|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 4D IMAGINGFrom: Terry J. DuBose (duboseterryj@uams.edu)Wed Nov 20 11:00:16 2002
But what about health care? True, we have found no documented harm from the sonic energy at sonographic levels and with "normal" medical usage, but what about missed and wrong diagnoses? Don't we care about that any more?
As far as the "Pro-choice" issue, I don't think anyone in sonography ever argues that
>"it's just a lump of cells" Eventhough I agree that we have much better, economical, safer, and humane means of birth control than elective abortion; I am still not willing to play "God" and tell the parents that they have no choice in every case. Peace, Terry J DuBose, M.S., RDMS --------------------------------------------------
ultrasound@obgyn.net writes:
--------------------------------------------------
> -- -------------------------------------------------- >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 able >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 secondary "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 should 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 changed 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 baby"? I've seen it more than once. So I think the >"bonding" idea is valid for both the patient and the doctor. Whoosh!
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ultrasound@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: terry.dubose@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:35:34 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.