In a message dated 8/19/1 4:59:44 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

Carole wrote:
<< A recent post denigrated ultrasound examinations in pregnancy; I found
this quite distressing.  There are no studies to indicate that ultrasound
exams in and of themselves are harmful.  They are non-invasive and can
provide information about the growing baby that routine prenatal care may
miss. >>

Ultrasounds are not non-invasive--where is the evidence that they are?
Ultrasound has never been proven to be safe--in this respect it is akin to
AIM. "Safe until proven guilty"? If we are going to present the risks of AIM
in this light, then we must also present the risks of U/S accordingly.
According to Ann Frye, CPM, the FDA has set limits for emissions, but there
are no regulations requiring calibration of equipment.  One argument for U/S
use has been that since the very young fetus has an amazing ability to heal
itself, early use, even if unsafe, probably will not show visible harm in the
infant. (This, if course, does not address risks throughout organogenesis).
Risks observed in various studies include increased frequency of genetic code
switching in human lymphocytes, free radical production (an origin of DNA
damage), disruption of myelination, increased absorption of drugs and
hormones, overheating of bone, increased rates of IUGR and immune compromise.
One study showed a significant increase in CP in babies exposed to higher
levels of US. Another showed increased incidence of miscarriage. I have also
been told by one practitioner that U/S have been implicated in ear infections
(damage to the bones of the inner ear as they are developing).

 <<And as to routine prenatal care...it is a simple thing to check Mama out
regularly during pregnancy.  Urine dipstick, blood pressure, weight, fundal
height...How are you feeling? Is Baby moving?>>

Yes, it is simple. But, more often than not, in the US, human assessment is
replaced by machine assessment. And humans have lost the ability to trust
what they do not routinely practice, so the machines become the tools by
which decisions are made. How many LC's have worked with premature babies who
were induced b/c the U/S said they were too big, which of course, they
weren't? Or moms who had cesareans b/c the U/S said the baby was too big and
either the c/s was scheduled or the mother could not psycologically overcome
the fear of the "too big"  7 or 8 lb baby?

<<Many of you who work/worked in OB fields know that women who do not receive
routine prenatal care often present to a facility in an emergent situation;
these
ladies are "train wrecks" (not a kind description, but accurate) and outcomes
for Baby, and sometimes Mom, too, are poor. >>

Maybe. Maybe not. The problem is in the description of "routine prenatal
care". A woman who is completely in tune with her body and who takes full
responsibilty for herself and her baby may partake of a prenatal care very
different from what you might consider "routine".  (And she probably will not
show up on your doorstep at all, since she is likely to stay home or go to a
birthing center). I saw a midwife only 4X during my last pregnancy (no
testing of any kind) and experienced the healthiest of all of my pregnanices
and the easiest of all of my births. This was not luck, this was intention.

<<As to ultrasound, I had a recent experience of visiting a mother whose baby
had been stillborn at 32 weeks gestation, severely hydroptic, due to
thalassemia.  An ultrasound would have revealed this condition; Baby would
have had problems, but they are correctable, albeit with high-tech measures.
This family could have taken a little one home; instead, they are making
funeral arrangements.>>

Perhaps so. But studies show that routine ultrasounds "do not" improve
outcomes. Indeed, they tend to lead to more (unecessary) interventions, thus
diminishing outcomes. This scenario does not in any way justify the routine
use of U/S.

<<  So very, very sad, and really unneccesary.>>

I personally find very troubling the idea that since we have technology, we
should always use it and that to choose not to do so is wrong. I do not think
we can ever really trust life until we trust its antithesis--death. Death is
the inevitable outcome of life. B/c we expect every pregnancy to deliver a
healthy baby, we rely heavily on technology to provide this to us. I am not
unmoved by death in birth--my father's first wife died in childbirth, my
sister's first child was a fetal demise and  of my own 6 pregnancies I have
three children. Close friends as well as clients have lost infants and
children. IMO, fear of imperfection or even of death is not a safe guide for
us as mothers. The promise of life does not assure us of perfection, nor even
of its own fulfillment.
    Routine use of U/S is, IMO, undermining of the normalcy of birth in every
way. It is no different from the routine use of glucose testing for all
babies. Assume the body does not work properly and if, under the assualt of
this distrust it manages to work, then we will allow for normal bahaviour?
But, how does normal birth and mothering exist in the context of
distrust--normal relies so completely on trust.
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html