Re: 4D IMAGING
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Wed Nov 20 13:36:04 2002
you would have appreciated the irony of the debate at the ISUOG meeting
in which John Hobbins took the position IN FAVOR of entertainment
ultrasound. take home message is to try to incorporate the best of both
- quality work in a friendly environment.
just my opinion - i could be wrong.
art
At Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Jeanette Burlbaw wrote:
>
>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
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
