Connecticut Bans Non-Medical Ultra-sounds (utilizing the precautionary principle)

They've been busy in Connecticut (but not with passing a budget)!

First BPA, and now unnecessary ultra-sounds. Finally, it seems as if the state were adopting the precautionary principle on a few important issues.

When I was pregnant I read with interest articles about the effects of multiple ultrasounds. Basically, I came to understand that there is no conclusive proof that repeated ultrasounds are harmful (sound familiar?) but some studies have shown an adverse effects on the embryo. Enough for me to not want an extra ultra-sound to simply see the baby.

Today Connecticut became the first state to ban medically unnecessary ultra-sounds. Turns out there is a growing number of "entertainment" ultrasounds businesses, that are completely unregulated for the safety of the machines, or the training of the person doing the ultrasound.

According to wtnh.com,

"Rep. Heinrich introduced the legislation and it is backed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists . The evidence is inconclusive as to whether it harms a fetus. But, they believe, caution is key and they say, "Non-medical ultrasounds may falsely reassure women as evidence of fetal health and appropriate development. And, abnormalities may be detected in settings that are not prepared to discuss and provide follow-up for concerning findings."

There have been studies that can shown a negative association of repeated ultrasounds to a baby's health. From Midwifery Today, in an article called Ultrasounds: More Harm Then Good?:

"The second landmark paper, also a randomized controlled trial, looked at the safety of repeated prenatal ultrasound imaging. While the original purpose of the trial was hopefully to demonstrate the safety of repeated scanning, the results were the opposite. From 2,834 pregnant women, 1,415 received ultrasound imaging at 18, 24, 28, 34 and 38 weeks gestation (intensive group) while the other 1,419 received single ultrasound imaging at 18 weeks (regular group). The only difference between the two groups was significantly higher (one-third more) intrauterine growth retardation in the intensive group. This important and serious finding prompted the authors to state: "It would seem prudent to limit ultrasound examinations of the fetus to those cases in which the information is likely to be of clinical importance." Ironically, it is now likely that ultrasound may lead to the very condition, IUGR, that it has for so long claimed to be effective in detecting."

And from Wikipedia: "According to the European Committee of Medical Ultrasound Safety (ECMUS) "Ultrasonic examinations should only be performed by competent personnel who are trained and updated in safety matters. Ultrasound produces heating, pressure changes and mechanical disturbances in tissue. Diagnostic levels of ultrasound can produce temperature rises that are hazardous to sensitive organs and the embryo/fetus. Biological effects of non-thermal origin have been reported in animals but, to date, no such effects have been demonstrated in humans, except when a microbubble contrast agent is present."[14]"

I have serious empathy for folks in difficult situations, such as a dad missing the birth and an ultrasound is the way for him to be connected to his wife and baby, or a baby with a birth defect and the parents want to connect with the baby, or parents wanting to see their baby that might not be born alive. I think there has to be an exception in these cases.

But for folks to potentially risk their baby's health for a prenatal photo album seems completely unnecessary. I think Connecticut is taking a leadership role to prevent babies from an uneeded exposure to radiation, from the risk of working with an untrained ultrasound operator (who may miss something), and for potentially giving families a false sense of security.