PDA

View Full Version : Ultrasounds: Peaking into God's Workshop



1PeaceMaker
February 18th, 2016, 02:42 PM
"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things."

Ecc 11:5

What are we doing peeking into the womb with ultrasounds? Is it prudent or expedient, considering the complexity and enigmatic nature of that secret world?

It doesn't seem prudent to me to judge families who have used ultrasound because there is no law against it, and people's reasons for wanting it seem benign.

But there are so many things that are wrong with the downstream consequences to using it. For example, people sometimes get a false miscarriage diagnosis. A lot of babies die this way every year, because doctors will mistakenly claim the baby is dead and employ a therapy that is essentially the same procedure they use in an abortion.

In addition, parents are often put through needless grief with misdiagnosis of deformity and as a result, some are counseled to abort or given the false impression that they cannot hope for a normal life for their child.

Can you think of a good reason to ethically justify an ultrasound, or do you have your doubts about it, too?

Rusha
February 18th, 2016, 06:08 PM
"As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things."

Ecc 11:5

What are we doing peeking into the womb with ultrasounds? Is it prudent or expedient, considering the complexity and enigmatic nature of that secret world?

It doesn't seem prudent to me to judge families who have used ultrasound because there is no law against it, and people's reasons for wanting it seem benign.

But there are so many things that are wrong with the downstream consequences to using it. For example, people sometimes get a false miscarriage diagnosis. A lot of babies die this way every year, because doctors will mistakenly claim the baby is dead and employ a therapy that is essentially the same procedure they use in an abortion.

In addition, parents are often put through needless grief with misdiagnosis of deformity and as a result, some are counseled to abort or given the false impression that they cannot hope for a normal life for their child.

Can you think of a good reason to ethically justify an ultrasound, or do you have your doubts about it, too?

Had it not been for a routine ultrasound towards the beginning of my eighth month of pregnancy, my oldest daughter would have died.

Her heartbeat was bottoming out enough for them to induce labor. Though it was a struggle once she was born, after two weeks in pediatric intensive care, her lungs had developed enough to bring her home.

In the case of my son, I *wish* they would have done an ultrasound ... if they had, he could have avoided having a blood transfusion that resulted from the use of forceps during his birth.

1PeaceMaker
February 18th, 2016, 06:37 PM
Anybody familiar with this website about misdiagnosed miscarriages?

http://www.misdiagnosedmiscarriage.com/

And here's an article on the subject with a quote:


A beautiful, supremely talented young friend of our family recently fell victim to a terrible medical mistake. Newly married, she was having some pelvic pain and bleeding, and the doctor who saw her diagnosed a probable ectopic pregnancy — an embryo that develops outside the womb. Concerned that such pregnancies can turn life-threatening, the doctor prescribed the standard treatment: methotrexate, a drug used for chemotherapy and to help induce abortions.

When our friend returned to be checked a few days later, the imaging revealed that in fact, the pregnancy had not been ectopic; it was in place, in her uterus. But because she had taken the methotrexate, a known cause of birth defects, her pregnancy was doomed. She soon miscarried. What may have been a perfectly healthy pregnancy had been ended by well-meant medical treatment.


http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/10/ectopic-pregnancy-misdiagnosed-methotrexate

1PeaceMaker
February 18th, 2016, 06:42 PM
Had it not been for a routine ultrasound towards the beginning of my eighth month of pregnancy, my oldest daughter would have died.

Her heartbeat was bottoming out enough for them to induce labor. Though it was a struggle once she was born, after two weeks in pediatric intensive care, her lungs had developed enough to bring her home.

Interesting. Do you think they could have detected this another way? Or was it only through visualization this could have been done?

When a fetus is struggling like that there are other heartbeat monitors that can count the beats. Even a stethoscope can be used to count the beats, and the baby kicks can be counted.

Were you enduring a stressful life during your pregnancy? Because it's not the norm for a singleton pregnancy to be like that. That's something you would expect with malnutrition or multiples.


In the case of my son, I *wish* they would have done an ultrasound ... if they had, he could have avoided having a blood transfusion that resulted from the use of forceps during his birth.

Was he a big boy? Forceps are the devil. I feel sorry for you both to have gone through that!

It's unfortunate that the way mothers are made to give birth in hospitals predisposes them to forceps delivery. There's not a whole lot that can be done about it sometimes, other than to give birth at home.

Grosnick Marowbe
February 18th, 2016, 06:44 PM
Ultrasounds are used for different reasons and can help your Doctor see
the images of not only babies, but, the liver, stomach, kidneys, etc. There
was a time many years ago, where Doctors had to do exploratory operations
in order to see what was going on in your body. An ultrasound is beneficial
in determining if something is amiss with one of your organs or your baby.

I believe we ought to take advantage of modern ultrasounds, and MRI's.

I personally have had two " echo-cardiograms" in my time. This machine
is able to detect heart valve problems, etc. All of these procedures are
harmless and there's no pain involved.

1PeaceMaker
February 18th, 2016, 06:48 PM
All of these procedures are
harmless and there's no pain involved.

I wish I could agree. The harm from ultrasounds come from misdiagnosis. Sometimes those misdiagnosis have fatal consequences.

Not only that, but there is no evidence to assure us that ultrasound is harmless to the fetus and placenta, and some preliminary evidence that harm may be done to the cells from heat-bubbles and such... I might dredge that info up soon, as I have time.

1PeaceMaker
February 18th, 2016, 08:50 PM
I don't have any personal experience with ultrasounds to share. It could be that because of this I view them differently than many. A lot of people feel that they bond with their baby this way. Sometimes ultrasounds are used to save lives when a mom can't decide if she wants to continue the pregnancy. So I'm trying to take that into consideration, too.

There doesn't seem to be a point to drawing a totally hard line against them, but I have seen enough to suggest to me that it shouldn't be a routine part of every prenatal.

I'm still interested in considering the issue farther, but I don't regret not using them so far, either.

Town Heretic
February 19th, 2016, 08:31 AM
I remember ours with Jack. The nurse looked at it and said, "That's a boy." I was happy with healthy, but I have to admit floating a bit in the elevator on the way down to the lobby. I knew that one day I'd be holding a newborn in my arms, turn to my father and say, "Dad, I'd like you to meet your grandson, Jack." Jack was my his father's name. He died from an embolism post surgery, not really that much older than I am now. The name needed more wear. :)

Rusha
February 19th, 2016, 10:35 AM
Interesting. Do you think they could have detected this another way? Or was it only through visualization this could have been done?

I think it was necessary in my case because they needed to monitor to find out if my daughter was actually in distress. I was on the monitor for a few hours before they decided to induce.


When a fetus is struggling like that there are other heartbeat monitors that can count the beats. Even a stethoscope can be used to count the beats, and the baby kicks can be counted.

At that point, she hadn't been moving at all ... and as I said, her heartbeat was bottoming out.


Were you enduring a stressful life during your pregnancy? Because it's not the norm for a singleton pregnancy to be like that. That's something you would expect with malnutrition or multiples.

This was the pregnancy when I had to take my then infant son and flea from the house for his protection as well as my own. So stress was very much a part of my pregnancy.


Was he a big boy? Forceps are the devil. I feel sorry for you both to have gone through that!

Seven pounds nine ounces.


It's unfortunate that the way mothers are made to give birth in hospitals predisposes them to forceps delivery. There's not a whole lot that can be done about it sometimes, other than to give birth at home.

I am not sure how that would have worked in my case. My son's heart rate was compromised due to the cord and if they hadn't have pulled him out with the forceps, they would have done an emergency c-section.

PureX
February 19th, 2016, 10:42 AM
Using the Bible to condemn medicine is a bad idea all around.

The people who wrote those words had no concept of science or technology as we employ them, today, and the things they wrote were not intended to be applied to things they had no conception of.

So why are you?

And why have you focussed only on the shortfalls of the procedure while ignoring all the benefits?

1PeaceMaker
February 19th, 2016, 12:37 PM
Using the Bible to condemn medicine is a bad idea all around.

To be clear, I am not doing that. I've already stated that I'm not judging those who have used the technology and that I'm not taking a firm stance against it.

But ultrasounds are handed out like candy. You shouldn't do routine scans, even the WHO says so. And they are not proven safe at this point. Which is even hard to do because the technology and brands change faster than any research can be done and vary in intensity and usage so much from machine to machine, even in the same models.


The people who wrote those words had no concept of science or technology as we employ them, today, and the things they wrote were not intended to be applied to things they had no conception of.


We should be practicing evidence based medicine, bottom line.

And there is a point to not being overly trusting of these diagnostic tools. Jaxon Strong is another good example of why people should refrain from judging babies that are growing abnormally. Not only does he walk with help, hears and babbles, now he can suck on a pacifier and he's super adorable with his light brown curls falling all over his little lemon shaped head. They said he would die soon after birth and recommended abortion. Instead he's adapting to life beautifully in his loving family.

Other babies who were diagnosed with microcephaly have gone on to have good lives and even normal sized heads. Because as you know, nothing grows like a baby's head, so babies with catching up in the head-size dept sometimes do fine despite being born looking a little funny.


So why are you?

Again, I'm not.


And why have you focussed only on the shortfalls of the procedure while ignoring all the benefits?

I didn't. If you read back, you will see that I pointed out some benefits. Can you think of others I did not?

PureX
February 19th, 2016, 12:51 PM
It seems reasonable to me that sonic resonance imaging would be a fairly benign method of gaining information about what's going on inside the body without opening it up. There could always be some unforeseen negative effect, but we've been using ultrasound for along time, now, and if they exist, they are nor pronounced enough for us to have recognized them.

On the other hand, the benefits of being able to see inside the human body without opening it up to trauma and infection is huge. And certainly not benefit we'd want to deny ourselves unless it was certainly necessary.

Yet all tools are only as good and useful as the people using them assess them to be. What we do with the information this particular tool gives us is up to us. And if we misapply that information, for a bad result, it's not the tool's fault.

1PeaceMaker
February 19th, 2016, 12:54 PM
At that point, she hadn't been moving at all ... and as I said, her heartbeat was bottoming out.

If you weren't feeling baby move at 28+ weeks gestation and the heartbeat was abnormal, that's a well-founded use for it vs using it for routine picture taking at every checkup in a healthy pregnancy.


This was the pregnancy when I had to take my then infant son and flea from the house for his protection as well as my own. So stress was very much a part of my pregnancy.

THAT'S a good explanation for the pregnancy complications. :think:


Seven pounds nine ounces.

That's not so big. :idunno: My boy who was pretty much 7 pounds managed to square up his shoulders and make it a little interesting to birth him, but I was at home and able to move around a lot, any way I pleased, so I changed positions and that kept him from really getting stuck. If I'd have been on my back mostly motionless in the hospital that would have been a panicked, hung up scenario.


I am not sure how that would have worked in my case. My son's heart rate was compromised due to the cord and if they hadn't have pulled him out with the forceps, they would have done an emergency c-section.

Yeah, they typically do one or the other. Theses days they stay away from forceps more often because of the damage it causes mothers and babies.

But I wonder if they were right, telling you it was the cord's fault. Stirrups delivery is more often a cause of oxygen compromise and arrested delivery. But that sounds too much like faulting medicine, doesn't it? :chuckle:

1PeaceMaker
February 19th, 2016, 01:04 PM
It seems reasonable to me that sonic resonance imaging would be a fairly benign method of gaining information about what's going on inside the body without opening it up. There could always be some unforeseen negative effect, but we've been using ultrasound for along time, now, and if they exist, they are nor pronounced enough for us to have recognized them.

We used to feel pretty good about x-raying our feet for shoe sizes. That was false security, even though it was painless and reportedly had practical uses.

I think that we should re-examine the idea the ultrasound is so safe for babies, though.

http://drbenkim.com/articles-ultrasound-pregnancy.html


Yet all tools are only as good and useful as the people using them assess them to be. What we do with the information this particular tool gives us is up to us. And if we misapply that information, for a bad result, it's not the tool's fault.

Yes, but just knowing that without understanding the risks and having the technology backfire would be cold comfort to parents. Better to have a chance at discussing all the pros and cons ahead of time. Hence, this thread. :)

PureX
February 19th, 2016, 01:32 PM
Everything has 'potentially unknown risks'. The unknown is always potentially 'risky' simply because it's unknown.

But is worrying over risks that have not yet been shown to exist really something you want to waste your time on? Especially when there are already so many KNOWN risks you could be wasting your time worrying about?

:chuckle:

1PeaceMaker
February 19th, 2016, 01:36 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22700164

This is an interesting review article, but it does not leave you with the impression that casual routine ultrasounds are a good idea and seems to tie risks to how the machines are used.

elohiym
February 19th, 2016, 03:24 PM
The true dangers of ultrasound...

ZNK1_Yop6oo