Re: Keepsake 3D
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Wed May 26 15:13:25 2004
It still irks me that the same folks who battle over a nominal copay for
a diagnostic study will think nothing of forking over $250 for "Fetal
Fotos". Entertainment pays!
art
At Wed, 26 May 2004, Philippe Jeanty, MD, PhD wrote:
>
>Some MD might too :-)
>
> _____
>
>From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Allen
>Worrall
>Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:32 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
>Subject: Re: Keepsake 3D
>
>One of the potential major problems with certification and control (thus
>making this a legal enterprise) would be the loss of trained and skilled
>sonographers to the medical imaging community. It is likely, if this type of
>practice were more or less given approval, that many excellent sonographers
>would opt for the regular hours, lack of night call, and probable higher
>pay. I would not blame them.
>
>Allen
>
>Joseph A Worrall MD RDMS
>The Fairbanks Clinic
>1919 Lathrop Street, Suite 100
>Fairbanks, AK 99701
>jworrall@alaska.net
>http://www.obgynsono.com
>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>
>From: DuBose, Terry <mailto:DuboseTerryJ@uams.edu>
>
>To: Multiple <mailto:ultrasound@dns.obgyn.net> recipients of list
>ULTRASOUND
>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:00 AM
>
>Subject: Re: Keepsake 3D
>
>>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
>be a split between those who are for a purely "free-market" and those
>who believe that there should be some kind of control or certifications
>for those using sonography.
>
>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
>bit unsavory (of course I am biased, I admit). Particularly since one
>such entrepreneur was quoted in the Wall Street Journal saying, upon
>being asked about non-medical uses and the event of finding an
>anomaly,... "I don't care if the kid has three legs; I'll only point out
>two, this is not a diagnostic exam." However, I am not willing to
>censure experienced, ARDMS certified sonographers for going into the
>business as long as the FDA does not enforce their own rules and
>continues to allow anyone, regardless of education, experience or skill,
>to do the business.
>
>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.
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
|
|
