NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/misc/kids/31229

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!cn262
From: [e-mail] (Cindy Carpenter)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: ultrasound
Date: 29 Dec 1992 19:30:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Cindy Carpenter)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Kerri South) writes:

>I think I'm leaning towards not having an ultrasound. Are there things that I
>should consider outside of my points above? I haven't talked this through with
>my husband yet. We recently decided not to have the AFP screening done, but
>an ultrasound is different. He was pretty thrilled just to hear the heartbeat
>at our first appointment a few weeks ago. I was so excited I laughed. It was
>so unbelieveable in a way. It's hard to give up something so interesting as
>an ultrasound.
>
>So, was an ultrsound really so great? What are the main reasons OBs or
>midwives prescribe them? Is there really any NEED for one in a normal, low-risk
>pregnancy?

As other netters have said, ultrasounds can be fun, interesting, exciting.
But I think you asked the right question: Do you really NEED to have one?
If you don't need one (and from the rest of your post it sounds like you
don't), I wouldn't have one.  Ultrasounds are very *widely* used, but they
haven't been used for a very *long* period of time, and there hasn't been
much research into possible long term side effects.  They certainly seem
safe, but why take chances if you don't NEED to?

It can be a thrill to see your baby moving around, but there are other ways
to bond with the small creature inside of you - parents have been doing it
for thousands of years before ultrasounds!  I think Sheila Kitzinger's
book, _Your Baby, Your Way_ has a discussion of this.

And there are other down sides to ultrasounds and all of the other prenatal
tests offered or urged to parents-to-be.  There's the cost, which even if
you don't have to pay for it directly, we all absorb in higher insurance
costs.  There's also the "cascade" effect, where one test suggests there
might be a problem, which leads to more tests, and interventions in the
pregnancy, labor and on the newborn.  Granted these are sometimes necessary
and helpful, even essential, but I have also  heard many stories from
friends of mine who went through needless anxiety and suffering over
suspicious test results that turned out to be incorrect.  There's also the
question of what will you do if the results are *not* reassuring.  This is
less true of the ultrasound, but with many of the other prenatal tests,
there is really nothing that can be done if the results show that your baby
has a problem - you can either continue the pregnancy knowing that your
baby likely will be severely handicapped, or you can have an abortion.  My
midwives encouraged my husband and me to discuss our feelings about various
outcomes of the tests *before* we got them (unfortunately not the norm in
obstetric care).  We realized that there was no way we were going to have
an abortion, so the test results would have been useless to us as a basis
for making decisions.  Since there is also some risk, though slight,
involved in all of the tests, we chose not to have them done.

Good luck with whatever course you take,
Cindy (mother of Abigail, born 6/3/91)
email address: [e-mail]

P.S. I *did* have an ultrasound.  Unlike Kerri, there's a history of twins
in my family and my daughter grew very quickly inside of me and looked like
twins.  Since we were planning a homebirth, and my midwives wouldn't do a
homebirth with twins, it was important to know.