This story about unregulated ultrasound clinics raises more questions than it answers.
Australian ultrasound doctors say they are concerned about pregnant women using non-medical ultrasound studios to get images of their unborn children.
Sounds terrible, right? Why are we letting these amateurs with a machine near our babies? Will someone please think of the children!?
But nowhere in the story is it said that the non-medical ultrasounds are being used as a replacement for the medically-supervised ones. And the difference is crucial. I can understand the concern if parents are using unaccredited ultrasound "studios" instead of legitimate diagnosis. On the other hand, if the non-medical ultrasound — otherwise known as "entertainment ultrasound" — is merely in addition to the prescribed ultrasound sessions, what's the harm? The distinction it is not clearly stated, so what's going on here?
This isn't the sort of topic I normally discuss on girtby.net, but the ambiguity annoyed me so I went digging.[Read more →]