ULTRASOUND Messages for May, 2004: Re: Keepsake 3D

Re: Keepsake 3D

From: Dave Berck

djberck@yahoo.com

Fri May 28 14:26:35 2004

--- "Philippe Jeanty, MD, PhD" <jeanty@TheFetus.net> 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. >

===== David J. Berck, MD, MPH

use when must restrict search to only the ultrasound forum...
Enter search keywords:
	Returns per screen: Require all keywords: