People are usually surprised when I tell them that I have never had a prenatal ultrasound despite having 3 children. Ultrasound is a standard medical procedure that most pregnant women undergo at least once during pregnancy if not 2 times or more. Even birthing centers that specialize in low risk pregnancies such as where I received my prenatal care, recommend at least a single ultrasound.
It is never a good idea to submit to any medical test without first understanding exactly what you are getting yourself into.   Just because nearly every single pregnant woman gets an ultrasound or that most medical practicioners say that they are safe doesn’t mean that you should have one or that they really are safe.
Like many things in life, “safe” is certainly a matter of interpretation!
Make sure you have all the facts in hand before you judge whether or not the standard use of prenatal ultrasound is, in fact, truly safe for the precious life you are carrying inside you!
The experience that first got me very suspicious of ultrasound occurred when I was pregnant with my first child. Â I remember that the baby jumped and seemed extremely disturbed every time I had a prenatal visit and the midwife used a doppler to check the heartbeat.
Why is my baby so upset by this doppler, I thought?   Intuitively, it seemed that something was just not right about the overly casual use of this device.
Why didn’t the midwife just use a fetascope instead, I wondered?
I went home after one of those prenatal visits determined to find out the truth.  I started researching and was shocked to find out that dopplers are a form of ultrasound!  I also discovered that ultrasounds in general are not the innocuous test that prenatal caregivers would lead you to believe.
Ultrasounds Have Never Been Proven Safe
The American Medical Association warns against unnecessary exposure to ultrasound.   A number of studies have indicated probable danger with this routine prenatal test.  One of the most concerning for me was a study reported in the journal Epidemiology in 2001 that showed that the chance of subtle brain damage increases dramatically in male babies whose mothers get prenatal ultrasounds.
Doctors have long known that left handedness in a child that is not genetically determined can be an indicator of brain damage.  When the rate of left handedness in children rises above 9% for right handed parents and 35% for left handed parents, scientists know that some form of negative impact on neural development has occurred.
In this study, the rate of left handedness for boys increased by 30% above historical genetic rates when a mother was exposed to prenatal ultrasound.  The incidence of left handedness was especially pronounced for mothers who had received more than one prenatal scan.
Left handedness has been increasing in recent decades and this puzzling rise beyond normal and historical genetic rates could very well be related to the common use of prenatal ultrasound.  The fetus’ brain undergoes critical brain development even very late in pregnancy (preterm babies are 5 times more likely to be left handed).   Moreoever, the brain of a male fetus develops at a slower rate than that of a female leaving boys at particular risk for ultrasonic injury.
The Ultrasound/Speech Delay Link
Another study that gave me pause and eventually persuaded me to opt out of all forms of ultrasound – even use of the doppler, was a study in 1993 and reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.  This study examined 72 children ages 2-8 who were suffering from speech delay of unknown cause.    These speech delay children were twice as likely as a control group to have been exposed to ultrasound in the womb.
Delayed speech is a likely indicator of sub-optimal conditions for development during gestation and ultrasound exposure seems to be linked to these less than ideal conditions for the fetus.
How Would Ultrasound Delay Speech?
Ultrasound as a potential reason for the increase in pediatric speech problems in recent years has a very likely cause.  This cause would be the incredible loudness that is produced in the womb as the ultrasound waves bounce around the uterus.
How loud, you may ask?
How about louder than your power mower, a motorcycle 25 feet away from you or a jet flyover at only 1000 feet?  How about LOUDER than the last rock concert you attended where your ears were ringing for a day or two afterward?
Yes, THAT loud!
Can you imagine the intense fright and the spike in stress hormones the baby experiences from an ultrasound not to mention the likelihood of damage to the little developing ears from 100-120 decibel ultrasound waves?
Oh, and by the way, hearing loss begins with exposure to sound at only 90-95 decibels, much LOWER than the sound the baby would hear from a routine ultrasound or a doppler heartbeat check.
Beware Continuous Electronic Fetal Monitoring During Labor
A favorite way for a hospital to monitor how baby is handling the stress of Mom’s labor is by strapping an electronic fetal monitor to her belly.   Be aware that this device is ultrasound and when it is strapped to your body, your poor child is not only enduring the stress of the birth process itself but also dealing with 100-120 decibel continuous, blaring sound at the same time!
I have no doubt that someday a study will finally be done that shows that babies that are subjected to the barbaric insult of electronic fetal monitoring during birth have more speech delay and brain damage induced left handedness than any control groups.
Just say no to electronic fetal monitoring and if your hospital or OB tries to talk you into the so called “benefits” of this practice, then find another OB!  Better yet, have your baby with a midwife at home or in a birthing center where such devices are never allowed through the front door.
More Reasons to Skip the Ultrasound
One of the best articles I’ve read on the dangers of ultrasound was written by Dr. Sarah Buckley MD in 2009.   In this article, Dr. Buckley gives a thorough rundown of the potential biological risks to the fetus from prenatal ultrasound as well as the studies that give pause for even considering such a procedure during pregnancy.
This article by Dr. Buckley is loaded with information.  If you are questioning the safety of ultrasound, I highly recommend that you dive in and read it thoroughly.  This blog only discusses the reasons why I personally chose to opt out of prenatal scans and use of the doppler.  There is much more to be told with regard to this story and more serious problems associated with ultrasounds such as a potential link with autism.
What Will Be Your Choice?
As mentioned above, after considering the biological dangers to my unborn children, I opted out of all prenatal ultrasound scans.  I also stopped allowing the use of a doppler during prenatal visits and asked the midwife to use a fetascope instead.   There is a drawback to using only the fetascope – you can’t hear the baby’s heartbeat until Mom is about 22 weeks gestation.
The inconvenience of waiting to hear the heartbeat so much later in the pregnancy seemed an easy trade-off for the peace of mind!
Note: I did allow the very brief use of a doppler during labor as use of a fetascope during the natural birth process does not work well when Mom is moving around a lot or is in and out of a laboring tub.
Even when I was 38 weeks pregnant with my third child and the midwife really wanted to do an ultrasound because it appeared my baby had stopped growing, I refused.   I knew intuitively that the baby was just fine despite my advanced maternal age.
Guess what?  I was right, the baby was indeed fine and was simply 2 inches shorter in length than my previous pregnancies which accounted for my much smaller belly measurements during the third trimester.   To this day, I have never regretted not getting any ultrasounds and am very grateful that I trusted my instincts early to question what was happening with the doppler exams.  I believe skipping the ultrasounds is a big reason why my children all were articulating complete sentences very clearly at a very early age.  Of course, nutrient dense diet played a huge role too!!   But, what good is diet if you undo it with damaging medical tests?
What were your reasons for or against getting prenatal ultrasound scans?
Update:  Medical critic and researcher Jim West has recently published a book detailing 50 in utero CAUSAL human studies from China that prove irrefutably the high risk of prenatal ultrasound even at low frequencies.  This article on ultrasound dangers contains more information on this research that Mothers must be made aware of in prenatal examination rooms.
Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Hi ! Thank you for the information ! I had no idea ! I had one to measure the baby (checking to make sure the baby doesn’t show signs of down syndrome. and another for the early gender test and growth. This test was done.. but when I was getting ready to leave they called me back into the room to do the test again.. It turns out that the person who did the gender test didn’t save the pictures so I had to lay back down for them to do it again. This was about a month ago and I have another appointment next week. I’m told that I have marginal placenta previa. I never heard of it before being told.
This is my second pregnancy and on this one they told me that I’m a carrier for SMA which was never checked with my blood in the last hospital I was going to for my first pregnancy. I’m not too crazy about going back after having a sonogram recently. Thank goodness my husband isn’t a carrier so the baby is okay ! I’m worried about the location of the placenta and want to make sure that it is moving up instead of towards the cervix (covering it).
I’m glad that you looked into it. I was going to cancel the appointment until my midwife told me that I had that. The appointment is almost 2 weeks before I see the midwife again.. otherwise I’d be tempted to move the appointment up. I’m not too crazy about going to the people who did my checkup because I have wondered about the safety of their equipment. After this, I will ask to not be checked again until possibly much later in my pregnancy (I’m almost 20 weeks now)..
Thank you again for another great post ! I can’t tell you how grateful I am to have found this blog site months ago !
I opted out of Ultrasounds in my pregnancy, due to the lack of safety guarantees around them. As well, I also just felt like I should be able to trust my own body.
I was also going to opt out of the doppler that the midwives were pushing for, but my brother talked me into allowing it briefly each visit. Not sure why my brother cared, but… =)
Thank you so much for this information!
I agree that standard medical procedure is not always “best practice” according to research findings or indications, and that women should be made aware of potential risks to themselves and their children so that they can determine what is best for their family. Many times technology is used to protect a doctor in case of a lawsuit to prove that everything possible was done, or to attract new customers or investors, rather than because it has been proven safe and effective for patients.
Also, ultrasounds and Dopplers are great tools to have when medically necessary, but can’t save every child. My daughter was brain dead a few days before her full-term birth, but her heart still beat. The nurse midwife at my home birth (I was also under the care of an OBGYN) used a Doppler and heard a normal heart rate throughout, but when the umbilical cord was cut my daughter could not breathe on her own. There was no medical test that could have possibly given us this information before her birth, and I would never want to change the positive birth experience we had in exchange for a frightening experience full of tests and procedures to have the same result. My daughter was able to be an organ and tissue donor, and her strong, healthy heart saved the life of another child. Science is wonderful and has made great strides, but nature and our motherly instincts should be a part of the birth process as well.
Well, I’d have to pretty much disagree with your view. Throughout my 3 pregnancies (all of which we used Dopplers, one of which I had an ultrasound), there was no noticeable increase of movement or heart-rate during those procedures. In fact, they were much more jumpy when I was just touching my belly. I think we could argue until the cows come home, but bottom line: I believe that the benefits of Dopplers and ultrasounds (i.e. discovering problems that can be addressed, often saving baby or mom’s life) far outweigh the possible risks involved. And FYI, My son who had the least exposure to these procedures has been the slowest talker of my 3 children.
BTW, my parents are both right-handed; my husband and I are left-handed; our five children are all right-handed. How’s that for “not exactly falling out as genetics might predict”? 🙂
I’m so glad to see this article! Even among my crunchy friends, almost all of them get prenatal ultrasounds just to determine gender. It boggles my mind. During my Bradley classes, I saw notes from the FDA requesting research into the safety of ultrasound in the early 80’s. As of 2001, that research still had not been done, and I think I’m correct to say it still has not been.
I’ve seen research showing that in mice, cells become disturbed by the extremely rapid vibration caused by ultrasound waves, and that most of those disturbances do not return to the state they had before the ultrasound. But that’s about all we get in terms of research. It’s enough for me. I’ve had 4 babies since then, and not one ultrasound or doptone, other than the required 20-min strip at the hospital (which is the only one in Atlanta that’s remotely natural-birth friendly). Even that, I’ve avoided in two of the pregnancies by showing up in transition – can’t do a strip if I’m pushing as I enter the room, lol.
Like a previous commenter, it’s not so much that I want to say “NEVER do ultrasounds” as it is that doctors need to give women the risks and benefits of ALL procedures and medications. Even the ACOG says that ultrasounds should *only* be done if a medical indication exists; they should not be done just to look at the baby for fun.
If I had an AFP test come back with reason to look further, I’d consider an ultrasound. Otherwise, I’ll keep in mind the reality that doctors do x-rays for breast cancer imaging first, and *then* ultrasound. Why?
Amen Lorna
Thank you so much for this information. I had no idea.
I had placenta brevia with my last pg and had lots of u/s. I never thought once about their safety for my son.
I prayed almost all day laying in a hospital bed for 4 1/2-5 mo. Talk about stressful.
But we have a good God and he interceded for my life and my son's. He was born c-section,talked quickly with normal development, but is left-handed. We are both right-handed. I do have a sister who was left-handed but she had a dificult birth also.
Very interesting information after all these years he's 21 now.
Whether it really is causitive or not, we have a source of power that supercedes situations.
During my only pregnancy 12 years ago (at age 36) after a struggle with infertility (and certainly not wanting to risk my pregnancy), my mother, who enjoyed a 25 year career as a L & D RN at a private women's hospital, cautioned me about doing excessive U/S scans, as she was aware of the growing "casual" use of U/S and the lack of data indicating they were as safe as we assume and are led to believe.
Being the "skeptic" that I am, I kept that "lack of data" in mind, however, I did ultimately have two U/S – one at 7 weeks due to bleeding, and again much later to check development/weight due to a gestational diabetes diagnosis. None were done just for my own curiosity, which seems to be the norm these days. I didn't even want to know the gender until the birth.
I also declined the amnio, because to me, the risk to the pregnancy wasn't worth the information it might have provided. I struggled too hard to become pregnant Had I known there were concerns about using Doppler, I might have questioned or limited that, too, just as now I'd question the wisdom of inducing labor one day after my due date since the gestational diabetes had been well-controlled and my weight gain was only 28 pounds (unlike to produce a 13 pound baby).
This issue is quite typical of how we as a society approach risk in a very irrational way. People get super-freaked out by horrible events that are extremely rare, and totally unpreventable unless one is clairvoyant or lives in an agoraphobic bubble, such as stranger abductions. Yet at the same time, we take far more dangerous risks very lightly because they are familiar, common and we think we have control over them – automobile accidents, which are the single biggest threat to our well-being and our children's well-being. We get into our cars, buckle our kids up, and hit the road without nary a care about the high risk we put ourselves and our loved ones in – and we know the potential grief that can come with accidents. It's like we can shut off our minds for some things that we willfully do, but turn then our minds on overdrive about things that are incredibly unlikely.
We do need to have a better familiarity with the real risks we face and when we willfully or voluntarily take on additional risk because it seems familiar and seems safe or we haven't heard about data to the contrary (and we are probably esp vulnerable to risk when the effects are delayed, hard to directly attribute to cause, or there may be multifactorial causes).
Which brings up another thought, that at least one commenter touched on. If these studies are epidemiological (links to the studies would have been useful), they only can point out correlation, and can never prove causation (big shoes correlate with better reading skills, too, but that doesn't mean wearing big shoes will improve reading skills).
Epidemiological/observational studies are great for generating hypotheses, but that should just be a starting point for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to test the hypothesis, NOT a starting point for generating guidelines. It's very important to understand what studies can and cannot do – and observational studies can't prove causation. For ethical reasons it may not be possible to do controlled trials with ultrasound, nor would probably be feasible at this point) so we may never get the data that would give better evidence of safety or harm from these common procedures. In that case, exercising caution and prudence with U/S & Doppler, and limiting their use seems reasonable to me. We often forget (or never know) that while some aspects of medical care with pregnancy and childbirth have been positive, not all the gains have come without some significant downsides.