JOGC

Joint SOGC/CAR Policy Statement on Non-medical Use of Fetal Ultrasound

      Fetal ultrasound is a valuable tool in modern obstetrical care. This imaging technique is useful in assessing a fetus for anomalies, ensuring fetal health, and assessing fetal growth and development if performed by properly trained individuals in a carefully monitored and medically supervised environment. It is also an important technology in education and research. This imaging technology uses high-frequency, low-energy sound waves; it does not use ionizing radiation. The availability of ultrasound machines for purchase and use for non-clinical purposes has led to a proliferation of “entertainment” ultrasound units throughout Canada. With recent media coverage of non-medical clinics performing gender determination in the first trimester, the SOGC and CAR find it necessary to update their previous policy statements on this issue and to issue a new joint policy statement.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      REFERENCES

        • Kieler H.
        • Axelsson O.
        • Haglind B.
        • Nilsson S.
        • Salvesen K.A.
        Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy and the children’s subsequent handedness.
        Early Hum Dev. 1998; 50: 233-245
        • Salvesen K.A.
        • Eik-Nes S.H.
        Ultrasound during pregnancy and birth weight, childhood malignancies and neurological development.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 1999; 25: 1025-1031
        • Kieler H.
        • Chattingius S.
        • Haglind B.
        • Palmgren J.
        • Axelsson O.
        Sinistrality. A side effect of prenatal sonography: a comparative study of young men.
        Epidemiology. 2001; 12: 618-623
        • Yang F.Y.
        • Lin G.L.
        • Horng S.C.
        • Chen R.C.
        Prenatal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound impacts blood-brain barrier permeability in rats.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2012; 38: 1051-1714
        • Schneider-Kolsky M.E.
        Ultrasound exposure of the foetal chick brain: effects on learning and memory.
        Int J Dev Neurosci. 2009; 27: 677-683
        • Suresh R.
        • Ramesh Rao T.
        • Davis E.M.
        • Ovchinnikov N.
        • McRae A.
        Effect of diagnostic ultrasound during the fetal period on learning and memory in mice.
        Ann Anat. 2008; 190: 37-45
        • Ang Jr, E.S.
        • Gluncic V.
        • Duque A.
        • Schafer M.E.
        • Rakic P.
        Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103: 12903-12910
        • Leung J.L.
        Ethical analysis of non-medical fetal ultrasound.
        Nurse Ethics. 2009; 16: 637-646
      1. Health Canada; Public Health Agency of Canada. It’s your health. Fetal ultrasound for keepsake videos. November 2003. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/med/ultrasoundechographie-eng.php. Accessed on November 1, 2013.

      2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Fetal keepsake videos. August 2005. Updated May, 2011. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/patientalerts/ucm064756.htm. Accessed on November 1, 2013

        • National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
        Exposure criteria for medical diagnostic ultrasound. Criteria based on all known mechanisms. 2013 (Report no. 140, Recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Issued December 31, 2002. Available at, Accessed on November 1)
        • Bly S.
        • Van den Hof M.C.
        Diagnostic Imaging Committee, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Obstetric ultrasound biological effects and safety.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005; 27 (SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines, No. 160, June 2005): 572-575
      3. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Keepsake fetal imaging. AIUM official statement, April, 2012. Available at: http://www.aium.org/officialStatements/31. Accessed on November 1, 2005

      4. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Prudent use in pregnancy. AIUM official statement, April, 2012. Available at: http://www.aium.org/officialStatements/31. Accessed on November 1, 2005

        • Salvesen K.
        • Lees C.
        • Abramowicz J.
        • Brezinka C.
        • Ter Haar G.
        • Marsal K.
        Bioeffects and Safety Committee; Board of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG).
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 38 (ISUOG-WFUMB Statement on the non-medical use of ultrasound, 2011): 688-694
        • ACOG Committee on Ethics
        Commercial enterprises in medical practice.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109 (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Opinion No. 359): 243-245
      5. American College of Radiology. ACR Statement on fetal keepsake videos for entertainment only. Available at: http://www.acr.org/About-Us/Media-Center/Position-Statements/Position-Statements-Folder/ACR-Statement-on-Fetal-Keepsake-Videos-for-Entertainment-Only. Accessed on November 1, 2013

        • College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
        Fetal ultrasound for nonmedical reasons. 2013 (Policy Statement No. 4-10. May 2010. Available at, Accessed on November 1)
      6. Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers. Non-diagnostic use of ultrasound for entertainment purposes in the obstetrical setting. May 28, 2008. Available at: http://www.sdms.org/positions/nondiagnostic.asp. Accessed on November 1, 2013

        • Canadian Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonographers
        Statement on ultrasound for entertainment. 2013 (CSDMS Standards, March 1994. Available at, Accessed on November 1)

      Linked Article

      • Errata
        Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada Vol. 36Issue 4
        • In Brief
          Salem S, Lim K, Van den Hof MC; SOGC Diagnostic Imaging Committee; CAR Point Of Care Ultrasound Working Group. Joint SOGC/CAR Policy Statement on Non-medical Use of Fetal Ultrasound. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No. 304, February 2014. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014;36(2):184–185.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF