Bill to Restrict Sale of Ultrasound Machines Passes Assembly (CA)

Bill to Restrict Sale of Ultrasound Machines Passes Assembly
Written for the web by Elizabeth Bishop, Internet News Producer


The state Assembly today approved a bill that would restrict the sale of ultrasound machines for home use.

Assembly Bill 2360 was introduced by Assemblyman Ted Lieu of Torrance after actor Tom Cruise bought a machine to look at unborn baby he was expecting with his fiancee, Katie Holmes. The couple's daughter, Suri, was born last month.

Cruise was criticized by doctors who said using the machines improperly could harm a fetus. The machines are available to anyone who can afford them. News10 found one on eBay for $6,000.

Lieu says the machines shouldn't be toys for the rich and famous. His bill would restrict the sale of ultrasound machines to licensed professionals. Other assemblymembers questioned the dangers of ultrasound machines.

http://www.kxtv.com/storyfull2.aspx?storyid=17388

I don't like Tom Cruise. Never had. I know that ultrasounds are somewhat restricted on a cautionary principle -- but is there any proof that ultrasounds can be dangerous? Absent that folks should be allowed to own what they want.

then and only then should they be owned by the general public.

Like there is some epidemic of people buying ultrasound machines?

even by trained techs and doctors. I asked some doctors who I know to be very honest (and not dogmatic) if we really know ultrasound does no harm to the delicate nervous system of the fetus. They all said no, we don't know that for sure AT ALL.

But just about every pregnancy is now treated to at least one ultrasound exam. It worries me that we may be scrambling the fragile nervous system of an awful lot of kids. It worries me that we really don't have absolute proof is it harmless even in the right hands.

You seem to be operating from what has been described to me as "the precautionary principle." To wit: if we do not know it is absolutely safe then we should not do it.

I think if we adequately test a technology then it should be allowed. What an adequate test is always the question, tho. I'm sure Merck thought they adequately tested Vioxx and look what happened.

I come down on the side of technological progress. I assume (and if I am wrong I ask your forgiveness in advance) you are generally skeptical about new technology.

People on both sides can have ugly flame wars. I think if we speak to each other respectfully then some enlightenment on both sides can happen.

I don't. But underdone humans are not as tough as the big ones are and I do feel there is good reason to question what is applied to them. I feel the same about pesticides and small humans. Bug spray is not a new technology and it HAS been shown to be much more damaging on children than on full grown adults.

My issue is not just the technology, but the fact that we are not all alike and therefore reactions to anything will not be universal.

Don't make assumptions about me based on one issue, thank you. That is just plain foolhardy.

edtied to add: Ugly flame wars much more likely when assumptions are made without looking into the facts. ;)

peace & strength to you and us all

hm

My own doctor did one scan -- I can't remember when -- to check for problems. None were found. Any other scans would have been just for fun -- but if a problem came up, of course we'd have done another.

It's just a matter of weighing known benefits with unknown risks.

My wife is an x-ray tech, I've been trained on two different US platforms for my job. If you hang out in the medical imaging dept, (anywhere) you'll find out that techs ultrasound their friends every other day...Nothing like looking at the baby to be. I'd say both of my kids were scanned 100 times each, not counting the dr. apts. Both are you normal 2 and 4 year olds, I've known prolly 100 other children that had the same treatment from the techs. I've got a moment do you? Let's take a peak. And from what I can see no problems in the small group of kids I know.

the machines were fairly new then, and the group he was associated with had just bought one.

We asked, "Why?" (Everyone should ask their doctor this question often.)

No medical reason, he said. Just to see how the baby was developing, when it would be born, and what the sex was.

Wasn't good enough for us. There was no reason to believe the baby wasn't anything but fine. The baby "would come when it comes" (as my Mom often said). And finally, we asked, why would we want to know the sex before the child is born. That's like peaking at Christmas presents on the 16th.

He was astounded we weren't more curious. But he couldn't assure us that such a procedure wouldn't hurt the child's hearing or any other developing organs, and it was way too soon for anyone to say conclusively that those new machines wouldn't pose a problem forty years down the line. And we're still 20 years from that understanding.

So I agree with you: It's irresponsible the way doctors get their patients to underwrite their purchases. Unless something is medically needed, I say tell the doctor to keep his curiosity in check and everyone else keep your checks in your wallet.

I would be surprised if one ultrasound would do a significant amount of damage. :shrug: But I'm not a medical researcher. :)

I had many, many level 3 ultrasounds with my second (and last) pregnancy. At the time, my perinatologist was trying to confirm the data of a study conducted in England on the use of ultrasounds to determine whether or not a fetus was becoming anemic (the ultrasound would look at the rate of blood flow through a certain fetal blood vessel to determine anemia). It is a far less invasive procedure than the former standard of doing an amnio every 3 to 4 weeks.

Honestly, given the choice, I would've requested only ultrasounds rather than amnios. Lucky me, I got both. :D

Have heard too many docs admit they just do not know it is safe enough to do as a matter of course in all pregnancies.

Have heard some say it was perfectly safe, but I am old enough to remember them saying that about Thalidomide too. As I recall, it turned out they were wrong. Just making the case that it may not be a grand idea to use something so widely when there is still much to be learned about possible effects.

Keep wondering about the increase in conditions like autism in our children. We know they are more sensitive to electric magnetic fields than adults. They are more sensitive to environmental contaminates and heavy metals. It just doesn't seem unfair to consider whether they might not be more sensitive to problems created by ultrasound, especially while still developing and err on the side of caution.

All for helping assure things are going well in what could be a high risk case. I have worked in an institution caring for children who may have been saved horrible consequences of problems that ultra sound could help diagnose. Believe me, I am all for getting as much info in cases where there is reason to worry about how things are going. I just question doing ultra sound as a matter of course in most cases.

Then again... it's Tom Cruise we're talking about here and he can afford nothing but the best.

Pisses me off that assholes like that have to go and ruin it for everyone else. :mad:

The fundies were starting programs to buy them to use in their anti-choice 'clinics'.