|
|
| Subject: Sharing info on medical examination |
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I asked a question a few threads back about whether the X-ray requirement will be waived for my pregnant wife. Just thought to share with you the response I got from my brother who´s a Medical Doctor:
(1) "Your wife can undergo a chest X-ray examination once she´s gone past her first trimester (the 1st 13 weeks of pregnancy). However, I´ll suggest you wait for one more week so you are sure beyond reasonable doubts that she´s gone into the 2nd trimester"
(2) "Let the radiographer know that she´s pregnant so that they can shield the foetus appropriately. This, I must emphasize, is a precautionary measure as X-ray examinations on the arms, legs and chest do not expose your reproductive organs to the beam, and as such do not pose any risk to both the mother and the baby."
Well, from the foregoing, I guess there shouldn´t be any qualms as regards our medical examinations. All we´ve got to do now is wait for 2 more weeks (as she´s got 1 week left in the 1st trimester). I´ll rather we underwent the other medical tests now though and that exactly is what we shall do.
Hope those in the same boat as us find this useful.
[12-09-2009,16:22]
[**.233.220.99]
Franco |
|
(in reply to: Sharing info on medical examination)
When I had my medical done, the doctor had me sign a form stating that I knew without a doubt that I was not pregnant. I´m sorry, but no reputable doctor would give a pregnant woman an X ray; the risks are too high. Surely your unborn child is worth waiting a few months for!
I could really rant, but I´ll leave it at that.
[12-09-2009,17:04]
[**.252.115.196]
wannabecanadian |
(in reply to: Sharing info on medical examination)
When it comes to babies we are over-cautious. Some doctors will not do X-ray examination mainly due to legal issues, guidelines and the very small risk to the baby. However, if the mother´s life is in danger or benefit-risk ratio is in favor of the mother, then doctors go ahead with X-ray and CT scan as the risk to the baby is very small. In any case I am posting an article below. People can do their own research before making a decision.
Source: http://www.motherisk.org/prof /commonDetail.jsp?content_id=208
" The risks of fetal exposure to X-rays have been the subject of numerous studies over the last 50 years. The lack of clear information has given rise to unjustified panic among the public. Indeed, fear of X-ray-induced fetal defects has led some women with unsuspected pregnancy who underwent radiography to terminate the pregnancy. In addition, many doctors tend to refrain from prescribing necessary dental, chest or other X-rays to pregnant women.
The possible embryonic or fetal damage from radiation may be classified into two principal types. The first is teratogenic, or abnormal fetal development, which may occur on exposure to radiation in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, when the embryo is in the stage of organogenesis. The second type is carcinogenic, or the induction of malignancy, which may occur on exposure to radiation in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy; these effects are manifested in the first decade of life.
The available information on radiation-induced embryonic damage is derived from animal studies, follow-up of individuals exposed to atomic bomb explosions in Japan, and statistical analyses. Based on these studies, the United States National Council on Radiation Protection recommends that even radiation levels of 5 - 10 cGy present no real danger to the embryo-fetus and the advantages gained by clinical diagnosis by far outweigh the negligible risk of embryonic damage.
To gain a proper perspective of the issue, natural radiation should be considered as well. In the Rocky Mountain areas of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah in the United States, the natural uranium content of the soil is very high and the attenuation of cosmic radiation by the atmosphere is diminished by the high altitudes. Thus, the annual level of radiation exposure per person exceeds that in other areas of the country by some 100 millirem. We might conclude that a fetus whose mother-to-be lives in, say, Colorado will receive, during the nine months of pregnancy, a surplus irradiation of 85 millirems. Since a routine chest X-ray of a pregnant woman exposes the fetus to 0.5 millirems, the fetus of a pregnant Colorado resident is exposed to a dose equal to that of 150 chest X-rays! At the same time, while millions of people, obviously including pregnant women, reside in Colorado, the state´s incidence of cancer is actually about 35% below the national average. The probability of developmental damage or childhood cancer due to embryonic-fetal irradiation of 1 cGy does not exceed 1:1,000, and may well be only 1:10,000 or even zero. These figures are negligible when compared to the overall 4 - 6% rate of birth defects in the general population. Furthermore, in only one of every 1,000 diagnostic X-ray examinations of pregnant women is the level of radiation to which the fetus is exposed equal to or greater than 1 cGy. In radiological examinations outside the abdominal region, the dose to the embryo-fetus is almost always lower than 1 cGy (usually much lower) and the risk of damage is negligible, and in pelvic and lower-abdominal X-rays the dose to the fetus is rarely above 5 cGy, i.e., within safe limits.
We conclude that only very rarely, if at all, will the level of embryo-fetal irradiation in diagnostic radiography justify the termination of a pregnancy. Only in women who have undergone several X-ray examinations in which the fetus is directly exposed to radiation, or when both radiographic and fluoroscopic or CT examinations have been performed, is it necessary to calculate or measure the level of radiation; and only when that level is found to be above 5 - 10 cGy should abortion be considered."
[12-09-2009,17:45]
[**.212.12.200]
Samm |
(in reply to: Sharing info on medical examination)
Interesting information, Samm, but I stand my ground. This isn´t a necessary test we´re talking about; it´s purely elective and therefore in my opinion it wouldn´t be worth any chance of harm to an unborn child. It isn´t about the mother´s health, it´s just expediting an immigration process.
Parenthood is a tricky endeavor to be sure and far from it for me to judge anyone, but I cannot imagine taking unnecessary risks for such a small gain (a few months). If Franco has concerns, I´d have to agree that he should.
[12-09-2009,18:48]
[**.252.115.196]
wannabecanadian |
(in reply to: Sharing info on medical examination)
Thanks Samm and Wannabecanadian for your useful insights. I suppose I´d just go ahead and get my own X-ray done next week and then have a word with the designated GP with a view to seeking his advice on the way forward.
Immigrating to Canada is not a do or die affair and the benefits derivable from it cannot in anyway compare to the present and future well-being of our baby. There´s no rush really and I suppose I´d just wait for medical advice and then take a decision based on my assessment of the risks involved (if any) and benefits derivable.
I´ll share my experience with the GP and X-ray department on Monday evening by which time we should have completed the other medical tests.
If anyone else has got any experience with this, please feel free to share.
Thanks all.
[12-09-2009,19:44]
[**.233.220.99]
Franco |
(in reply to: Sharing info on medical examination)
Well, I am a medical doc. though not Radiologist in specialty.
I agree 200% with wannabecanadian. It is the baby´s welfare...it is: "don´t come near the risk zone even it is minimal...". It is "principles". All Canada´s wealth is not to compensate for 1/10000000 chance with a child born with any kind of disability. Even though disability can occur from a variety of reasons other than Xray, but if the child is born with it (for other reasons) you will carry the guilt forever.
Good luck
[12-09-2009,20:22]
[***.161.114.168]
Anonymous |
|
