3D/4D ultrasounds

I own a 3D/4D ultrasound studio. We have done over 500 ultrasounds in the past 20 months. We employ only certified, experienced ultrasound technicians. We recommend 28 weeks as the perfect time to get a good 3D/4D ultrasound. Before 28 weeks you may get a slender, skeletal looking baby. By 28 weeks babies have chubby cheeks but still have plenty of room for movement on the DVD. Ask for a certified technician. Any good certified, experienced ultrasound technician will be able to get good, possibly great pictures at 28 weeks. If you're pictures aren't what you expected, ask for a free return visit...but remember, the baby's position is the key to good pictures. An experienced tech will know how to get the baby to move into a better position. Don't expect your pictures to look like photos from a photographer but you should get clear fingers, toes, and hopefully face shots. Research 3D/4D ultrasound pictures so that you will know what to expect. This should be a pleasant and exciting experience for you and your family.

Thank you

Quoting Julie12345:" I own a 3D/4D ultrasound studio. We have done over 500 ultrasounds in the past 20 months. We employ only ... [snip!] ... pictures so that you will know what to expect. This should be a pleasant and exciting experience for you and your family."

What do you say to the fact that the FDA & the ACOG have both warned against the use of ultrasound for entertainment? They don't think ti should be a fun & exciting experience, they think it isn't a good idea at all.

The ACOG's current stance is
" Ultrasonography should be performed only when there is a valid medical indication, and the lowest possible ultrasonic exposure setting should be used to gain the necessary diagnostic information under the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle
Although there is no reliable evidence of physical harm to human fetuses from diagnostic ultrasound imaging, public health experts, clinicians, and industry representatives agree that casual use of ultrasonography, especially during pregnancy, should be avoided. Viewed in this light, exposing the fetus to ultrasonography with no anticipation of medical benefit is not justified "

i agree i had many due to high risk pregnancy and she would always hide! I am so glad my insurance paid for them.

Quoting justanothamotha:" What do you say to the fact that the FDA & the ACOG have both warned against the use of ultrasound ... [snip!] ... avoided. Viewed in this light, exposing the fetus to ultrasonography with no anticipation of medical benefit is not justified ""

What do you say to the fact that the FDA puts poison in our food and has completely screwed organic farming?

I don't know anything about ACOG and I will research it, but nothing the FDA says can be trusted.

Quoting Kaysay:" What do you say to the fact that the FDA puts poison in our food and has completely screwed organic ... [snip!] ... screwed organic farming? I don't know anything about ACOG and I will research it, but nothing the FDA says can be trusted."

I say if they put poisons in our food & all it okay - then you may really want to be worried about the things they think are an actual problem.

Ultrasounds & dopplers have been shown to slow the healing on wounds. Would it not stand to reason that they can effect a rapidly growing baby that is still in very vulnerable developmental stages?

I certainly wouldn't take the word of someone who stands to profit from doing US's as to their safety as entertainment when it come sot *my* unborn.

I am not a huge fan of the FDA myself & feel they often miss the mark in things they should be protecting us from, but I seldom if ever think they have needlessly warned us against certain things. I find their track record tends to be more toward the side of saying things are safe when they aren't.

Quoting justanothamotha:" I say if they put poisons in our food & all it okay - then you may really want to be worried about ... [snip!] ... against certain things. I find their track record tends to be more toward the side of saying things are safe when they aren't."

The FDA is absolute bogus in every aspect, so anything they say/promote/warn against should be questioned entirely.

Wounds and fetuses are two completely different ball games. I'm in school right now for radiology, and I can tell you that you are not going to harm your fetus by doing one or two ultrasounds during a pregnancy.

People should be WAY more concerned about the FDA approved food and drugs they are ingesting into their body every day, at least three times a day, that will cross the placenta and will most certainly directly effect the fetus's growth and development.

Quoting Kaysay:" The FDA is absolute bogus in every aspect, so anything they say/promote/warn against should be questioned ... [snip!] ... three times a day, that will cross the placenta and will most certainly directly effect the fetus's growth and development."

I never said they shouldn't be concerned over what they eat - but that is a strawman argument. One doesn't have a thing to do with the other. If a woman smoke swhile pregnant but eats healthy that is still better than smoking and eating poorly. So while it would be nice if we could all live in a bubble & do everything perfectly, that won't happen.

And to some degree wounds & fetuses are two different ballgames - however both are pertaining ot growth of new tissue & there i sno way to say that what effects one cannot effect the other.

And I don't get your argument - WHO said that a woman shouldn't have one or two for medical purposes? Certainly not me. My input was pertaining to ultrasound for fun...which is what this thread is about. Are you asserting that diagnostic medical tests are equal to ultrasound for fun?

If you are in school for radiology then you can't tell me squat about what harm I am or am not doing. My uncle is a radiologist who headed out local radiology program at our hospital & he can't tell me what you seem to think you can say with authority (I can tell you that you are not going to harm your fetus). That data is not complete & he has enough education & experience to actually realize that as we've even discussed this. He teaches radiology now at our local college as well. So sorry if your student status to become a tech doesn't exactly blow my mind. I would think, even as a student you'd see an immense difference between running high levels of energy into your uterus for fun as compared to for the purpose of treatment or diagnosis. One has NO potential medical advantage at all & does carry some risk.

Being as the use of ultrasound has done nothing but climb in the past 25 yrs & the risk of fetal death in the US in that time has also doubled...and as of yet we can't say "why" - I think ANYTHING we are doing differently than we did then ought ot be under heavy scrutiny.

Quoting justanothamotha:" I never said they shouldn't be concerned over what they eat - but that is a strawman argument. One doesn't ... [snip!] ... as of yet we can't say "why" - I think ANYTHING we are doing differently than we did then ought ot be under heavy scrutiny."

Saying that a wound and a fetus is different "to a degree" because they are similar in how they are formed is erroneous. There are a million things that develop from tissue, but that doesn't make them anywhere near the same thing. That is simply comparing apples to oranges.

No, I'm not asserting that diagnostic medical tests are equal to ultrasound for fun, you assumed that. Did I say there was zero risk? No, I said there are WAY more things to be concerned about to the average American.

My insurance didn't pay for me to have an ultrasound, so I had to go to a "ultrasound for fun" place. Also, those places are required to have your doctor's written approval, and then sends the ultrasound that they do TO your doctor so they can check for abnormalities. So it is medical, in a sense.

Do you really think that fetal death coincides with the rise of ultrasound? You really don't think it could be from anything else? It's not possible it is from hormones and pesticides in the food or the chemicals in the drugs that were COMPLETELY different from 25 years ago? You don't think it has anything to do with vaccinations? No, your right, an ultrasound, something that happens at least once-twice in almost every normal pregnancy, compared to the food and drugs we take every day that not ONLY lines the pockets of our government and government programs but is also ingested multiple times a day by the "normal" American person, couldn't possible be a more likely culprit of fetal death. Or how about the fact that we are the only country that treats birth like a sickness and shoots up pregnant women with terrible smurf like pitocin, epidurals, and a script for pain killers right after? Or that we have the highest c-section rate in the world? And you think it is more possible that fetal death is more likely to be caused by.... ultrasounds? Show me research, show me statistics, show me proof that that is more dangerous than anything I have just mentioned.

And by the way, this was a discussion between adults. There was really no need for you to attack me for my education, which you also assumed was to be a tech. I am actually going to radiology school for nuclear medicine, AFTER I already went to school for nursing. Big congratulations to your Radiologist professor uncle whose education and experience somehow makes you more knowledgeable in Radiology than me.

Saying that a wound and a fetus is different "to a degree" because they are similar in how they are formed is erroneous.
I don't think when the cut on my finger heals it is similar to how my baby is formed. I said "there is no way to say that what effects one cannot effect the other." Which is what you are trying to say when saying it is apples & oranges as if those two things can't BOTH be effected. In many ways tissue growth is tissue growth & living tissue that is effected in one instance may very well be effected in another instance when the same stimulation is applied. Until there is enough long term empirical data to show otherwise, I can't say I have seen any "proof" that elective, commercial ultrasounds portrait packages are risk free enough to be a "good idea". If someone is going to talk about all the good stuff & how fun it is (as the OP did) then they should be obligated to at least mention that the jury is not in on whether elective ultrasounds are medically safe.

No, I'm not asserting that diagnostic medical tests are equal to ultrasound for fun, you assumed that. I actually didn't. I asked you if you were, since this thread is about portrait studio styled ultrasounds. You mentioned women getting 1 or 2. Today that seems to be the typical # you already get at the Dr. For most women a portrait ultrasound is at least u/s #3 or more.

I said there are WAY more things to be concerned about to the average American. I didn't say there wasn't. I agree there are things you should be more concerned about than ultrasound. I said it is something to take under consideration & it is easily avoided as compared to the things like pesticides or even certain medications. I can't control air quality or if I require medications (I don't - but say epilepsy for instance), I can easily not get an ultrasound at the strip mall.

My insurance didn't pay for me to have an ultrasound, so I had to go to a "ultrasound for fun" place. You can get a level two diagnostic at some of those places with Dr's orders, so not all ultrasound done at such studios is a "for fun" one & therefor isn't in the same category for obvious reasons. You don't "have to" go to a non-medical facility automatically due to no insurance. If it was cheaper, then there is that, but it isn't as if a Dr or hospital won't allow a patient to pay out of pocket. Our local one does no problem. I've had them done both out of pocket & paid for.

Also, those places are required to have your doctor's written approval, and then sends the ultrasound that they do TO your doctor so they can check for abnormalities. No one I know needed a permission slip & ones I could find in my state on their website say things like "you should let your Dr know" - but make no mention of such a requirement as "permission" nor that they will share any "findings" with a Dr. I would suppose it may be company policy or local regulation that dictates that. I hope you are right that they are required now as I hope that would make the women think there is a reason to maybe not do it for fun.

Do you really think that fetal death coincides with the rise of ultrasound? You really don't think it could be from anything else? It's not possible it is from hormones and pesticides in the food or the chemicals in the drugs that were COMPLETELY different from 25 years ago? You don't think it has anything to do with vaccinations? What I actually said was: "I think ANYTHING we are doing differently than we did then ought to be under heavy scrutiny. " So I think that covers everything you have mentioned as well as this. Anything, to me, means anything. I never said the ONLY thing we need to look at is ultrasound & never would say something that silly.....I don't think ultrasound is the major issue for maternal mortality, that doesn't mean I don't think it has played any role.

No, your right, an ultrasound, something that happens at least once-twice in almost every normal pregnancy, compared to the food and drugs we take every day that not ONLY lines the pockets of our government and government programs but is also ingested multiple times a day by the "normal" American person, couldn't possible be a more likely culprit of fetal death. I can't possibly be "right" as I never made anywhere near such an assertion. And I will tell you there is no science based reason for an ultrasound to happen at least once-twice in every normal pregnancy. There is no medical basis for doing that as all studies show no positive change in outcome for low risk women.

Or how about the fact that we are the only country that treats birth like a sickness and shoots up pregnant women with terrible smurf like pitocin, epidurals, and a script for pain killers right after? Or that we have the highest c-section rate in the world?
ITA! I think those are all significant issues. That is why I birthed my children all natural & despite tearing through my rectum & breaking my tailbone and after delivery refused all meds except regular Motrin & even then took it sparingly.

And you think it is more possible that fetal death is more likely to be caused by.... ultrasounds? Never said "more possible" OR anything close to that at all. I simply stated that more ultrasounds have not lead to better outcomes & aren't without risks, so they shouldn't be entertainment or a way to make your womb into a portrait studio. Since outcomes today are worse, ultrasound should be seen as ONE potential source for *some* of the bad outcomes. We already know that things like miscalculating the size of the baby via ultrasound has lead to early induction or c-sections when not needed - to ME these are important things that DO in fact lead to more complications for moms & babies & potentially significant complications. That doesn't mean those are the only risk factors in the use of ultrasounds - they are just some of the known ones.

Show me research, show me statistics, show me proof that that is more dangerous than anything I have just mentioned. Don't need to - I never said it was more dangerous. Why are you trying to demand that I prove something I never asserted? Again - this is purely diversionary & strawman. I don't have to prove it is the most dangerous thing in order to assert that it has risks. You cannot prove it has no risks by talking about unrelated sources for other risk factors. You aren't debating what *I* said at all with me - you are putting words in my mouth & then trying to demand that I back them up. I can't - they aren't my words.

And by the way, this was a discussion between adults. There was really no need for you to attack me for my education, which you also assumed was to be a tech. I am actually going to radiology school for nuclear medicine, AFTER I already went to school for nursing. Big congratulations to your Radiologist professor uncle whose education and experience somehow makes you more knowledgeable in Radiology than me.

I didn't say I was more knowledgeable in radiology than you. I said that I have actually discussed this topic with someone (my uncle) with all the credentials to be more knowledgeable than you & certainly someone I would rightfully trust more than you (for obvious reasons). He said point blank that the potential risks are not fully known or understood & that it's use should be limited & only when they have potential to improve outcome. I am not sure how you are construing what I said as an attack on you or your education. If you are going to be a radiologist - good on ya. I hope by the time you are done you will realize that the field is not risk free no matter what lowwat level of radiology we are talking about. I have a dear friend who is a radiology technician. If assuming you are going to be radiology tech is what you think is the insult, I'll have to inform one of my BFF's she's an idiot with a crap job. ;) I said you can't factually state that ultrasound has no risk & no potential harms - you can't factually say it. If you think you are qualified to make such an assertion based on your education, I am not sure why. NO major medical association agrees with that. There are times where benefits are believed to outweigh risks, but none of them assert that u/s is without any potential risk.

(Sorry it took me so long to get back - long day)