Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Is a baby ultrasound scan disgusting? One shopping centre thinks so.

119 replies

KateyKool · 02/04/2011 00:00

A friend of mine is trying to get a commercial run on a big screen at a well known shopping centre. It shows a live baby scan and is designed to highlight how the baby ultrasound scanner was created in the UK and how it's one of many inventions that have changed and saved lives. The idea is both brilliant and lovely and very sensitively done. It will also help benefit charities researching into pre birth conditions. So much would come from this.
This well know shopping centre is obviously 'more into money than mummies' and have refused to run the ad , they think a baby scan is disgusting. But are happy to take the ad dollar and run ads showing stick women, retouched images and the rest - you get the drift. Hypocritical?
All my friends now have boycotted the place.

OP posts:

frgr · 02/04/2011 00:02

well what was their official reason for not agreeing to the ad, and what made you think their reason was "they think a baby scan is disgusting"?

more info please, otherwise OP sounds like "not doing something we want, therfore big bad corporation".

moondog · 02/04/2011 00:06

I'd agree.
Their screen-they can choose what goes on it.

meditrina · 02/04/2011 00:06

It seems crazy to say it's disgusting.

But I'm glad they're not showing it - just imagine the distress to those who have had adverse scans or are newly bereaved.

ViolaTricolor · 02/04/2011 00:13

We need more info to agree -- I somehow really doubt they actually said the reason they won't show it is that it's 'disgusting'. It's a diagnostic technology and, as such, I can see that it may well not be what they want to show in a retail environment.

roomonthebroom · 02/04/2011 00:14

What the first 3 posters said. It's up to the centre.

cestlavielife · 02/04/2011 00:18

becasue baby scan pics are used by the heavily emotive anti-abortion/pro-life lobby? and you could run into policitical/ethical debates?

squeakytoy · 02/04/2011 00:26

Dont all women have scans? free of charge on the NHS?

so what is this commercial trying to sell?

Original poster

KateyKool · 02/04/2011 00:41

The ad isn't selling anything. It's raising awareness of great UK inventions that have changed and saved lives. That simple. Those involved (clinic and a leading doctor) are supporting it because they know off the back of it the charities they work will will benefit. So a lot of gain.
The issue of sensitivity to those who had recently problems has been raised and many women were surveyed first, all supported it because it had a positive benefit. Everyone involved are passionate caring people, not salesmen.
As for the shopping centre, their are scared that a few people may complain yet since the survey more people seem unhappy with them for blocking the ad when they happily run a lot of stuff that as mums we'd rather our kids weren't influenced by. The comment made about the scan was 'off the record' and not by a woman.

OP posts:

worraliberty · 02/04/2011 00:50

Sorry you need to be clearer.

This 'off the record' comment. Was it made to you personally? Did this person actually say to your face that scans are disgusting? And if so, who was this person?

LaWeasel · 02/04/2011 01:06

Who is paying for the ad if you aren't selling anything?

What kind of scan is it? (Some people have questions about the safety of 3D scans, for example)

LaWeasel · 02/04/2011 01:07

If it's going to be a live scan of an actual pregnant person what if they spot an anomaly during the scan?

Original poster

KateyKool · 02/04/2011 03:41

These comments are very rational and logical, so here's my reply.
I detect there are many readers not commenting. As psychology is my area of interest I am fascinated by those that comment. I also know there are many that feel the same as I do but won't comment.

The scan is an ultrasound, not a 3D.

The women who have volunteered are behind the ad.

They are scanned a few days before and the scans are checked before going live and m2b have to be agreeable to it.

Can't name the source of the comment but it's genuine.

The key issue is very black and white.

Run the ad, raise awareness of the the benefits of ultrasound. Pre-birth charities benefit. Mums benefit. Longer term more babies may live. It's that simple. No more complicated than that.

Or... we appease accountants at a shopping centre who are scared of an imaginary bad article in the Daily Mail. (Nick Clegg recently said "No" comes with a responsibility."

We live in a democracy - so majority who benefits rules. We live in a free society, so should an accountant be in any position to define what is socially acceptable? We live in the real world, so we have to live with that.

I'm not an analytical linear thinker but like most people emotionally driven and personally I support my friend 100%. Because if this results in just ONE baby living I'm there for them. Does the fear of a bad press article (and that's paranoia) in the Daily Mail vs a life justify saying no?

Sorry but I believe in being honest and I'm getting a little worried by some people's cold attitude!! I feel I'm talking to accountants not mums.

"Love life not money" is a slogan I have above my desk. I think that's a good value to live by.

OP posts:

Goodynuff · 02/04/2011 03:54

no one has said that they do not love life, they have just asked some reasonable questions

Original poster

KateyKool · 02/04/2011 03:58

I feel honesty is an important value, so I use my first name. My friends call me Katey. Kool is a bit of an in joke. I'm comfortable with that.
But why do some people use identities online that are so disguised? T
his is really a separate issue. So before responding to my forum problem (with another question) can you please please explain.

OP posts:

TechnoKitten · 02/04/2011 04:14

I don't see how running an ad highlighting the origins of ultrasound and its benefits in prenatal diagnoses is going to aid any charities. Unless it is asking for donations in which case it's an appeal not an ad.

I disguise my identity online because I choose to.

Whether ad or appeal, the shopping centre has every right to refuse to run it. Their decisions are commercially driven.

Triggles · 02/04/2011 04:32

First of all, whether you like it or not, the shopping centre is not a democracy and doesn't need to go by majority vote. If they want to refuse, they can.

Second, why does it sound like you're either a student looking for feedback for something or a journalist or something? Generally those who overly protest they're being honest and not hiding anything ... um... are.

And third, I wouldn't think it's rocket science why people use disguised identities online.

cocoachannel · 02/04/2011 04:34

'Can't name the source of the comment.'

'I believe honesty is the best policy'. Followed by mini rant re. transparency.

I agree with meditrina. Having had devastating news at an ultrasound I wouldn't have wanted to see this ad walking through a shopping centre during my recovery. OP, surely with your interest in psych you can see this?

Re. anonymity, again with an interest in psychology I don't see how you cannot understand why people wouldn't want to splash their RL ID over the Internet!

Back to bed post night feed for me (what with being a Mum and an Accountant, OP , but I look forward to seeing how this one pans out tomorrow morning.

nooka · 02/04/2011 04:35

A shopping centre seems a bit of an odd choice to run an awareness raising piece, and it's really not very clear what the film is about in any case. Is it to promote British industry, to raise awareness (which given that ultrasounds are routinely offered to all pregnant women doesn't seem terribly necessary) or is it an appeal?. If it is an appeal for money then I'm not sure why you are having a go at accountants really. In the UK we live in a capitalistic society. I expect the shopping centre sells it's advertising space, it's under no obligation to show anything on it's screens it doesn't want to, and it's not surprising that that will mostly be adverts for things on sale in the centre.

I'm sure it is disappointing that your friend hasn't had the reception she hoped for, but I'm not sure why you have decided that everyone who doesn't immediately agree with you are cold accountants (not quite sure why you are using accountant as an insult) is a bit odd. You said you think honesty is very important but you don't seem terribly accepting of other people's honest opinions.

Re the nicknames, why not, it's part of what makes mumsnet interesting. Besides which if you aren't using your full name you are as anonymous as anyone else. Mostly however online nicknames are advised as a security measure, given that everything you type on the internet lasts forever.

iscream · 02/04/2011 04:44

The shopping mall didn't say it was disgusting though, you said it was an off the record remark but one person.
What was the reason that the mall gave?
What exactly did the ultrasound film say and show?
How long is the film?

I can't decide if it is offensive unless I know what "it" is.

Goodynuff · 02/04/2011 04:48

Ok, this confuses me, because in the real world, accountants, ministers of finance and their lot do determine how much money can be spent on what (even on lifesaving operations, medicines and procedures) Society may be free to express itself, but it is not 'free', everything has to be paid for, and everything has to be accounted for.

How would a movie that shows an ultrasound save a babies life? I'm not saying it can't, I am just questioning how it would? As far as I know, if a person needs an ultrasound, they can get them. If they don't know they need one, or their doctor is unaware of the need, seeing a movie wont change their situation. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am in a different country, so I am no expert on British health care.

MrsTerryPratchett · 02/04/2011 04:56

This is about abortion, isn't it?

iscream · 02/04/2011 05:24

I bet you are right MrsTerryPraatchett.

TechnoKitten · 02/04/2011 05:27

Doh. Have I been suckered into commenting (seriously) on a thread about abortion?

Bugger.

kirrinIsland · 02/04/2011 05:28

I don't think people are displaying a cold attitude, they're just trying to understand what this advert is trying to achieve. The development of ultra sound has of course made a difference to many people's lives, and not just in pregnancy, but i'm struggling to see why we need to raise awareness of the technology and how a life could be saved as a result of this ad. Is the ad to do with research? Is it on behalf of a specific pre-birth charity? Ultra sound scans are used freely throughout the country, on the NHS, and are done as a matter of routine at specific stages of pregnancy, more often if needed. Is there evidence to suggest that the technology isn't being used enough? That more anomalies could be picked up if pregnant women were scanned more often? If so, surely this ad would be better aimed at health professionals rather than Joe Public. If not, then what is the desired outcome of the ad? How do pre-birth charities benefit? Surely it's possible to raise awareness of these charities' work without using a potentially emotive ultra sound scan?
I had an anomaly picked up on a scan and am therefore very aware of the benefits of them, not that I wasn't already, but I would have had that scan whether I was aware of the benefits of it or not - it was organised as a routine part of my ante-natal care, same as for everyone. Also, as meditrina said, people who've had adverse scans might be very upset to come face to face with a scan image, especially in a shopping centre where you wouldn't really be expecting it. It was a long time before I could look at a scan picture after my experience. I appreciate you've said that this has been considered and that the general consensus was that it would be ok because of the benefit of the ad - for the greater good - but as one such woman, I can't see what the benefit is and would therefore just have found it upsetting. Perhaps I'll feel differently if you explain the point of the ad a bit more clearly.
Dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as cold-hearted and ruled by money is unfair. The issue isn't as black and white as you believe.

Morloth · 02/04/2011 05:39

I think MrsTerryPratchett has hit the nail quite squarely on the head there.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5