Re: 4D IMAGING
From: Jeanette Burlbaw (jburlbaw@kumc.edu)
Wed Nov 20 11:46:17 2002
At the SDMS annual meeting I was chit chatting with another sonographer
about entertainment ultrasound. Her comment was, why should we deny the
general public what all residents, sonographers and doctors have had the
benefit of...looking at their baby on demand for no real purpose. I
thought it was pretty honest & insightful. I often say my son, 22, with
an IQ of 143, can thank his daily ultrasound.
Jeanette
>>> djberck@yahoo.com 11/20/02 12:24PM >>>
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 nobody@medispecialty.com Wed Nov 20 14:22:42 2002
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
by mail.medispecialty.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/dsb-1.1) id gAKKMdw11592
for ULTRASOUND@OBGYN.NET; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:22:42 -0600
Message-Id: <200211202022.gAKKMdw11592@mail.medispecialty.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:22:39 -0600 (CST)
Errors-To: postmaster@medispecialty.com
Reply-To: evsono@pipeline.com
From: evsono@pipeline.com (art fougner, md)
To: ULTRASOUND@OBGYN.NET
In-Reply-To: <9b.30f42c35.2b0d2c50@aol.com>
X-Original-Sender: user-uive88l.dsl.mindspring.com @ 165.247.33.21
Subject: Re: 4D IMAGING
there are always missed diagnoses - we look at patients inside other
patients and we're lookin at a work in progress. prenatal diagnosis, as
yogi berra put it, "ain't over til it's over."
art
At Wed, 20 Nov 2002, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 11/20/02 12:03:01, duboseterryj@uams.edu writes:
>
>> But what about health care? True, we have found no documented harm fro 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?
>>
>And how do we get away from missed or incorrect diagnoses? Answer: Don't
>scan.
>
>Actually, if you're doing "social" scanning, then wouldn't you inform the
>patient up front that you're NOT looking real hard for subtle anomalies, an
>you shouldn't be held liable for missing something that a "regular" targett d
>scan would be expected to uncover?
>
>I don't see a problem with missed diagnoses in the context of cursory socia
>scanning... What's your duty to the patient in that case? To give them a go d
>picture to bond with. If it's clear up front that you're not looking, then
>you have no duty to look.
>
>Joe P.
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
