http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=bl_sr_apparel?_encoding=UTF8&node=1036592&field-brandtextbin=Pretty%20Pushers

Fantastic video on the influence of experience during the nine months prior to birth!

Here is a link to the article explaining the piece and its artist:

http://visualizingbirth.org/radiant-crowning-in-damien-leggetts-freebirth

The following is an article cautioning against the unnecessary use of ultrasounds. Though it is a bit long, the information is incredibly important and worth reading if you are considering scheduling a medically-unnessecary ultrasound. It was written in 2004 by Caral Rados, a writer for FDA Consumer magazine. Great info!

FDA Cautions against Ultrasound ‘Keepsake’ Images

Carol Rados

It’s risky business taking pictures of unborn babies when there’s no medical need to do so. That’s the word from the Food and Drug Administration, which is concerned about companies trying to turn an important medical procedure into a prenatal portrait tool.

Facilities with captivating names such as Fetal Fotos, Peek-a-Boo, Womb with a View, and Baby Insight are popping up in strip malls and shopping centers all over the country. And they’re promoting “keepsake videos” that use the latest ultrasound technology to produce high-resolution three-dimensional and four-dimensional (moving) images showing the surface anatomy of babies developing in the womb. The lure of this burgeoning industry is that parents-to-be get to see characteristics like facial features, hair, and even the baby’s sex, and often they can count fingers and toes before their baby is born. Some women even have videos made at various stages of their baby’s growth. And the videos are often being marketed as a prized addition to collections of childhood memorabilia.

As compelling as these sneak previews may be, the FDA is warning women about the potential hazards of getting keepsake videos. The agency also is warning companies against creating them for entertainment purposes. While ultrasound has been around for many years, expectant women and their families need to know that the long-term effects of repeated ultrasound exposures on the fetus are not fully known. In light of all that remains unknown, having a prenatal ultrasound for non-medical reasons is not a good idea.
What is Ultrasound?

Ultrasound imaging is a common diagnostic medical procedure that uses high-frequency sound waves to produce dynamic images (sonograms) of organs, tissues, or blood flow inside the body. Prenatal ultrasound examinations are performed by trained professionals, such as sonographers, radiologists, and obstetricians. 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, which are processed to form an image displayed on a computer monitor. It is from these images that videos and portraits are made.

Obstetricians use ultrasound at a very low power level to check the size, location, number, and age of fetuses, the presence of some types of birth defects, fetal movement, breathing, and heartbeat. When ultrasound is used by a qualified clinician to check for this kind of medical information, the FDA says the medical benefit far outweighs any risk.

At somewhat higher exposure levels, given daily for weeks at a time, ultrasound is used to speed the healing of bone fractures. At even higher levels, the technology produces a heating effect in tissue that is useful in treating sprains and pulled muscles.

Why All the Fuss?

Ultrasonic fetal scanning, from a medical standpoint, generally is considered safe if properly used when information is needed about a pregnancy. Still, ultrasound is a form of energy, and even at low levels, laboratory studies have shown it can produce physical effects in tissue, such as jarring vibrations and a rise in temperature. Although there is no evidence that these physical effects can harm a fetus, the FDA says the fact that these effects exist means that prenatal ultrasounds can’t be considered completely innocuous.

As more advanced ultrasound technologies (usually using higher ultrasound intensities) become available, greater numbers of expectant mothers and their families are requesting fetal keepsake videos and portraits for souvenirs. Sometimes these images may be made by people not well trained, or for longer exposure times and at higher levels than are usually used in medical situations. At the same time, the medical community is discouraging the use of ultrasound unless it is medically necessary.

Mel Stratmeyer, Ph.D., in the FDA’s Office of Science and Technology, says that most animal studies have not identified any fetal harm with low-dose ultrasound exposure. “But the issue of keepsake videos has to be that if there’s even a possibility of potential risk, why take the chance?” Stratmeyer says. Animal studies have been performed during the last 30 years to investigate the effects of the procedure on a fetus, due to the increased use of obstetrical ultrasound in the 1970s. Human studies, however, are not feasible for the same reason that experts are cautious about casual ultrasound: It’s too risky to subject unborn babies to any unknown effects. “The problem with experimental research,” Stratmeyer says, “is that you really need both animal and human studies to make more predictable outcomes.” He adds that as technology advances and becomes more complex, the potential for physical effects to be identified in the future also increases. However, a few studies, Stratmeyer says, suggest that exposure to diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy may have an effect on human development, such as delayed speech in children.

Danica Marinac-Dabic, M.D., an epidemiologist in the FDA’s Office of Surveillance and Biometrics, says that the most consistent finding in the recent literature is a potential association between prenatal ultrasound exposure and subsequent left-handedness, especially among boys. At least three large follow-up studies involving thousands of school-age children in Sweden and Norway suggested such an association. “Since ultrasound examinations in these studies took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” says Marinac-Dabic, “and the fact that modern ultrasound equipment is capable of producing approximately eight times higher intensities than equipment used a decade ago, we continue to study the possible long-term effects of prenatal ultrasound in both animal and human epidemiologic studies.”
The History of Fetal Photos

The FDA first learned about keepsake video productions from consumers in Texas in 1994. The Texas Department of Health and the FDA’s Dallas district office jointly inspected three firms. The FDA then initiated investigations of similar firms in other parts of the country. Investigators uncovered numerous companies offering a wide variety of ultrasound packages. Among the agency’s findings were that ultrasound was being performed by untrained, unlicensed technicians and often without a doctor’s supervision.

The FDA wrote about its concerns to 10 health professional organizations and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, stating that anyone promoting, selling or leasing ultrasound equipment for making keepsake fetal videos could be breaking the law. The agency asked the organizations to have their members discourage patients from having ultrasound procedures for non-medical reasons and to notify the FDA of any keepsake video operations in their communities.
Not a Wise Choice

For every reason a mother-to-be wants a keepsake video, there are good reasons she shouldn’t have one. Women cite early bonding with their babies, determining the baby’s sex, and a desire to share their prenatal experiences with friends and families as major reasons in favor of the videos. And the quality of images in commercial videos makes them especially tempting. Because many obstetricians still use two-dimensional imaging, which is considered standard in prenatal care, women may seek the more advanced three- and four-dimensional images used by some keepsake businesses, in which the features of an unborn infant are more easily recognizable to the non-professional.

But health experts say these are not medical reasons for having an ultrasound. Lawrence D. Platt, M.D., president-elect of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology and a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist in Los Angeles, adds that while physicians need to be sensitive to expectant mothers’ feelings, “We have to go beyond emotions in this case. We have to do the right thing,” he says. “Ultrasound is a form of energy and it must be respected.”

Besides concern that unskilled technicians could be performing and interpreting such ultrasounds and that the procedure is not always done under the supervision of a qualified physician, some facilities may be using equipment that’s not in good working order.

“Not all ultrasounds are created equal,” says Nancy Hueppchen, M.D., a maternal fetal medicine specialist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. “Patients don’t know the level of expertise of the person performing the procedure.” Hueppchen says there’s also the worry about ultrasounds not being conducted in medical settings. “These portrait facilities are not equipped to provide counseling should something go wrong, or proper guidance if a gross abnormality is suspected,” she says.

The FDA also notes that some video companies have been known to use the ultrasound machine on higher energy exposures for as long as an hour to get the pictures. The procedure should always be done at the lowest possible energy output and for the least amount of time. Exposure to ultrasound for longer than the time specified by the FDA for fetal monitoring could pose a potential risk to the health of the mother and her developing fetus.

Some companies make it clear that they are not providing diagnostic ultrasounds, but those that don’t may wrongly give women the impression that their ultrasound examination will identify problems.

The FDA and the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM), which also strongly discourages the non-medical use of ultrasound, have concerns that women are being wrongly reassured by commercial sonograms. Women may misinterpret the studio ultrasound as a medical examination, thus giving them a false sense of security. And inaccurate findings may cause them to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests.

“Even in the best of hands,” says Hueppchen, “fetal structural problems can be missed due to technical and gestational age limitations, thus falsely reassuring the patient.”

Understanding the Laws

Ultrasound is conducted with a prescription medical device that is regulated by the FDA. The agency sets the standard for the level of energy to be used for various treatments or diagnoses, including fetal ultrasounds. This standard restricts ultrasound exposure to levels that produce few, if any, effects on the fetus, based on epidemiological evidence.

The FDA can take action against the keepsake industry in two ways: for promoting a device for other than its approved use, and for using a prescription device without a prescription from a medical professional. By promoting and advertising keepsake videos, the advertiser is creating a new intended use for the device, and this requires premarket review by the FDA. And many keepsake facilities do not appear to be requiring doctors’ prescriptions from their customers.

Kimber C. Richter, M.D., a deputy director in the FDA’s Office of Compliance, says that regulation of the commercial ultrasonic imaging of fetuses is complicated because each video company scenario is different. “In some cases, there may be no prescription and no physician oversight,” she says. “In others, there may be a physician involved but no clear doctor-patient relationship.” And in still others, “the video might be made through an extra visit to the physician that the patient normally sees.” Richter says the regulatory approach in all these cases varies. “FDA regulates devices, but the qualifications and behavior of technicians and physicians would be regulated by the states,” Richter says. The FDA announced in 2002 that anyone administering ultrasound to consumers without a medical prescription is breaking the law. “In the past,” says Richter, “the FDA has taken regulatory action, such as a warning letter or even seizure, when these devices were used for entertainment purposes without a prescription.”

Margaret T. Tolbert, deputy director of the FDA’s Division of Device User Programs and Systems Analysis, says the agency is updating its current Web statement warning consumers about the unknowns of using ultrasound equipment for entertainment purposes and is developing a set of questions and answers to educate those considering keepsake videos as a business opportunity.

Since a number of advertising examples recently have come to the FDA’s attention — suggesting an increase in entertainment ultrasounds — the FDA is currently taking a closer look at these businesses. “We are reviewing these cases and will consider regulatory action as appropriate,” says Richter.

The Bottom Line

The prescription status of ultrasound equipment ensures that pregnant women will receive professional care that contributes to their health and to the health of their babies. Performing prenatal ultrasounds without following state and federal guidelines puts a mother and her unborn baby at risk. Therefore, the procedure should only be used to provide medical benefit. Besides being inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice, the bottom line is: Why take a chance with your baby’s health for the sake of a video?

Legitimate Uses for Ultrasound Imaging

• Diagnosing pregnancy
• Determining fetal age
• Diagnosing congenital abnormalities
• Evaluating position of placenta
• Determining multiple pregnancies

When you were in pain and we wanted to save you

We couldn’t

We attempted to persuade you, comfort and support you

But we couldn’t 

Not really

Somehow, at that time you knew

What it was we did not

That in the end, it could be only you

Only you who could open up

And let this energy through

Only you who could deliver

A miracle at last

Only you who knew

What this great labor of love meant

And we could only bear witness

To your wisdom

I can’t upload it to this website (I’m too cheap to buy the upgrade that is necessary) so here is the link where you can view it:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150370733196166&set=vb.752131165&type=2&theater

Comment and let me know if you have problems viewing it!

Jeff, Jennie, and baby Daniel

The second birth lasted roughly 14 hours and was absolutely perfect! Healthy baby and healthy mama!! Welcome, Tamar Lynn!

Tamar Lynn Tescher

Best week of the year – with the exception of my wedding and honeymoon

Looks good, right?

Anyway, after finishing the documentary, the filmmakers decided that they wanted to create an entertaining resource for people who wanted more information on the specifics surrounding doulas, midwives, and birth in general. After deciding that another documentary would not suffice, they created www.oneworldbirth.net a website that is constantly being updated by interviews with experts on birth such as doulas, midwives, obstetricians, etc.

These videos are for the most part short and to the point (as well as pretty entertaining). My personal favs include the 60 second doulas videos which features 3 doulas answering on the spot questions in 60 seconds. Their answers are spontaneous and genuine and reveal some of the uniqueness and wonder surrounding their expertise and profession. Here is a great one:

This website (which I am so excited about) is completely supported by donations and the proceeds from the documentary (Doula!). Hopefully we can keep it alive, so get the word out there and purchase a DVD!

Explore the site, it is really just so much fun! The interviews are great (some feature Ina May, who I just love – who doesn’t?!) and the information is really relevant. This is a particularly great site for information on doulas and their role in the process of labor and delivery.  Here is the official trailer for the One World Birth project: