Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T23:44:05.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lawyer's Perspective on the Use of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Albert L. Bundy  and
A. Everette James Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Diagnostic sonography, also known as ultrasound, has become an invaluable aid in the practice of obstetrics and gynecology. Rapid improvements in instrumentation have caused the sonologist and sonography to assume a primary role in the care of these patients. Patient and physician expectations have increased with the technological advances. This paper will outline the advances and capabilities of diagnostic sonography in obstetrics and gynecology, while reflecting upon the foreseeable legal implications.

The physics of ultrasound is rather complex. Briefly, ultrasound utilizes high-frequency, non-ionizing, mechanical waves, 2.25 to 10 megahertz, that require a molecular medium for propagation. The reflected energy is processed to produce an image. Because it employs non-ionizing waves, ultrasound is considered safe by most authorities when used at the intensities currently employed for diagnosis. No clinically significant adverse effects have been reported in humans to date.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 13 , Issue 5 , October 1985 , pp. 219 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Ziskind, M.C., Basic Physics of Ultrasound, in The Principles and Practice of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2d ed. (Sanders, R.C. and James, A.E., eds.) (Appleton-Century-Crofts, N.Y., 1980), 1.Google Scholar
Vinocur, B., Questions Chase Answers about Ultrasound's Safety, Diagnostic Imaging 4(11):62 (1982).Google Scholar
Sanders, R.C., Update on Legal Complications, Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 3(9):R:103 (1984).Google Scholar
Sanders, R.C., talk delivered at the September 1984 meeting of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Kansas City, Missouri.Google Scholar
Dorland's Medical Dictionary, 26th ed. (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1981), at 59.Google Scholar
McArdle, C.R., et al., The Use of Ultrasound in Evaluating Problems and Complications of Genetic Amniocentesis, Journal of Clinical Ultrasound 11:427 (1983).Google ScholarPubMed
Callen, P., Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1983), at 113–15.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Dorland's Medical Dictionary, supra note 5, at 1063.Google Scholar
Sanders, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
Dorland's Medical Dictionary, supra note 5, at 1023.Google Scholar
Callen, , supra note 7, at 113–15.Google Scholar
Franklin, M.A., Injuries and Remedies, 2d ed. (Foundation Press, Mineola, N.Y., 1979), at 29.Google Scholar
Kimball v. Scors, 399 N.Y.S.2d 350 (App. Div. 1977).Google Scholar
Id. at 351.Google Scholar
King, J.H., The Law of Medical Malpractice (West Publishing Co., St. Paul., 1977), at 19.Google Scholar
Wilcox v. Salt Lake City Corp., 484 P. 2d 1200 (Utah 1971).Google Scholar
Rogers v. Horvath, 237 N.W.2d 595 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).Google Scholar
Dorland's Medical Dictionary, supra note 5, at 4.Google Scholar
Coleman v. Garrison, 327 A.2d 757, 761–62 (Del. Super. 1974); aff'd 349 A.2d 8 (Del. 1975).Google Scholar
Berman v. Allen, 404 A.2d 8, 12 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1979), citing Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 563 (1931).Google Scholar
Troppi v. Scarf, 187 N.W.2d 511, 521 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).Google Scholar
Terrell v. Garcia, 496 S.W.2d 124, 127 (Tex. Civ. App. 1973); cert. denied 415 U.S. 927 (1974).Google Scholar
Miller v. Duhart, 637 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).Google Scholar
Hickman v. Myers, 632 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982).Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Torts (American Law Institute Publishers, St. Paul, 1979), §920.Google Scholar
Morris v. Frudenfeld, 185 Cal. Rptr. 76, 83 (Cal. App. 1982).Google Scholar
Troppi, supra note 22, at 521.Google Scholar
Dumer v. St. Michael's Hospital, 233 N.W.2d 372 (Wis. 1975).Google Scholar
LaPoint v. Shirley, 409 F. Supp. 118, 121 (W.D. Tex. 1976).Google Scholar
Thompson, C.S., Sanbar, S.S., Wrongful Conception or Wrongful Pregnancy, Legal Aspects of Medical Practice 11(4):1 (April 1983).Google Scholar
Curlender v. Bio-Science Labs, 165 Cal. Rptr. 477 (Cal. App. 1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 489.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Turpin v. Sortini, 643 P. 2d 954 (Cal. App. 1982).Google Scholar
Speck v. Feingold, 408 A.2d 496 (Pa. Super. 1979).Google Scholar
Procanik v. Cillo, 478 A.2d 755 (N.J. 1984); Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P. 2d 483 (Wash. 1983).Google Scholar
Johnson, B.A., An Overview of Informed Consent: Majority and Minority Rules, in Legal Medicine with Special Reference to Diagnostic Imaging (James, A.E., ed.) (Urban and Schwarzenberg, Baltimore, 1980), 281, 290–91.Google Scholar
Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th ed. (ed. Keeton, W.P.) (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, 1984), 940–42.Google Scholar
Dietrich v. Inhabitants of Northampton, 138 Mass. 14, 17 (1884). See also McClelland, R.M., The Necessity of Granting a Cause of Action to an Unborn Viable Fetus under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death and Survival Acts, Duquesne Law Review 21:1017 (1983).Google Scholar
Verkennes v. Corniea, 38 N.W.2d 838 (Minn. 1949). (An unborn child failed to survive birth because of negligence during the delivery.)Google Scholar
Rainey v. Horn, 72 So.2d 434, 435 (Miss. 1954). (A child was born dead after a full-term pregnancy, allegedly as a result of negligence during the delivery.)Google Scholar
Scott v. Kopp, 431 A.2d 959 (Pa. 1981). (The eight-month-pregnant plaintiff was injured in a head-on collision when the defendant's automobile crossed the center of the highway.)Google Scholar
Bundy, A.L., James, A.E., How Wrongful Death Actions May Arise, Contemporary OB/GYN (May 1984).Google Scholar
See Childres, R., Johnson, W.F., Equity, Restitution and Damages, 2d ed. (Foundation Press, Mineola, N.Y., 1974), 611.Google Scholar
Miller v. Highlands Insurance Co., 336 S.2d 636, 641 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976); reversed on appeal, 348 S.2d 303 (1977).Google Scholar
State ex rel Hardin v. Sanders, 538 S.W.2d 336 (Mo. 1976); expressly overruled in O'Grady v. Brown, 654 S.W.2d 904, 911 (Mo. 1983).Google Scholar
Southwick, A.F., Hospital Liability: Two Theories Have Been Merged, Journal of Legal Medicine 4(1):1, 18 (March 1983).Google ScholarPubMed