has anyone else just had 1

newbaby on the way · October 2010

ultrasound? I've had 1 ultrasound so far and I guess that will be the only one I will get. I asked OB if I would have another one before the baby arrives and she said no. She said because everything is going perfectly fine that I shouldn't need one. It's great that everything seems to be great with the pregnancy but I wished I could get another U/S. Just to make sure that I will indeed be having the girl. We have 2 boys and are excited to be having a girl. I just still can't believe it. I had my one and only U/S @ 16 weeks and they were pretty sure I'm having a girl=) Just curious as to how many of you have only had 1 u/s? thanks

JGorka · October 2010

Our insurance only pays for one but we are going to have an elective 3D u/s done next month which we will be paying for out-of-pocket.

kateweave · October 2010

We only get one ultrasound too, but because that's all the insurance will pay for. But we did wait until 20 weeks for that so I think that's pretty normal. If you wanna dish out the cash they have those 3D ultrasounds you can get

LadyLove-GA · October 2010

I've had 2 so far one at the first visit and another at 20 wks, some doctors recommend the least amount as possible especially if not considered high risk.

wklj875 · October 2010

I have had two normal healthy pregnancies and am having my third. I have had anywhere from two to three ultrasounds per pregnancy. I have had two more ultrasounds then normal this pregnancy due top taking infertility drugs to get pregnant in the first place so I don't count those as routine.

MegGriff1n · October 2010

With DS I had 3 ultrasounds. One at 12 weeks, 20 weeks and the last one was 30 something weeks. I think this one will be the same. I'm hoping to get one more before my due date.

pattipu · October 2010

We were only supposed to have one (our 20 wk anatomy scan) but they couldn't get all the pics they needed so we had another one at 23 wks. It was nice to get that extra confirmation and just be able to see the baby again. You could do as PP said and pay for an elective one but I'm not sure how much they cost and if you'd be willing to. I'm suprised they did your one and only u/s at just 16 weeks.

newbaby on the way · October 2010

I just got a bill for $78 for the one u/s we had. I should call the insurance because I did think that they would pay for it.

newbaby on the way · October 2010

pattipu:
We were only supposed to have one (our 20 wk anatomy scan) but they couldn't get all the pics they needed so we had another one at 23 wks. It was nice to get that extra confirmation and just be able to see the baby again. You could do as PP said and pay for an elective one but I'm not sure how much they cost and if you'd be willing to. I'm suprised they did your one and only u/s at just 16 weeks.

Well I was suppose to be 18 weeks and when I went in they told me that I wasn't as far along as I thought I was, thats when they said I was only 16 weeks.

jmcdow · October 2010

I've had one... at least one a week since I found out I was pregnant, but I am a Sonographer, so I don't really count. LOL

I would suggest to you, to contact 1 of the 3 accredited Sonographer Programs in Milwaukee where you live and ask them if they need or use volunteers to be scanned for their students. You will be helping someone learn how to scan OB and you will get a second opinion on gender.

This is for you and everyone else on this board...

This website is to the accrediting body for Sonography. If you are looking to get another ultrasound, I would always suggest the schools first.

www.caahep.org

To search you need to look under Diagnostic Medical Sonographer which is our official title.

Good Luck.

allybaby25 · October 2010

Maybe I'm just spoiled?? I'm 16 weeks and going in for my third this fri. This probably will be the last one for a while though since DH and I have decided on not knowing what baby is. Or maybe since we go to a military hospital and its free they just do 'em whenever they feel like?? I do know the hospital doesn't do 3D u/s, so we'd have to pay out of pocket for those at a civ hosp.

jmcdow · October 2010

alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.

There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.

kcisthebombdotcom · October 2010

I would have only had one, but have needed additional u/s due to various issues.

I would definitely recommend splurging on a 3D ultrasound if you want additional confirmation of the sex (and have the extra money). It was a great experience. I ended up getting one when my LO did not cooperate at my anatomy scan to find out the sex. The nice thing about elective ultrasounds is that they're not all business-with the anatomy scan, the tech was just focused on the measurements. With the 3d ultrasound, we could focus on LO's facial expressions, watch LO roll around, etc. It was a great experience and I'm bummed I didnt' get one for my first pregnancy.

violetvirgo · October 2010

i honestly have no idea what my ins. pays for, but my OB does a dating u/s at 8 weeks, a freebie u/s that is burned on a DVD at 10 weeks and then my 20 week u/s (this thursday).

my old OB also had an u/s in office and would sneak a peak here and there, but didn't charge me.

missmiss307 · October 2010

I had a dating ultrasound at 9w, and I will have an anatomy scan/gender ultrasound sometime next month. If the dating ultrasound hadn't been necessary, I probably would have just had one around 20w.

jess478 · October 2010

I will have my one u/s in 2 weeks. My OB doesn't do extras unless it's medically necessary. I would be a little nervous to trust a 16 week u/s and would probably pay for a private one to confirm the sex.

leneae10 · October 2010

I've had SEVEN ultrasounds already at 16 wks and will continue them biweekly until 32 weeks, then weekly until my c-section at 38.

With that said, you don't want to be in my shoes and have my history. Consider yourself blessed that all is well, predictable and safe.

leneae10 · October 2010

jmcdow:
alopdx:

Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.

You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.

There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.

Absolutely. There is no way my OB would prescribe biweekly u/s if it were harmful to my baby. She is treating me with kid gloves and for SURE would not put me in danger. Total false information. Please don't scare people.

jayellekay · October 2010

I had one at 7 wks, which was deemed medically necessary because of severe abdominal cramping. My only other one will be the standard 20-week anatomy scan (next week, woohoo!), unless a problem arises for another "medically necessary" u/s. Otherwise, my insurance only pays for the one anatomy scan.

WannaBeCrunchyMama · October 2010

jmcdow:
alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.
There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.

Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.

There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.

jmcdow · October 2010

WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.
There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.
Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.
There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.

How much schooling have you had on the physics used in ultrasound? There is no medical proof that ultrasound causes harm enough to outweigh the benefits of doing ultrasound. Period. Ultrasound has been around since WWII. There will always be studies that find "potential" harm for anything and EVERYTHING. And yes sound waves at high frequencies can cause all kinds of problems, but the level we use to perform ultrasound is very very low. Please don't start this discussion on a board geared towards pregnant woman who are already worried out of their minds. Doctors and Radiologist are very aware of what is and isn't appropriate levels for ultrasound. If they do one once a week or once during a whole pregnancy, it is really up to them and you starting this conversation is only going to scare people more, especially since you more than likely are not a physics major. Thank you.

leneae10 · October 2010

jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
alopdx:

Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.

You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.

There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.

Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.

There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.

How much schooling have you had on the physics used in ultrasound? There is no medical proof that ultrasound causes harm enough to outweigh the benefits of doing ultrasound. Period. Ultrasound has been around since WWII. There will always be studies that find "potential" harm for anything and EVERYTHING. And yes sound waves at high frequencies can cause all kinds of problems, but the level we use to perform ultrasound is very very low. Please don't start this discussion on a board geared towards pregnant woman who are already worried out of their minds. Doctors and Radiologist are very aware of what is and isn't appropriate levels for ultrasound. If they do one once a week or once during a whole pregnancy, it is really up to them and you starting this conversation is only going to scare people more, especially since you more than likely are not a physics major. Thank you.

Bless you, jmcdow.. You are officially my 2nd Tri hero!!!!!!

WannaBeCrunchyMama · October 2010

jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.
There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.
Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.
There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.
How much schooling have you had on the physics used in ultrasound? There is no medical proof that ultrasound causes harm enough to outweigh the benefits of doing ultrasound. Period. Ultrasound has been around since WWII. There will always be studies that find "potential" harm for anything and EVERYTHING. And yes sound waves at high frequencies can cause all kinds of problems, but the level we use to perform ultrasound is very very low. Please don't start this discussion on a board geared towards pregnant woman who are already worried out of their minds. Doctors and Radiologist are very aware of what is and isn't appropriate levels for ultrasound. If they do one once a week or once during a whole pregnancy, it is really up to them and you starting this conversation is only going to scare people more, especially since you more than likely are not a physics major. Thank you.

Asking someone how much schooling they've had on a particular issue is like saying

"You haven't been to medical school, so how could you know?"

Ummmm. just because someone has or hasn't been "schooled" on a subject does not mean they are automatically right or wrong. Someone with Schooling on a subject most likely has a better resource. However, it's not like the medical field has a history of getting things right. Particularly in the case of obstetric care.

Obviously there is a place for US in OB practices. As there is a place for everything. There is also a place for c-sections, episotomies, pitocin, and many other things, but that doesn't mean EVERY single pregnant women should receive them.

and here is a quote from. guess who. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine

"American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Consensus Report on Potential Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound"stating that there are indeed some potential risks to administering ultrasound tests, which include "postnatal thermal effects, fetal thermal effects, postnatal mechanical effects, fetal mechanical effects, and bioeffects considerations for ultrasound contrast agents." The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation have shown decreases in the size of red blood cells..."

No one is trying to scare anyone. But stating that something is automatically safe, because there is not STRONG evidence that it is unsafe, is pretty ignorant.

Someone didn't just pull out of their butts that something isn't safe, the thought came from somewhere.

and IMO, a lack of evidence PROVING something is safe, is just as good as saying it isn't.

That being said, I've had 3 US.

jmcdow · October 2010

WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.
There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.
Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.
There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.
How much schooling have you had on the physics used in ultrasound? There is no medical proof that ultrasound causes harm enough to outweigh the benefits of doing ultrasound. Period. Ultrasound has been around since WWII. There will always be studies that find "potential" harm for anything and EVERYTHING. And yes sound waves at high frequencies can cause all kinds of problems, but the level we use to perform ultrasound is very very low. Please don't start this discussion on a board geared towards pregnant woman who are already worried out of their minds. Doctors and Radiologist are very aware of what is and isn't appropriate levels for ultrasound. If they do one once a week or once during a whole pregnancy, it is really up to them and you starting this conversation is only going to scare people more, especially since you more than likely are not a physics major. Thank you.
Asking someone how much schooling they've had on a particular issue is like saying
"You haven't been to medical school, so how could you know?"
Ummmm. just because someone has or hasn't been "schooled" on a subject does not mean they are automatically right or wrong. Someone with Schooling on a subject most likely has a better resource. However, it's not like the medical field has a history of getting things right. Particularly in the case of obstetric care.
Obviously there is a place for US in OB practices. As there is a place for everything. There is also a place for c-sections, episotomies, pitocin, and many other things, but that doesn't mean EVERY single pregnant women should receive them.
and here is a quote from. guess who. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
"American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Consensus Report on Potential Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound"stating that there are indeed some potential risks to administering ultrasound tests, which include "postnatal thermal effects, fetal thermal effects, postnatal mechanical effects, fetal mechanical effects, and bioeffects considerations for ultrasound contrast agents." The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation have shown decreases in the size of red blood cells..."
No one is trying to scare anyone. But stating that something is automatically safe, because there is not STRONG evidence that it is unsafe, is pretty ignorant.
Someone didn't just pull out of their butts that something isn't safe, the thought came from somewhere.
and IMO, a lack of evidence PROVING something is safe, is just as good as saying it isn't.
That being said, I've had 3 US.

You really need to stop while you are ahead. You have no business discussing the affects of ultrasound when you truly do not have the type of knowledge needed to preach about it. Sorry you may not like that statement but even your reply doesn't support your case.

There is a big difference between potential and proven affects. I will repeat myself, there is always potential risk of anything and everything. Ultrasound is heavily regulated in how it is administered in a medical setting. No the medical field doesn't get everything right. Yes someday they may find a proven affect, but at the present time, there is no PROVEN affect that outweighs the benefits of performing ultrasound. PERIOD.

WannaBeCrunchyMama · October 2010

jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.
There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.
Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.
There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.
How much schooling have you had on the physics used in ultrasound? There is no medical proof that ultrasound causes harm enough to outweigh the benefits of doing ultrasound. Period. Ultrasound has been around since WWII. There will always be studies that find "potential" harm for anything and EVERYTHING. And yes sound waves at high frequencies can cause all kinds of problems, but the level we use to perform ultrasound is very very low. Please don't start this discussion on a board geared towards pregnant woman who are already worried out of their minds. Doctors and Radiologist are very aware of what is and isn't appropriate levels for ultrasound. If they do one once a week or once during a whole pregnancy, it is really up to them and you starting this conversation is only going to scare people more, especially since you more than likely are not a physics major. Thank you.
Asking someone how much schooling they've had on a particular issue is like saying
"You haven't been to medical school, so how could you know?"
Ummmm. just because someone has or hasn't been "schooled" on a subject does not mean they are automatically right or wrong. Someone with Schooling on a subject most likely has a better resource. However, it's not like the medical field has a history of getting things right. Particularly in the case of obstetric care.
Obviously there is a place for US in OB practices. As there is a place for everything. There is also a place for c-sections, episotomies, pitocin, and many other things, but that doesn't mean EVERY single pregnant women should receive them.
and here is a quote from. guess who. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
"American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Consensus Report on Potential Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound"stating that there are indeed some potential risks to administering ultrasound tests, which include "postnatal thermal effects, fetal thermal effects, postnatal mechanical effects, fetal mechanical effects, and bioeffects considerations for ultrasound contrast agents." The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation have shown decreases in the size of red blood cells..."
No one is trying to scare anyone. But stating that something is automatically safe, because there is not STRONG evidence that it is unsafe, is pretty ignorant.
Someone didn't just pull out of their butts that something isn't safe, the thought came from somewhere.
and IMO, a lack of evidence PROVING something is safe, is just as good as saying it isn't.
That being said, I've had 3 US.

You really need to stop while you are ahead. You have no business discussing the affects of ultrasound when you truly do not have the type of knowledge needed to preach about it. Sorry you may not like that statement but even your reply doesn't support your case.
There is a big difference between potential and proven affects. I will repeat myself, there is always potential risk of anything and everything. Ultrasound is heavily regulated in how it is administered in a medical setting. No the medical field doesn't get everything right. Yes someday they may find a proven affect, but at the present time, there is no PROVEN affect that outweighs the benefits of performing ultrasound. PERIOD.

I'm not in the medical field. Therefore, I have no place to discuss the potential risks of something the medical field wants to do to me and my baby.

Ya that makes a load of sense.

While we're at it, next time someone asks a question about their body etc.

How about, YOU, EMJAY, and the few other women on here in the medical field respond. Be sure and remind everyone to keep their traps shut. Since the rest of us "have no business"

jmcdow · October 2010

WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.
There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.
Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.
There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.
How much schooling have you had on the physics used in ultrasound? There is no medical proof that ultrasound causes harm enough to outweigh the benefits of doing ultrasound. Period. Ultrasound has been around since WWII. There will always be studies that find "potential" harm for anything and EVERYTHING. And yes sound waves at high frequencies can cause all kinds of problems, but the level we use to perform ultrasound is very very low. Please don't start this discussion on a board geared towards pregnant woman who are already worried out of their minds. Doctors and Radiologist are very aware of what is and isn't appropriate levels for ultrasound. If they do one once a week or once during a whole pregnancy, it is really up to them and you starting this conversation is only going to scare people more, especially since you more than likely are not a physics major. Thank you.
Asking someone how much schooling they've had on a particular issue is like saying
"You haven't been to medical school, so how could you know?"
Ummmm. just because someone has or hasn't been "schooled" on a subject does not mean they are automatically right or wrong. Someone with Schooling on a subject most likely has a better resource. However, it's not like the medical field has a history of getting things right. Particularly in the case of obstetric care.
Obviously there is a place for US in OB practices. As there is a place for everything. There is also a place for c-sections, episotomies, pitocin, and many other things, but that doesn't mean EVERY single pregnant women should receive them.
and here is a quote from. guess who. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
"American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Consensus Report on Potential Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound"stating that there are indeed some potential risks to administering ultrasound tests, which include "postnatal thermal effects, fetal thermal effects, postnatal mechanical effects, fetal mechanical effects, and bioeffects considerations for ultrasound contrast agents." The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation have shown decreases in the size of red blood cells..."
No one is trying to scare anyone. But stating that something is automatically safe, because there is not STRONG evidence that it is unsafe, is pretty ignorant.
Someone didn't just pull out of their butts that something isn't safe, the thought came from somewhere.
and IMO, a lack of evidence PROVING something is safe, is just as good as saying it isn't.
That being said, I've had 3 US.

You really need to stop while you are ahead. You have no business discussing the affects of ultrasound when you truly do not have the type of knowledge needed to preach about it. Sorry you may not like that statement but even your reply doesn't support your case.
There is a big difference between potential and proven affects. I will repeat myself, there is always potential risk of anything and everything. Ultrasound is heavily regulated in how it is administered in a medical setting. No the medical field doesn't get everything right. Yes someday they may find a proven affect, but at the present time, there is no PROVEN affect that outweighs the benefits of performing ultrasound. PERIOD.
I'm not in the medical field. Therefore, I have no place to discuss the potential risks of something the medical field wants to do to me and my baby.
Ya that makes a load of sense.
While we're at it, next time someone asks a question about their body etc.
How about, YOU, EMJAY, and the few other women on here in the medical field respond. Be sure and remind everyone to keep their traps shut. Since the rest of us "have no business"

I never said you have no business giving your opinion. You are completely entitled, but to act as if you are educated on a subject you clearly aren't and you run into someone who is, you are going to get called out.

And just for the record. I am not Emjay, I do like Emjay and have respect for her, but it isn't in my nature to call people out for being idiots. As much as I would like to sometimes.

In this case you are talking about my career.

runnergirl79 · October 2010

As far as I know, I will only be getting one ultrasound...tomorrow, actually.

WannaBeCrunchyMama · October 2010

jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.
There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.
Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.
There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.
How much schooling have you had on the physics used in ultrasound? There is no medical proof that ultrasound causes harm enough to outweigh the benefits of doing ultrasound. Period. Ultrasound has been around since WWII. There will always be studies that find "potential" harm for anything and EVERYTHING. And yes sound waves at high frequencies can cause all kinds of problems, but the level we use to perform ultrasound is very very low. Please don't start this discussion on a board geared towards pregnant woman who are already worried out of their minds. Doctors and Radiologist are very aware of what is and isn't appropriate levels for ultrasound. If they do one once a week or once during a whole pregnancy, it is really up to them and you starting this conversation is only going to scare people more, especially since you more than likely are not a physics major. Thank you.
Asking someone how much schooling they've had on a particular issue is like saying
"You haven't been to medical school, so how could you know?"
Ummmm. just because someone has or hasn't been "schooled" on a subject does not mean they are automatically right or wrong. Someone with Schooling on a subject most likely has a better resource. However, it's not like the medical field has a history of getting things right. Particularly in the case of obstetric care.
Obviously there is a place for US in OB practices. As there is a place for everything. There is also a place for c-sections, episotomies, pitocin, and many other things, but that doesn't mean EVERY single pregnant women should receive them.
and here is a quote from. guess who. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
"American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Consensus Report on Potential Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound"stating that there are indeed some potential risks to administering ultrasound tests, which include "postnatal thermal effects, fetal thermal effects, postnatal mechanical effects, fetal mechanical effects, and bioeffects considerations for ultrasound contrast agents." The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation have shown decreases in the size of red blood cells..."
No one is trying to scare anyone. But stating that something is automatically safe, because there is not STRONG evidence that it is unsafe, is pretty ignorant.
Someone didn't just pull out of their butts that something isn't safe, the thought came from somewhere.
and IMO, a lack of evidence PROVING something is safe, is just as good as saying it isn't.
That being said, I've had 3 US.

You really need to stop while you are ahead. You have no business discussing the affects of ultrasound when you truly do not have the type of knowledge needed to preach about it. Sorry you may not like that statement but even your reply doesn't support your case.
There is a big difference between potential and proven affects. I will repeat myself, there is always potential risk of anything and everything. Ultrasound is heavily regulated in how it is administered in a medical setting. No the medical field doesn't get everything right. Yes someday they may find a proven affect, but at the present time, there is no PROVEN affect that outweighs the benefits of performing ultrasound. PERIOD.
I'm not in the medical field. Therefore, I have no place to discuss the potential risks of something the medical field wants to do to me and my baby.
Ya that makes a load of sense.
While we're at it, next time someone asks a question about their body etc.
How about, YOU, EMJAY, and the few other women on here in the medical field respond. Be sure and remind everyone to keep their traps shut. Since the rest of us "have no business"
I never said you have no business giving your opinion. You are completely entitled, but to act as if you are educated on a subject you clearly aren't and you run into someone who is, you are going to get called out.
And just for the record. I am not Emjay, I do like Emjay and have respect for her, but it isn't in my nature to call people out for being idiots. As much as I would like to sometimes.
In this case you are talking about my career.

" You have no business discussing..." that sure does sound to me like you said I had no business.

As far as who has what kind of education, and who needs more of it. . . Its un-educated to make a blanket statement that something is safe. That hasn't been proven EITHER way. No matter what kind of degree or certification or whatever you have.

Its not a matter of who is in what kind of education you have or what subject matter is at hand.

Blanket statements are NOT educated statements.

and YES, I am talking about your career, not YOU. Do I need to apologize because I brought up the fact that there is no evidence behind the safety of your career. I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings about it. Confused

jmcdow · October 2010

WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
WannaBeCrunchyMama:
jmcdow:
alopdx:
Typically, unless medically necessary, you only get one ultrasound. Ultrasound rays aren't very good for the baby, so they have limited the amount they give... and insurance only pays for it if it's medically necessary.
You could always spring for an elective 3D ultrasound.
There is no medical proof that ultrasounds do harm to anyone let alone babies. Yes they limit because less is always better with anything, but your statement is completely false.
Just because no one has PROVED they are potentially hazardous does not mean they are automatically safe.
There have been several studies that indicate they may not be completely safe.
How much schooling have you had on the physics used in ultrasound? There is no medical proof that ultrasound causes harm enough to outweigh the benefits of doing ultrasound. Period. Ultrasound has been around since WWII. There will always be studies that find "potential" harm for anything and EVERYTHING. And yes sound waves at high frequencies can cause all kinds of problems, but the level we use to perform ultrasound is very very low. Please don't start this discussion on a board geared towards pregnant woman who are already worried out of their minds. Doctors and Radiologist are very aware of what is and isn't appropriate levels for ultrasound. If they do one once a week or once during a whole pregnancy, it is really up to them and you starting this conversation is only going to scare people more, especially since you more than likely are not a physics major. Thank you.
Asking someone how much schooling they've had on a particular issue is like saying
"You haven't been to medical school, so how could you know?"
Ummmm. just because someone has or hasn't been "schooled" on a subject does not mean they are automatically right or wrong. Someone with Schooling on a subject most likely has a better resource. However, it's not like the medical field has a history of getting things right. Particularly in the case of obstetric care.
Obviously there is a place for US in OB practices. As there is a place for everything. There is also a place for c-sections, episotomies, pitocin, and many other things, but that doesn't mean EVERY single pregnant women should receive them.
and here is a quote from. guess who. The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
"American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Consensus Report on Potential Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound"stating that there are indeed some potential risks to administering ultrasound tests, which include "postnatal thermal effects, fetal thermal effects, postnatal mechanical effects, fetal mechanical effects, and bioeffects considerations for ultrasound contrast agents." The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation have shown decreases in the size of red blood cells..."
No one is trying to scare anyone. But stating that something is automatically safe, because there is not STRONG evidence that it is unsafe, is pretty ignorant.
Someone didn't just pull out of their butts that something isn't safe, the thought came from somewhere.
and IMO, a lack of evidence PROVING something is safe, is just as good as saying it isn't.
That being said, I've had 3 US.

You really need to stop while you are ahead. You have no business discussing the affects of ultrasound when you truly do not have the type of knowledge needed to preach about it. Sorry you may not like that statement but even your reply doesn't support your case.
There is a big difference between potential and proven affects. I will repeat myself, there is always potential risk of anything and everything. Ultrasound is heavily regulated in how it is administered in a medical setting. No the medical field doesn't get everything right. Yes someday they may find a proven affect, but at the present time, there is no PROVEN affect that outweighs the benefits of performing ultrasound. PERIOD.
I'm not in the medical field. Therefore, I have no place to discuss the potential risks of something the medical field wants to do to me and my baby.
Ya that makes a load of sense.
While we're at it, next time someone asks a question about their body etc.
How about, YOU, EMJAY, and the few other women on here in the medical field respond. Be sure and remind everyone to keep their traps shut. Since the rest of us "have no business"
I never said you have no business giving your opinion. You are completely entitled, but to act as if you are educated on a subject you clearly aren't and you run into someone who is, you are going to get called out.
And just for the record. I am not Emjay, I do like Emjay and have respect for her, but it isn't in my nature to call people out for being idiots. As much as I would like to sometimes.
In this case you are talking about my career.
" You have no business discussing..." that sure does sound to me like you said I had no business.
As far as who has what kind of education, and who needs more of it. . . Its un-educated to make a blanket statement that something is safe. That hasn't been proven EITHER way. No matter what kind of degree or certification or whatever you have.
Its not a matter of who is in what kind of education you have or what subject matter is at hand.
Blanket statements are NOT educated statements.
and YES, I am talking about your career, not YOU. Do I need to apologize because I brought up the fact that there is no evidence behind the safety of your career. I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings about it.

Obviously you need to re-read the thread. I never said anything was "safe". The fact of the matter is, is anything "safe"? But to argue with me that it isn't because there is studies out there, doesn't mean that it is completely "unsafe". You clearly don't understand the concept "the potential risks do not outweigh the benefits".

You can try to turn this around however you like to try to redeem yourself, even make this a personal attack, be my quest.

staycee · October 2010

I've had 10 so far.

I had over 20 with my last pregnancy.

ekbrick83 · October 2010

I had 2 transvaginal US early on in my pregnancy (the doctor's office I go to specializes in early pregnancy) and they also do a quick one to check the baby's position and growth each time I go- so every 4 weeks. At my hospital as well I had 2 (one for a nuchal that was actually too early because of a mix up of due dates, and the follow up to that when the baby was big enough) I am also getting one at 20 weeks for the anatomy scan.

I love getting to see my baby that much and my doctor and sonographers have all explained the EXTREMELY minascule percentage of risks.

Want a personalized experience?

has anyone else just had 1

Re: has anyone else just had 1

Choose Another Board

Search Boards