I've had a load of scans in this pregnancy, most of them for necessary reasons.

I read this article a few months ago with some alarm, but then, after reading it a few more times, I decided that it really isn't something to get worked up about.

Basically, the article is based on research that is 10 years old or older. If ultrasound were dangerous, there would be a lot more confirmation of it out there since this was published. Our doctors would know about it and they would inform us about it. The fact that in 10 years this research hasn't been confirmed to be correct indicates that there really isn't a problem with the kinds of ultrasounds that most pregnant women have.

I did decide, for this and other reasons, not to get a 3D scan of my baby. But I reckon that, in the end, crossing the road or driving to the shops is more dangerous to your baby than having a normal number of ultrasounds during the pregnancy. After all, we obviously all know of babies that have died because their mums crossed the road at the wrong time - every time a pregnant woman is hit by a car it gets into the news. But we don't get all worried about this risk to ourselves and our baby, do we. It's important to keep risks of things in perspective.

All that said, it seems to me that choosing to have no ultrasounds in pregnancy is a fair choice too. It means that you exchange one set of risks for another, and that is a thing that people need to choose about for themselves and their children.