Family Forum / Pregnancy / Pregnancy / January 2007

    There are two sides to every argument.  On the one
hand, some might say that doctors just aren't pleased with
someone else horning in on their territory and making money
off it.  On the other hand, there are potential concerns
with u/s, especially at higher intensities and longer
durations.  Some effects have been noted in studies
(things like growth retardation with frequent scans, which
is sort of a chicken-or-egg kind of problem, and increased
left-handedness in boys exposed to prenatal ultrasound,
which isn't a tragedy in and of itself but makes one wonder
if u/s can affect handedness, what else can it affect that
we've never thought to study?).  In vitro studies have
shown that u/s waves can cause temperature changes and
cavitation, though it's not known whether this happens
in vivo (and if it does, what the effects might be).
    So, anyway, I think it's certainly fair to say
that no one can guarantee that there are no negative
effects to recreational u/s.  It is probably also the
case that significant harm is unlikely.  The question
is where you fall on the risk/benefit tradeoff.  For me,
personally, I'd prefer not to take even a small risk
without some benefit accruing to the child, which I don't
see in this case.  However, you may view the calculation
differently.
    For what it's worth, almost all medical organizations
have come out against recreational u/s, and it's illegal in
some areas.  You'll have to make a judgment call whether you
think that's doctors' bank accounts talking or their
concern for public safety.

Best wishes,
Ericka

I had one during my last pregnancy.  However, it was ordered by my
doctor as a medical necessity, so there was benefit to *us* to have it
done.  
I wouldn't have any ultrasound unless it was medically indicated,
though.

That said, there were no negative effects of having it done.

Nan

Just wanted to say how much I appreciate folks offering their input.
Thanks very much.

-Fleemo