Article Catcher

The Dangers of Non-Medical Ultrasound

This set of references deals with the dangers of ultrasound imaging when performed outside of the medical field and explains why it should be stopped. The Tanne article states that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns that because ultrasound is a form of energy and cannot be considered harmless, non-medical ultrasound videos such as “keepsake videos” may affect the fetus. The Van Bergen text states that although there is no evidence that low-intensity ultrasound is completely safe; a risk-to-benefit ratio is utilized to justify ultrasound as a diagnostic and medical tool. Ultrasound imaging is a common diagnostic medical procedure that uses high-frequency sound waves to produce dynamic images of organs, tissues, or blood flow inside the body. Prenatal ultrasound examinations are performed by trained and certified professionals. The procedure involves using a transducer, which sends a stream of high-frequency sound waves into the body and detects their echoes as they bounce off internal structures. The sound waves are then converted to electric impulses and displayed on a computer. “Keepsake videos” are obtained the same way, except the performers are not certified and the recordings are made strictly for financial gain. The videos serve no medical or diagnostic purpose whatsoever and as the article points out ultrasound is a form of energy which cannot be considered harmless. Using the principles advocated by the Van Bergen text, it makes sense to avoid unnecessary risk to the fetus by using ultrasound only when it is needed. The authors advocate using ultrasound only when the benefit outweighs the risk, thus abolishing the practice of commercial ultrasound.

I found that this set of articles does a good job of explaining why we should eliminate commercial ultrasound. I agree with the authors in that because of the possible risks which come with ultrasound it should only be utilized when deemed necessary, such as for medical purposes. I think one of the more chilling points that led me to feel this way was when Tanne brought up the fact that most commercial sonographers are un-trained and lack the skills needed to recognize birth defects and complications. The mother sees pictures of her healthy prenatal baby, and doesn’t think she needs to take the baby into the hospital for an ultrasound examination and so there are complications at birth or during postnatal development. I believe the best way to prevent this from happening is to inform expectant mothers of the possible consequences of such videos. If the parents know there is a good chance commercial ultrasound will affect their baby then they would be more likely to not want to make keepsake videos, thus keeping their infant out of jeopardy. I recommend an informational campaign be put forth on the topic of commercialized ultrasound to expose this issue to the greater public. I feel that spreading the information about the harm of such practices would be very effective in stopping the production of keepsake images in the short-term while legislation gets passed to make such recordings illegal for the long-term.

Although ultrasound is not proven to be one hundred percent safe, diagnostic ultrasound outweighs the risk because it helps to find problems with the pregnancy and deals with them whereas commercial ultrasound provides no medical benefit for putting the fetus at risk whatsoever and is why it must be stopped.

Tanne, J. (2004). FDA warns against commercial prenatal ultrasound videos. [Electronic version]. British Medical Journal, 328(7444), 853.

Van Bergen, W. (Ed.). (1980). Obstetric ultrasound: Applications and principles. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.