Re: 4D IMAGING
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Wed Nov 20 10:37:02 2002
Stuart Campbell was able to demonstrate a benefit of prenatal ultrasound
in a group of pregnant smokers - decreased cigarette smoking after the
scan.
art
At Wed, 20 Nov 2002, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 11/19/02 22:25:24, gaperina@mindspring.com writes:
>
>> As long a s there is no established harm, and the power
>> levels are within FDA acceptable ranges, there should be absolutely no
>> restrictions on ultrasonography. Most of the innovations we have been ble
>> to make have been the result of technical improvements and those pioneers
>> who were able to break new ground with them.
>>
>Couple of observations:
>
>1) if there is truly no harm (in an otherwise medically nonindicated
>ultrasound), then there is no a priori medical contraindication for the
>procedure.
>
>2) if there is no medical contraindication, then you can talk about seconda y
>"contraindications," the most debated is money.
>
>3) if money is the question, then the patient can pay for what she wants,
>right? Otherwise, we're practicing a bad form of paternalism. As long as
>you're not scamming the third-party payors, then the patient's wishes shoul
>rule.
>
>4) back to #1 above - if BONDING is a legitimate aim, then there's actually a
>medical BENEFIT, and the discussion SHOULD be over.
>
>Anything to add? hehe
>
>Joe P.
>
>P.S. Not to add gasoline, but how many of you have seen people, medical
>professionals, who have "grown up" with the development of ultrasound (when
>they started learning/school, ultrasound was in its infancy - as they
>practiced, ultrasound became 2D, 3D, 4D, technicolor, etc.), who have chang d
>from "pro-choice" to "pro-life" by "bonding" with the babies on the screen,
>changing from the gut feeling of "it's just a lump of cells" to "it's a ba
>by"? I've seen it more than once. So I think the "bonding" idea is valid fo
>both the patient and the doctor. Whoosh!
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
