By Lovetti Lafua
Nurse • Midwife • Biologist • Human Optimization Researcher
Ultrasound is widely described as safe but “safe” is not the same as “proven harmless.”
For decades, diagnostic ultrasound has been promoted as risk-free, largely because no obvious damage was immediately visible. This is precisely the same reasoning once used to defend X-rays in pregnancy until long-term studies revealed increased cancer risk in children exposed in the womb.
Unlike medications, ultrasound was never required to pass comprehensive safety trials before becoming routine. Even today, there are no large-scale, long-term randomized studies designed specifically to assess its effects on child development.
Some of the research that does exist raises concerns. Follow-up studies in Norway found associations between routine prenatal ultrasound exposure and subtle neurological differences in children years later. Another randomized trial showed that women who received frequent scans had significantly higher rates of fetal growth restriction than those who had minimal exposure.
These findings alone should have triggered caution. Instead, routine use continued largely unchanged.
Safety concerns are compounded by the absence of regulation. Ultrasound machines vary dramatically in power output some delivering thousands of times more energy than others yet there are no universal standards requiring manufacturers to disclose this information. Even more troubling, there is no globally enforced certification system for ultrasound operators. In effect, highly sensitive technology is used daily without standardized limits or guaranteed expertise.
Recognizing these gaps, organizations such as the World Health Organization have repeatedly warned that routine ultrasound screening lacks sufficient evidence of benefit and safety. They emphasize informed choice, stating that women must be told not only what ultrasound can show, but also what remains unknown.
Large randomized trials in the 1990s finally confirmed what critics had long suspected: routine prenatal ultrasound does not improve survival, reduce complications, or enhance overall outcomes. At the same time, evidence emerged suggesting potential harm from repeated exposure.
Despite this, ultrasound remains entrenched in practice. Once a technology becomes standard, reversing course is difficult no matter what the data says.
The real issue is not whether ultrasound has a place in pregnancy care it does. The issue is whether a technology should be used universally without proof of necessity, benefit, or safety.
History suggests we should be cautious. Medicine has been here before.
