|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Keepsake 3DFrom: DuBose, Terry (DuboseTerryJ@uams.edu)Wed May 26 13:59:13 2004
>From what I hear at SDMS & AIUM, I think most of the objections are to those doing "entertainment" scans that are "uneducated, unskilled, and unwashed". Many of the ultrasound studios located in the malls are run by folks who do not have a clue what they are looking at, and don't care because it isn't medical.
>From the professional organizational point of view there seems to me to The SDMS, AIUM, and SVU (I believe) have come out officially opposed to non-medical uses, and in most cases I think they are also against the self-referral "screening exam" traveling shows that move around the country. Their opposition, in addition to the [weak] Bioeffects argument, is due to the public believing that a sonogram is a sonogram regardless of who performs it. If the unsuspecting public goes for a baby picture session, is not told there are or are not any problems, will they then believe that all is OK and not get proper prenatal care as a result?
>From my point of view, I find the non-medical sonographic profiteering a Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM 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/dms/default.asp http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- --------------------------------------------------------------- From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of DoctorJoe@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:07 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND Subject: Re: Keepsake 3D In a message dated 5/24/04 14:55:45, djberck@yahoo.com writes: If such a scan makes the parents subjectively happier about the pregnancy, more bonded etc., isn't that a sufficiently good reason? Isn't that a better reason than a lot of nonsense reasons we use every day for doing ultrasound like, "doptone not in the room but scanner is", "it's easier to find the FH this way" etc.? And remember, the average german woman gets like 8 or 9 scans per pregnancy. They don't seem worse off, and their medical system isn't so market driven. . . I would think a "bonding scan" would be more beneficial in the long run than the usual (often) "Medicaid scans" which are done for "high risk" criteria, but coincidentally just as many as Medicaid will allow, no more, no less. I think the old lawyer's adage, "follow the money," will answer the question for you. If it's really not "dangerous," and I think we all have to agree it's really not, comparatively speaking, then who is objecting, and WHY? Joe P. ------------------------------------ Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ------------------------------------
-- ------------------------------------
|
|
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: Thu Oct 2 05:19:36 2008 |
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.