Names Searched Right Now:
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,279
    A lot of the 'arguments' about fetal imaging / doppler suffer from reverse causation, or just plain misinformation (like the shock wave-force needed to physically displace anything on the molecular level within the baby). The sad, sad 'argument' I have seen most oftenly cited goes something like this:

    "Did you know babies subject to repeated ultrasounds during pregnancy are 10 times more likely to be born with serious birth defects!"

    Sounds ominous. However, the reason these babies are getting weekly ultrasounds to monitor their growth, amniotic fluid levels, heart function, neural tube defects, renal agenesis, etc etc etc is *because* they have been diagnosed with a problem antenatally, and/or the mother had ongoing health concerns necessitating frequent monitoring of the baby. They have it totally backwards-- the ultrasound/heartbeat measurement is not the cause of their birth defects, but the birth defects cause them to get multiple ultrasounds.

    Emma, I have my suspicions about why that particular group of women would be uninterested in buying a $50,000 machine, paying several thousand dollars to be trained in its use and attending a year of classes to be certified therein, and admitting that there can be pregnancy complications and/or congenital anomalies, placental problems, etc that would necessitate its use-- runs a bit counter to the "trust birth" "you don't need no fancy money-grubbing doctors" philosophy.

    In answer to your specific question, fetoscopes are extremely poor substitutes for a doppler. They are basically stethoscopes and if the baby is positioned remotely suboptimally, you won't hear a blessed thing. Even if you do, it's extremely difficult to mentally calculate heartrate variability and reactivity when you're just counting along.

    And unfortunately your lay midwife friends are demonstrating their complete ignorance of the physics of electricity and magnetism (which is required for entry into medical school). A doppler is an ultrasound, but in handheld mode instead of producing a visual display it produces an aural one. It calculates based on the Doppler effect, or the Doppler shift, which is the change in the apparent frequency of a wave (an ultrasonic sound wave) as the target moves towards or away from the observer (the observer being the device itself). It is used widely to measure all sorts of vascular phenomena (I use them nearly daily to check out various blood vessels), since the heart will propel blood quickly towards the observer and then away as that blood flows on down the vessel.

    Doppler can have visual display as well-- again, I use cheapo ones which just make a sound as well as fancy ones that show me the color waveform of blood mixing in an aneurysm, or the upstroke and downstroke as blood flows through a semi-clogged artery, etc. Many applications. In obstetrics when you have your Level 1 sonogram (the anatomy scan) the tech uses visual doppler to image the four chambers of the heart and make sure the blood is flowing in the proper circuit.

    Again there is ZERO-- I repeat not a shred-- of evidence that ultrasonic waves "disturb," "move," "disequilibrate," any synonym you like anything on the molecular level in any tissue through which they pass, including that of a developing baby. This is simply grossly unfounded scaremongering.

    However, giving up on heartbeat checks and routine, detailed ultrasounds in pregnancy out of worry can have very serious consequences indeed. There are a great many fetal anomalies that, if diagnosed antenatally, can be successfully managed antenatally and/or corrected immediately after birth, assuming everyone is prepared. The importance of assessing placental sufficiency in late pregnancy cannot be overestimated, either, and that's done with a simple heartbeat check.
    Blade, MD

    XY: Antoine Raphael (3.1.2012)
    XX: Cassia Viviane Noor (11.30.2013)

  2. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,458
    Quote Originally Posted by cvdutch31 View Post
    Thank you everyone! @blade: thank you for the information. I'm a science and research-based person myself so I really appreciate hearing about the actual data that's out there.
    The only data Blade offered is her qualification as a surgeon. I get it - there's a lot to be scared of when pregnant. I know I could eat a truckload of brie, ham and oysters, use regular cosmetics and toiletries, have a hundred ultrasounds, and still give birth to a perfect baby. But I might not.

    I found this on the FDA website. I only did a brief search, so there's probably better information out there. Here's the link:

    http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emittin.../ucm115357.htm.

    Here's what they say regarding ultrasounds during pregnancy: "Even though there are no known risks of ultrasound imaging, it can produce effects on the body. When ultrasound enters the body, it heats the tissues slightly. In some cases, it can also produce small pockets of gas in body fluids or tissues (cavitation). The long-term effects of tissue heating and cavitation are not known. Because of the particular concern for fetal exposures, national and international organizations have advocated prudent use of ultrasound imaging. Furthermore, the use of diagnostic ultrasound for non-medical purposes such as fetal keepsake videos has been discouraged."

    Make of that what you will.
    Alice - Beatrix - Clara - Daphne - Flora - Harriet - Mabel - Susannah

    Albert - Barnaby - Edward - Frederick - Henry - Rupert - Theodore - Walter

  3. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    SD, CA
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by blade View Post
    For all who are worried about the possible pernicious effects of Doppler waves-- there are none. You best not live on planet Earth if you want to keep your developing baby free from exposure to sound waves, as they are constantly emitted (by the earth itself, by broadcast communications, by everything within audible range that actually makes a sound). Sound waves of all frequencies penetrate tissue just fine (after all, your baby can hear in the womb) and there are no deleterious effects, nor do they 'move things' unless they are of earthquake magnitude. Supposing otherwise is the worst kind of ungrounded fearmongering.
    Thank you!
    Mama to
    Desmond Sanders, born 7/2013
    and dog son, Lambeau

  4. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Currently on the west side of the U.S.
    Posts
    411
    When I said I'm a science and research-based person myself and I appreciate the data, I was referring in general to Blade's medical profession experience. But if you read her comment up above, on this page, she went on to offer a lot more info as well.

    Regardless, I don't come here for childish back and forths or trying to one-up each other or competing over who's opinion is better/more worthy. As I've said repeatedly, I value everyone's thoughts and have thanked them for it, including yourself. Doesn't matter if I agree with them (or you), I come here to hear everyone's side. I'm noticing more and more back-and-forths like this on the forums here and I really hope we can leave that behind and just let everyone have their say and leave it at that. If we want drama, we can go to any of the other hundreds of forums out there for moms-to-be that appear to be run by emotional teenagers.

    Again, thank you everyone for sharing your take on it!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •