% more likely to be
left-handed than those in the control group. In addition, these people
face
a higher risk of conditions ranging from learning difficulties to
epilepsy.
Said the researchers in the journal Epidemiology: "The present results
suggest a 30% increase in risk of left-handedness among boys prenatally
exposed to ultrasound. If this association reflects brain injury, this
means
as many as one in 50 male fetuses prenatally exposed to ultrasound are
affected." They say that the human brain undergoes critical development
until relatively late in pregnancy, making it vulnerable to damage, and
that
the male brain is especially at risk- as it continues to develop later
than
the female brain.
Assessing wellness without ultrasound
You and your client will always know when ultrasound is being used
because
there will be "jelly" (coupling gel) involved.The pregnant woman should
be
advised of the increased exposure with Doppler ultrasound and she would
be
well-advised to notify her practitioner that she will avoid all exposure
to
Doppler ultrasound during the pregnancy and birth. The practitioner will
have to use a fetoscope to listen to the heartbeat of the baby. In the
third
trimester of pregnancy, the mother can use a simple fetal movement test
to
be reassured about her baby¹s well being. Give the following
instructions:
If you want to know your baby is doing well, count the fetal movements
in a
day. Starting at 9 a.m. count each time the baby kicks. There should be
l0
distinct movements by 3 p.m.
Important ultrasound links
-Ultrasound: More Harm than Good? by Marsden Wagner, MD.
http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/default.asp?t=ultrasoundwagner
-Ultrasound: Weighing the Propaganda Against the Facts by Beverley
Lawrence
Beech. http://www.midwiferytoday.com/articles/default.asp?t=ultrasound
-Ultrasound: Causes for Concern by Sarah Buckley, MD.
http://www.birthlove.com/free/ultrasound.html
Gloria Lemay is a private birth attendant in Vancouver, BC, and is a
contributing expert at BirthLove, http://www.birthlove.com
Read more from Gloria on Midwifery Today's Web site -- "Pushing for
First-Time Moms"
http://midwiferytoday.com/articles/default.asp?t=pushing&q=gloria+lema
y
Note: This article is also published online in French and Spanish.
AMA Says Ultrasound In-Utero "Portraits" Are Bad Idea
Reuters Health Information 2005. © 2005 Reuters Ltd.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by
framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior
written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors
or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance
thereon. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks
and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
By M. Mary Conroy
CHICAGO (Reuters Health) Jun 21 - Keepsake ultrasound "portraits" of
fetuses are not medically appropriate and should be discouraged, the
American Medical Association's House of Delegates stated at its annual
meeting here this week.
Recent advances in ultrasound technology, including 3-D image
capacity, have made the "pre-birth" portraits popular, which prompted
the Missouri delegation to the House of Delegates to ask the AMA to go
public about the risks of the practice.
The Missouri doctors said the ultrasound portraits are often done by
unqualified technicians in whose hands ultrasound, which is generally
a safe procedure, may have unanticipated risks.
The new AMA policy directs the organization to adopt current Food and
Drug Administration policy on the use of non-diagnostic fetal
ultrasound. The FDA policy states that "keepsake" fetal videos are an
unapproved use of a medical device. In approving the policy, the House
of Delegates also directed AMA leaders to lobby the FDA to enforce its
prohibition of unapproved, non-medical uses of the technology.
During a reference committee hearing "testimony was overwhelmingly in
support of this resolution calling for the responsible use of
diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy," said Dr. Daniel van
Heeckeren, who chaired the reference committee.
Dr. Van Heeckeren, a thoracic surgeon at University Hospitals,
Cleveland, Ohio, added that "fetal ultrasonography is considered safe
when properly used. And although there is no evidence to suggest that
exposing a fetus to unnecessary ultrasound is harmful, strong support
was voiced endorsing its use only where there is a clear medical
benefit to the patients."
He also noted that use of diagnostic ultrasound for "keepsake"
purposes puts the clinician at risk of potential legal liability since
this imaging is often performed without parents receiving the standard
counseling that normally precedes ultrasound examinations.
Dr. Marilyn Laughead, of Scottsdale, Arizona, and a delegate form the
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, said, "Although there is
no confirmed biological effect of ultrasound known today, there may be
some effect identified in the future. For that reason ultrasound
should be used only for medically indicated purposes."
Leanne Wynne
Midwife in charge of "Women's Business"
Mildura Aboriginal Health Service Mob 0418 371862
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
