Comments on: Visual mediation and haptic immediacy: watching ultrasound scanning images vs. touching with the naked hand

By: nicola

nicola — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:11:45 +0000

Hi Thomas,
I’m a lecturer in art theory and I’m really interested in what you have to say about the touch/visualisation nexus in relation to ultrasound. On another tangent, have you explored the political uses of ultrasound and other fetal visualising devices within the abortion debates, particularly in the US? The ability to visualise the fetus as an entity separate from the mother has conferred upon it an individuality (with so called ‘rights’) that has enabled the pro-life movement to mobilise itself around powerful imagery. Prior to ultrasound, of course, the fetus was unseen – only apparent to the mother when she felt the ‘quickening’ in her womb, and was therefore unendowed with citizen’s rights. Many young women in the US are now referred to ‘abortion clinics’ which stipulate the mother view an ultrasound before termination in order to establish the physical presence of the fetus and thus its pull on the mother’s heartstrings – something she would not ordinarily experience until much later with those first ‘rumblings’ as you call them. This technological intervention seems an unnecessary (and guilt-inducing) complication of an already traumatic and fraught situation.

By: Karolina

Karolina — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:30:10 +0000

That’s really hard to say. I can only guess that hearing no heartbetas when there should be heartbeats could make anyone anxious of stethoscopic investigation of the belly. But the rumblings and movements are in some way so internal (speaking as a woman) that I can’t imagine how that could feel threatening in any way. There is naturally a great sense of loss having “removed” a foeus that has just started moving around, but that feeling is more linked to grief, not fear of a certain medical instrument.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:09:13 +0000

Hi Karolina, your experience raises an interesting question, analogous to the one I discussed in the post above — namely, are negative auditory or touch sensations more strongly imprinted than negative visual sensations? In other words, if your pregnancy had been terminated after a stethoscopic investigation during which you had been able to listen to the heartbeat and feel the movements of the foetus, would you then have felt an even more intensive feeling of sickness afterwards when confronted with foetus heartbeats and ‘rumblings’?

By: Karolina

Karolina — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:55:03 +0000

On the notion of ultrasound images a I can’t help but share a personal experience. As an art history graduate student I am fascinated in the limits of visuality. What is visible in different contexts and ages often linked to technologies of vision, of which ultrasound is one. It is very interesting how important the moment of ultrasound scanning has become in our society. It is a moment eagerly awaited for most parents. And printouts from the scanning are images most parents cherish, and stick on to the refridgerator.
Here comes the sad part: my first pregnancy had to be ended after an ultrasound scanning. I still remember the scanning event as one of the worst moments in my life, the nurse, then the doctor looking over and over again to see what was wrong. I still can’t look at ultrasound images without felling slightly sick. During my next pregnancy (which was perfectly normal) I refused to look at any ultrasound pictures, only after having been convinced by the nurse that everything was OK.
What is my point? Maybe I feel that the scanning event has become too much of a spectacle. That the monitor visible to the parents maybe shouldn’t by default be turned on? That ultrasound should be viewed as what it is: a medical instrument crucial to discover anomalies in an early stages of the pregnancy – not an encounter with your future child. These encounters come all along during the pregnancy, as Thomas wrote, for those who are patient.