April 20, 2004
Regulating the Proles
Some who make their money by practicing medicine (and let's get the incentives clear at the beginning, shall we?) believe the use of ultrasound devices by people with insufficient medical degrees should be stopped. The specter of giddy expectant parents ogling a four-dimensional image of their bundle of joy in utero under the smiling guidance of a mere technician is more than the blue-bloods can bear. This is medical technology, after all. Would we want these proletarians doing their own brain surgery?
In steps the FDA, making noise about regulating the practice. The danger, as a National Public Radio reporter explains, is that an ultrasound "releases energy into the body, and heats tissue."
Next on the physician/FDA cartel watch-list: hot cocoa, wool pullovers, and the sun.
Underlying this debate is the fact that ultrasounds are an enormously effective abortion deterrent. Pro-life advocates across the U.S. have established clinics next door to abortion shops, where mothers considering abortion are offered counseling, adoption and welfare services, housing, and frequently, ultrasounds. Very rarely will a mother, once she has seen for herself that the "cluster of tissue" notion is a lie, choose to abort.
Pro-abortion groups are hoping that the medical profession and FDA win this battle, because it will drastically drive up the cost of offering ultrasounds. There is at least a hint of collusion, as is evidenced by the intonations of Lawrence Platt, former head of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. He warns against the "misuse of technology" and the dangers of employing it to "sway one's decision and impact someone's rights." I don't think he's referring to the rights of the unborn child.
The practice is also dangerous, Platt continues, because sometimes an ultrasound will reveal abnormalities in the child, and this can be traumatic for the parents. It's best, he says, that such a revelation take place with a physician at one's side.
Right, because you can't throw a stick at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association without hitting a compassionate doctor. Of course I don't really believe this is the case, but don't let my skepticism stop you from testing the hypothesis yourself.
Posted by Woodlief on April 20, 2004 at 11:03 AM
"heats tissue"
You know, the microwave was discovered when a scientist had a candybar in his pocket melted by "microwaves" - you know, that appliance we all now have in our kitchen? Yeah, they're REALLY worried about "heat[ing] tissue".
Newsflash - everyday, the average homebound (ei, indoor) person is exposd to so much radiation (not just "energy" - um, hello, "ultrasound" - by their definition, I absorb energy every time I listen to a pair of headphones!!) that the effect of a sonogram is far below insignificant.
Anybody with any knowledge of the the situation should be either laughing their rear end off or highly offended. Which one depends on how you view the chances of success and how you would view that success.
Posted by: Deoxy at April 20, 2004 11:17 AM
Gee, I don't know how bad I need to feel, Tony. In my book, anyone who listens to NPR pretty much gets what they deserve. Yes, I'm shocked - shocked, I tell you! - that such offal should fill the airwaves provided through our hard-earned tax dollars. My heart is genuinely offended at such propaganda. But honestly, what more could one reasonably expect, considering the source? NPR is pro-death? Heavens! Next you're going to tell me it's pro-gay.
Posted by: greg at April 20, 2004 11:53 AM
And lets not forget the money. If its cheaper at the mall, why does it cost so much at the doctors office?
And, as for having a doctor standing right there? I've had three children and multiple ultra-sounds. NEVER (not even once) (not even during the ones with the high-risk pregnancy) was a doctor in the room! Instead, the doctors stuck their heads in the room to sign the chart (after I was dressed and ready to go) so they could bill the insurance more since they had "seen" me.
Posted by: lucy at April 20, 2004 11:57 AM
I usually like to rail against medical technology driving up costs and outpacing our ability to keep up ethically; but in this case sonograms undeniably favor the pro-life camp in a big way. Cost-effective too. So score one for technology.
Words are often used to confuse and obfuscate, to practice sophistry and deception; but a picture doesn't lie. One weeps for the 40 million who didn't have that smallest of advantages.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at April 20, 2004 12:21 PM
This is not entirely related to abortion, but I posted something that runs parallel on one of your posts that's about a week old. It's kinda long....
Good to see you're posting again Tony. Based on your info here I would tend to agree with you on this one. I have yet to hear any information or evidense that would show ultrasound improperly used cause brain damage.... it seems just a little bit silly.
Trashing NPR though? Maybe you could point me towards the conservative based intelligent, detailed and journalisticly ethical radio news coverage that's out there. Most conservatives seethe when they hear something on NPR they don't like (just like when I seethe when I hear David Brooks in ATC or Jonah Goldberg on Marketplace) but I have yet to see anything comparable on the other side of the political specturm. There is a reason why plenty of conservatives listen to NPR.
Could it be that the more "liberal" journalists congregate around a publically funded institution like NPR because they feel like whores when their news coverage is so strongly influenced by commercial revenue, profits and advertisers.... while many of the "conservatives" don't see the same conflict on interest ?
Posted by: Palmer Haas at April 20, 2004 1:42 PM
Palmer,
I'll get to your other post -- don't worry about it getting lost in the ether. I wouldn't say that I was trashing NPR. It was more like good-natured ribbing. Liberal journalists congregate around NPR not out of anti-corporate principle but because it's, well, NPR -- an organization with top-quality programming that tolerates leftists nicely (although I'd like to point out that one of the best commentators on NPR is actually quite reasonable: economist Russ Roberts). If the tables were turned and NPR were captured by conservatives, I'm sure liberals would not be at all squeamish about corporate sponsorship.
Posted by: Tony at April 20, 2004 2:41 PM
I should have been more clear that the NPR reference was more a response to Greg.....
"NPR -- an organization with top-quality programming that tolerates leftists nicely"
Ha! I'm glad someone tolerates us. And where else is FOX gonna get the prerequisite token eloquent not-foaming-at-the-mouth or get-my-tin-foil-hat liberals they need for their Sunday morning show so they can stay "fair and balanced"?
Posted by: Palmer Haas at April 20, 2004 3:43 PM
I am a father and never has a physician been at an ultra sound with my wife and me. I think that all states should require that abortion providers provide an ultra sound of the baby that must be attached to the bill for services rendered. I am the father of a 7 month old and I still have the picture from the ultra sound on my printer. I look at it everyday and thank God that he has given me the honor to be the father of the miracle that is my daughter!
Btw, today Laura Ingraham talked about the coziness of the Girl Scouts and Planned Abortion, I mean Planned Parenthood.
Posted by: Gray at April 20, 2004 10:35 PM
Since this post also mentions the AMA I have a little doctor story to share.
The first few times I went with my wife with our NEWBORN – the nurse would always ask if we have any guns in the house. Seems like a pretty stupid question insomuch as our baby could barely lift his own head, much less a steel .357 Magnum.
The first time they asked I seethed – because it all felt – well – so politically correct. The second time they asked I had to ask my questions (this is a rough remembrance):
Nurse: Do you have any loaded handguns in the house?
Me: Why? It would seem to me that someone who would have a gun in the house would also be versed in safety.
Nurse: Oh you’d be surprised!
Me: (Simmering again – as I have a hard time believing anyone would admit to being a fool even if they were one.) Yes, I would be very surprised. But could you please quit asking us that – I find it political and offensive.
Nurse: (Befuddled with a flash of insult) Sorry – I didn’t mean to insult you.
Later the doctor arrives:
Me: Why do you guys ask if people have guns in the house? (Keep in mind – I’m aware of the AMA stance on this)
Doc: We are just looking out for the safety of the child. Just like we’d be concerned about cleaning products.
Me: But we weren’t asked about that. (Or pools – or buckets of water – or stairs….etc….) This just seems very political to me.
Doc: (Highly offended) No, That’s not the case. We’re just looking out for the welfare of the children.
Ahhhh, now I see - It’s all for the children. Guess I was mistaken… I'm sure I'm now on file just like Elaine in Seinfeld...
Posted by: Daveyd at April 27, 2004 8:30 PM
Is that "throw a stick?" DOH! I thought he said "BRICK!"
Sorry Ocifer
Posted by: Random Numbers at May 4, 2004 4:38 AM
As the old joke goes: What do you call the idiot who graduated DEAD LAST in his medical-school class of 500?
You call him "doctor".
No disrespect intended toward the medical profession en masse; I've met doctors who were quite honorable, and cared deeply about their patients. (I've even known doctors to make house calls.)
On the other hand, I've had to deal with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome for a good many years, and many's the doctor who refused to take me seriously. (Hatred of doctors, I believe, is a little-known secondary symptom of CFS.)
We used to say, about doctors who didn't know something they SHOULD have known, "Oh, he must have been playing hookey that day in medical school". Makes sense, doesn't it? But a friend of mine actually saw it happen once. The doctor kept insisting that his alleged condition didn't exist. Friend replies, "It's been recognized repeatedly by WMO, NIH, and many others". Doctor insists that he's a specialist in infectious diseases, he knows whereof he speaks, and the condition doesn't exist. Friend gets exasperated and says, "Okay, it looks like your copy of the Physician's Desk Reference is the 1988 edition; I believe it's mentioned in that one on page 252 and following". Doctor looks surprised; takes down book, looks it up. Then he says, "Oh yes, I remember now, I think this was covered one day in my junior year. I cut classes that day to go to a concert."
- - -
As for ultrasound -- sorry, I have no patience for practitioners of junk science. "releases energy into the body and heats tissue", indeed! QUANTITIES, people. Give me some numbers I can chew on. Put those numbers in context; give me credit for the ability to count on my fingers. Otherwise, go sell your "H2O is dangerous" nonsense to X-Files fans.
(Sheesh. You remind me why I generally avoid NPR.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Medford
"If it cannot be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion." -- Lazarus Long
Posted by: Daniel in Medford at May 4, 2004 9:35 AM
