Reply Hey Mom! Learn more about the Gerber Life Insurance Grow-Up Plan!
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-30-2007, 04:10 AM   #11
Ooey
Full of Surprises
seller
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,254
Re: Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClothDiaperingMama View Post
If there is an etopic pregnancy it can be removed before perm damage is done to the mother. I have never had an internal one done unless they were looking to make sure there wasn't an etopic pregnancy.

I think it is personal choice, but when there is a blanket statement that it is totally done for money reasons only I take personal offense. It helps lots of people. She could just state.. I choose not to have them.

What was wrong with what I said? She is lucky isn't she?
I would say so. I think she is very lucky.
lucky enough to know better I guess

Advertisement

__________________
Kaela
Mama to
Whilder (8)Olian (6)
#3 Coming Oct. 2015!
Ooey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 04:14 AM   #12
ClothDiaperingMama
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,647
Re: Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ooey View Post
lucky enough to know better I guess
I guess..
__________________
Kaydee- Mama to: G{21},G{17]B{8},B{5}and Born-sleeping, AngelBaby,who is in our hearts forever! Abigail Neveah{Feb 23, 2007}
ClothDiaperingMama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 04:17 AM   #13
ClothDiaperingMama
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,647
Re: Why?

I guess I should clarify.. I was saying that she was lucky because she didn't need to have them. Her pregnancy/baby were healthy, etc.

She is lucky that she didn't 'need' to have them because she didn't have any problems, etc.
__________________
Kaydee- Mama to: G{21},G{17]B{8},B{5}and Born-sleeping, AngelBaby,who is in our hearts forever! Abigail Neveah{Feb 23, 2007}
ClothDiaperingMama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 05:06 AM   #14
ginafer's Avatar
ginafer
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 447
My Mood:
Re: Why?

WOW! Sorry to the OP for totally hijacking your thread!
Kaydee sorry to make you !
I do agree U/S is a personal choice, but then again I don't think most women even think there might be side effects or rather that they don't even think to question it. They just do it and some for entertainment. About the study I read from 25 years ago. I guess what was eye-opening was that is was a 12 year study that showed a high occurance of Dyslexia, ADD, and other developmental delays on babies whose developing brain tissue was subjected to ultrasonic waves. ie. 20wk u/s. The thing that bothers me is that I have never read about any other study done. Why wouldn't they after those results on old technology? They say, don't stand in front of a microwave when you're pregnant. Why? Why are microwaves bad and ultrasonic waves OK? I think U/S is a useful technology for pregnancy when a normal pregnancy is showing signs of possible problems. But not for every single pregnant women! And certainly not for entertainment. As the technology gets clearer and clearer that is stronger and stronger on developing tissue. Early technitions recomended that U/S never be used on a fetus under 3 months old. Honestly though 25 years is not enough time to determine if there are any serious side effects. Female fetuses 25 years ago who underwent U/S along with their eggs, are all just having babies. So relativly it is a newer technology that just doesn't have all of the research to prove its safety.

I had extensive u/s done on my first son because of my cervix. Everytime they did it, his heart rate would jump and he would 'swim' away from the wand. That seemed to me like it scared him. He was fearful and possibly causing him pain. You know that they used to do X-Rays on pregnant women to determine fetal position in labor. Years later they discovered a high rate of Childhood cancer on babies who were exposed to x-rays inutero. I don't want to participate unnecessarily on the 'Years later' stats of U/S.

Is it a good technology? Yes. So are X-Rays!
Should we question the routine and often unnecessary use of u/s in pregnancy? Yes.
Would I ever have an ultrasound again? Yes, if my charts showed a possible problem. Mainly I do not like U/S in the first 2 trimesters when the baby is still developing. But I still think it has the potential of scareing the baby in the third trimester.

I like to be informed and most of the mommas on here do also. And with U/S if you have never thought about it, then I think you should. And I think you should do some research and make an informed decision.
__________________
Joshua 24:15
Ginafer: wife to 1 wonderful husband and mother of 5 gorgeous boys!
ginafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 05:12 AM   #15
Ooey
Full of Surprises
seller
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,254
Re: Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClothDiaperingMama View Post
I guess I should clarify.. I was saying that she was lucky because she didn't need to have them. Her pregnancy/baby were healthy, etc.

She is lucky that she didn't 'need' to have them because she didn't have any problems, etc.
Oh good, I guess I sort of misunderstood you then


Quote:
Originally Posted by ginafer View Post
I like to be informed and most of the mommas on here do also. And with U/S if you have never thought about it, then I think you should. And I think you should do some research and make an informed decision.
__________________
Kaela
Mama to
Whilder (8)Olian (6)
#3 Coming Oct. 2015!
Ooey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 07:56 AM   #16
jls~Kain~Drake's Avatar
jls~Kain~Drake
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,573
My Mood:
Re: Why?

i had early u/s's because of a previous loss. The earliest I had one was 5 weeks and 6 days and I was able to see the bean and hb. As far as why a doc would do it without a reason...NO idea.

Good luck to her.
__________________
Jenelle SAHM to Kain (01/27/04) Drake (08/22/05)
~*55 lbs lost, 25 to go!*~
jls~Kain~Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 04:15 PM   #17
ClothDiaperingMama
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,647
Re: Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginafer View Post
WOW! Sorry to the OP for totally hijacking your thread!
Kaydee sorry to make you !
I do agree U/S is a personal choice, but then again I don't think most women even think there might be side effects or rather that they don't even think to question it. They just do it and some for entertainment. About the study I read from 25 years ago. I guess what was eye-opening was that is was a 12 year study that showed a high occurance of Dyslexia, ADD, and other developmental delays on babies whose developing brain tissue was subjected to ultrasonic waves. ie. 20wk u/s. The thing that bothers me is that I have never read about any other study done. Why wouldn't they after those results on old technology? They say, don't stand in front of a microwave when you're pregnant. Why? Why are microwaves bad and ultrasonic waves OK? I think U/S is a useful technology for pregnancy when a normal pregnancy is showing signs of possible problems. But not for every single pregnant women! And certainly not for entertainment. As the technology gets clearer and clearer that is stronger and stronger on developing tissue. Early technitions recomended that U/S never be used on a fetus under 3 months old. Honestly though 25 years is not enough time to determine if there are any serious side effects. Female fetuses 25 years ago who underwent U/S along with their eggs, are all just having babies. So relativly it is a newer technology that just doesn't have all of the research to prove its safety.

I had extensive u/s done on my first son because of my cervix. Everytime they did it, his heart rate would jump and he would 'swim' away from the wand. That seemed to me like it scared him. He was fearful and possibly causing him pain. You know that they used to do X-Rays on pregnant women to determine fetal position in labor. Years later they discovered a high rate of Childhood cancer on babies who were exposed to x-rays inutero. I don't want to participate unnecessarily on the 'Years later' stats of U/S.

Is it a good technology? Yes. So are X-Rays!
Should we question the routine and often unnecessary use of u/s in pregnancy? Yes.
Would I ever have an ultrasound again? Yes, if my charts showed a possible problem. Mainly I do not like U/S in the first 2 trimesters when the baby is still developing. But I still think it has the potential of scareing the baby in the third trimester.

I like to be informed and most of the mommas on here do also. And with U/S if you have never thought about it, then I think you should. And I think you should do some research and make an informed decision.
No worries! It was pretty late and our family is sick so.. was probably bound to happen.

I can tell you from personal experience with 4 kids.. ranging in age from almost 19years old to 2 years...who have had multiple u/s with no side effects what so ever. I do believe that the teens would have definitely shown up by now any "side effects" if there had been. There isn't any "side effects" of anything that you mentioned. I think with technology only getting better & safer as time has gone along.. it would definitely have shown up in the older girls. Oldest one is out of school, in college. Middle {15 year old} goes to an All Honors High School. So I am very proud.

I also don't think that u/s are harmful as they are nothing like a microwave. Microwaves are electromagnetic, like radio waves. An u/s is sound waves which makes them totally different. I agree.. researching something helps make an educated decision instead of a decision based on fear alone.
__________________
Kaydee- Mama to: G{21},G{17]B{8},B{5}and Born-sleeping, AngelBaby,who is in our hearts forever! Abigail Neveah{Feb 23, 2007}
ClothDiaperingMama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 04:49 PM   #18
TwinKristi's Avatar
TwinKristi
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 14,304
My Mood:
Re: Why?

To the OP~ ITA that the Dr probably did an u/s for dating purposes and it's just too early to see anything worth dating. I had an u/s done at about 4w5d and there were only gestational & yolk sacs but the gest sac measured larger than what I should have been so they were worried it was a m/c. I went for a series of hcg levels and follow up u/s' and it turned out I was right on my dating and it was just really early. So all that worry for nothing. Micromanaged pregnancies are notorious for having numerous complications, I've experienced it myself. My least followed pregnancy had the least complications, but the post-partum period was greatly mishandled. My next pregnancy was handled with such caution that I every precaution was taken for safety's sake! It was AWFUL! It turned out that my BP was slightly elevated so I ended up having to do numerous blood tests, urine tests, home monitoring, bedrest, induction at 39wks, prophilactic abx, highrisk NST... you name it, I had to do it! I had to see a perinatalogist in the city every 6wks, my regular high risk OB every 2wks, they wanted me in hospital for 14 days AFTER delivery.... I was like HOLD UP!!! Things just spiraled out of control and I finally said no way! This is MY pregnancy, MY body and MY baby! I agreed to certain things, stopped seeing the Peri, continued home monitoring via the phone nurse, induction at 39wks b/c I was 2cm & 80%, no abx, med free delivery, went home at 24hrs, etc. I went into my OBs office for 2wks after for monitoring and did home monitoring, but I really had to take control of MY care. Otherwise they would have just kept controlling it the way they were and who knows what would have happened.

Ultrasound~ While I don't feel it's "perfectly harmless" I will say the benefits outweigh the risks and I find them to be very effective in non-invasive diagnosis and would much rather risk an u/s than an amnio.
But I also think that u/s is far over-used in pregnancy and the real harm and effects aren't widely known. I don't think that it emits harmful rays, but I don't think that a microwave does either... I've had so many u/s that I don't think I could count but I honestly don't think there are any negative effetcs on a baby b/c of it at a normal level of use.
__________________
Kristi, Mommy to Josh & Nick (identical twins 6-97) Nathen (3-02), Joey (2-04), Jacob (11-05) & Aaron (12-11) I sell Tupperware!
"A person's a person, no matter how small..." Dr Seuss
TwinKristi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 05:32 PM   #19
FinnegansMom's Avatar
FinnegansMom
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The beach, Mass.
Posts: 5,084
My Mood:
Re: Why?

I had one like that almost every week from 5-10 weeks. They were dating the pregnancy, as I for some reason couldn't remember exactly when my last AF was and I had had a back injury right around that time, was on pain killers (that of course I went of off asap) and had even had an MRI while pregnant. Of course, the burning question was, if you'r back was so bad how could you do the deed? LIke I said, I was on some pretty nice pain meds...

But seriously, it doesnt mean anything is wrong... they are just checking! I still have all the photos they gave me too!
__________________
Michelle momma to Finnegan 10/06 Samuel 7/08
Missing my 2/10 and welcoming Henry 2/11
FinnegansMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2007, 07:43 PM   #20
kezoo's Avatar
kezoo
Registered Users
seller
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 8,032
My Mood:
Re: Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ginafer View Post
WOW! Sorry to the OP for totally hijacking your thread!
Kaydee sorry to make you !
I do agree U/S is a personal choice, but then again I don't think most women even think there might be side effects or rather that they don't even think to question it. They just do it and some for entertainment. About the study I read from 25 years ago. I guess what was eye-opening was that is was a 12 year study that showed a high occurance of Dyslexia, ADD, and other developmental delays on babies whose developing brain tissue was subjected to ultrasonic waves. ie. 20wk u/s. The thing that bothers me is that I have never read about any other study done. Why wouldn't they after those results on old technology? They say, don't stand in front of a microwave when you're pregnant. Why? Why are microwaves bad and ultrasonic waves OK? I think U/S is a useful technology for pregnancy when a normal pregnancy is showing signs of possible problems. But not for every single pregnant women! And certainly not for entertainment. As the technology gets clearer and clearer that is stronger and stronger on developing tissue. Early technitions recomended that U/S never be used on a fetus under 3 months old. Honestly though 25 years is not enough time to determine if there are any serious side effects. Female fetuses 25 years ago who underwent U/S along with their eggs, are all just having babies. So relativly it is a newer technology that just doesn't have all of the research to prove its safety.

I had extensive u/s done on my first son because of my cervix. Everytime they did it, his heart rate would jump and he would 'swim' away from the wand. That seemed to me like it scared him. He was fearful and possibly causing him pain. You know that they used to do X-Rays on pregnant women to determine fetal position in labor. Years later they discovered a high rate of Childhood cancer on babies who were exposed to x-rays inutero. I don't want to participate unnecessarily on the 'Years later' stats of U/S.

Is it a good technology? Yes. So are X-Rays!
Should we question the routine and often unnecessary use of u/s in pregnancy? Yes.
Would I ever have an ultrasound again? Yes, if my charts showed a possible problem. Mainly I do not like U/S in the first 2 trimesters when the baby is still developing. But I still think it has the potential of scareing the baby in the third trimester.

I like to be informed and most of the mommas on here do also. And with U/S if you have never thought about it, then I think you should. And I think you should do some research and make an informed decision.
Ginafer, I totally agree w/ you. I do worry about things that "everyones" get and "everyone turns out fine", but for which there is NOT any solid research. (and OT: how do we know they "turned out fine" - you don't have another non-exposed baby to compare to!!) My OB even told me when I was pg w/ my first that he only recommends the 20 week u/s for a normal pregnancy, because "the research just is not there regarding long-term side effects of u/s on a fetus". Using u/s as a tool for dating, etc. I think is irresponsible if the mom has a basic idea of when her LMP was. I mean, why do we have to know THE DATE the baby is due - only 5% arrive on their EDD anyway, so what's the big deal if you are off by a few days? How does knowing the EXACT date baby is "supposed" to arrive make that baby any safer? I just think the increase use of u/s is a tool that OBs use to make themselves feel in control of something they really aren't in control of! For moms who did IVF or other fertility treatments, have proablems, or even didn't have a period before getting pg (while nursing), then perhaps the early u/s has some value, but when I hear of people with a normal pregnancy getting multiple u/s, it make me go ! Years ago x-rays were considered safe, moms were given DES (or was it Thalidomide?) for nausea, but we now know better. The same MAY be true for u/s - and until there are more definitive studies done, I'll err on the side of caution.
__________________
Kerry
Mama to Gavin (3/26/03) , Claire (6/14/05) and Oliver (hb 4/24/08)
ISO: nothing! | IHA: small fitteds, small & med wool

Last edited by kezoo; 09-30-2007 at 07:47 PM.
kezoo 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.