Re: 4D IMAGING
From: Dave Berck (djberck@yahoo.com)
Wed Nov 20 11:22:03 2002
At the recent ISUOG meeting, sonographers from Germany
claimed that the average woman has 8-9 "routine" scans
per pregnancy. Either u/s is not at all harmful or the
Germans are doing something harmful. I suspect the
former.
PS: how much can I charge for a 4-D ultrasound? I need
a new Mercedes.
--- "Terry J. DuBose" <duboseterryj@uams.edu> wrote:
> 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"
> , at least not by the time we can see anything.
> The problem is the gray area(s)... who is willing to
> tell every mother with a fetal anomaly that she must
> carry the pregnancy and let nature take it's
> course... or who is willing to make the call on
> every case that "this one is fatal" but "this one
> will only have minor problems." Can our legislators
> write a law to deal with these issues in every case?
>
> 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!
>
> Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS
> Assistant Professor & Director, Diagnostic Medical
> Sonography Program
> University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, CHRP
> 4301 West Markham St. Mail Slot #563
> Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205 USA
> 501-686-6510
> DuBoseTerryJ@UAMS.edu
> http://www.io.com/~dubose/
> http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm
> http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
>
=====
David J. Berck, MD, MPH
>From DoctorJoe@aol.com Wed Nov 20 12:26:43 2002
Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36])
by mail.medispecialty.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/dsb-1.1) with ESMTP id gAKIQeF25093
for <ultrasound@obgyn.net>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:26:41 -0600
Received: from DoctorJoe@aol.com
by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id w.154.17bdc0a6 (3956)
for <ultrasound@obgyn.net>; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:26:36 -0500 (EST)
From: DoctorJoe@aol.com
Message-ID: <154.17bdc0a6.2b0d2ddc@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:26:36 EST
Subject: Re: 4D IMAGING
To: ultrasound@obgyn.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_154.17bdc0a6.2b0d2ddc_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL For Mac OS X sub 23
In a message dated 11/20/02 12:25:10, djberck@yahoo.com writes:
> PS: how much can I charge for a 4-D ultrasound? I need
> a new Mercedes.
>
Why not a BMW??? Did you see the cool short films at http://www.bmwfilms.com?
They're really cool and basically great minifilms. And I think a Z4 Roadster
would do fine (if you couldn't afford the Z8...). hehe
Joe P.
