Won't let my wife take the HCP class because she's pregnant

[timcar86]

So my wife is finally taking the hcp class at frontier after months of procrastinating. She calls to get some final info on the class and just happens to mention that she's pregnant. They tell her that she has to have a note from her Dr to take the class. No big deal she thinks and calls her doctor's office. After getting a nurse to ask the Dr they tell her no they won't give her a note. Their excuses are the typical anti gun crap like accidents, misfires, blah blah blah with no facts or science to back up the argument. I did some research and couldn't find any evidence for or against shooting while pregnant. Anyone else had any experience with this sort of situation? And before anyone suggests switching doctors, this is a high risk OBGYN office and this will be our 5th and final child so we won't be back after this one is born. I intend to give them an ear full when I accompany her to the next appointment.

[Chucktshoes]

We discussed risks with my wife's OB during her pregnancy and a decision was made to limit her shooting prior to deliver for a couple of reasons. First was the exposure to airborne lead particles on an indoor range. The second was the unknown risk to the child's hearing after she developed ears in utero. Unborn children react to sound stimuli, so there would be an unknown level of risk to her developing ears. If an outdoor range had been available to us it would have changed things, but as we are limited to indoor shooting, it wasn't an option for us. Edited December 14, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[TMF]

So my wife is finally taking the hcp class at frontier after months of procrastinating. She calls to get some final info on the class and just happens to mention that she's pregnant. They tell her that she has to have a note from her Dr to take the class. No big deal she thinks and calls her doctor's office. After getting a nurse to ask the Dr they tell her no they won't give her a note. Their excuses are the typical anti gun crap like accidents, misfires, blah blah blah with no facts or science to back up the argument. I did some research and couldn't find any evidence for or against shooting while pregnant. Anyone else had any experience with this sort of situation? And before anyone suggests switching doctors, this is a high risk OBGYN office and this will be our 5th and final child so we won't be back after this one is born. I intend to give them an ear full when I accompany her to the next appointment.

Quite simply, I'm not a doctor and even if I was I probably couldn't tell you definitively one way or the other if being on a range for an extended period whilst pregnant is harmful to your unborn child. I do know that I wouldn't take that risk. Between the noise and the lead exposure, sorry, not worth the risk. Many things can affect the development of a fetus. I don't think there is enough information out there to say that limited exposure on a range is dangerous, but just because there haven't been studies doesn't mean the risk isn't there. I wouldn't do it. Just wait 'til the baby is born.

[R_Bert]

Water conducts sound very well.  Bodies (unlike ear canals with plugs) are mostly water. Personally, if you have already waited several months, a few more won't hurt. I agree with the thoughts on heavy metal exposure as well as other volatile organics that may be present.

 

It may be OK, but it is not required.  Baby first.

[Guest CCI]

Shooting repeatedly is not safe during pregnancy for two reasons...the decibel level you are subjecting the baby to, and the risk of lead intake through the skin on the fingers while reloading multiple times.

 

"Find a female Police officer, ask her what the department policy is".

Edited December 14, 2012 by CCI

[c.a.willard]

My wife went shooting with me early on in her pregnancy, before doing so the doctor said that as long as it was prior to the ears starting to develop that it should be perfectly safe.  Obviously their are no medical studies to prove or disprove the risks of a pregnant woman firing a gun.  I know the military doesn't  allow pregnant women to shoot or even clean firearms.  Most doctors i can think of would never sign off on that letter, because if they are wrong and there is damage they would open themselves up to a serious law suit. 

[UncleJak]

I guess it would depend on how far along she is. Also, it is only a small shooting test so I cannot see the harm.  I have seen pregnant women at rock concerts, smoking, and drinking. No doctor's note required for that.

[TMF]

I have seen pregnant women at rock concerts, smoking, and drinking. No doctor's note required for that.

That doesn't mean it is healthy for the fetus. That baby depends on the parents to make the right choices to keep them healthy and safe. There are inherent risks to a developing fetus when you introduce lead and extreme noise levels, even only a little bit. One shouldn't require a doctor to tell them that.

[gnmwilliams]

I guess it would depend on how far along she is. Also, it is only a small shooting test so I cannot see the harm.  I have seen pregnant women at rock concerts, smoking, and drinking. No doctor's note required for that.

And we all know how good smoking and drinking is for a child in the womb. Some of them grow up to be the ones I see at Walmart everyday, yelling and screaming at their kids or their baby daddy, wearing pajama jeans showing half their crack or other tid bits that have no reason to see the light of day. Sorry, I'm calm now. Walmart wears on you over time. :)

Edited December 14, 2012 by gnmwilliams

[Guest uofmeet]

I didn't let me wife go to the range when she was pregnant. Not sure if it would be harmful or not, But I did not want to find out.

[UncleJak]

TMF and gnmwilliams have good points. Better safe than sorry. I would be interested in reading if there are any real studies done on this subject.

[TMF]

I would be interested in reading if there are any real studies done on this subject.

I can bet that there probably aren't. It isn't common to see pregnant women on the range. Certainly not enough to be tracked down and studied for an extended period of time. Especially when most doctors worth their salt would advise against lead exposure. Hell, ladies aren't even supposed to eat fish during pregnancy because of concern with mercury levels in the meat. If my pregnant wife can't so much as have a little salmon, I sure ain't gonna have her inhaling lead fumes.

[macville]

My wife's OB said when she was pregnant it really wasn't an issue (except laying on your belly to shoot prone). Handling bullets simply means washing your hands after you load and shoot. 30 seconds of skin contact isn't an issue and breathing it in isn't going to happen if you shoot outside. Even in an indoor range, the ventilation should be good enough that it shouldn't really be an issue. And as far as sound entering the belly...well there is quite a bit of thick skin and fat. Her doctor said that loud noises from a handgun wouldn't bother a baby in the least. In fact, whenever my wife was shooting, she never felt the babies move.

[TMF]

Even in an indoor range, the ventilation should be good enough that it shouldn't really be an issue.

This is not true. Not one bit. Having done lead level tests before and after and indoor shooting course at a very prestigious, well maintained and ventilated range, there absolutely is significant exposure. While that amount of lead exposure is not too significant for a grown human, it certainly would be a risk for a developing fetus. I don't see why anyone would want to chance that with their child.

[peejman]

I'm the nerdy engineer type and researched it considerably when my young'uns came along.  At the end of the day, this specific issue hasn't been studied adequately for me to draw any real conclusions.  Some doctors say "no problem", others say "no way".  So in the absence of real data... better safe than sorry. 

[RobertNashville]

Even if your doctor's excuses are just anti-gun crap, why risk it anyway?  If she's waited until now to take the class it's not going to hurt anything to wait a little longer is it?

[billyscott]

Here's a couple of links I found. I don't understand half of it but it does raise some questions about fetal hearing loss.

If it were me, I'd wait. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8899911

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8040092

[Caster]

Wonder if you could sign up for a private class at an indoor range that rents suppressors? Edited December 14, 2012 by Caster

[TMF]

Wonder if you could sign up for a private class at an indoor range that rents suppressors?

Or just wait. Based on my experience, babies come out eventually.

[Caster]

Or just wait. Based on my experience, babies come out eventually.

True, you don't need a permit to carry at home which is where she should be anyway.


...and don't flog me for "keepin a gal bare foot, pregnant and in the kitchen". That ain't what I meant people, she just needs to be taking good cae of herself in the safest place she can be.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

If memory serves, it HAS been demonstrated that young children's hearing is more easily damaged by loud sound than adult ears. Maybe there would be no ill effect in utero, but OTOH if the child was born and had problems later, one might have to deal with a guilt trip. Children are "unintentionally abused" by ignorance all the time, and it ain't exactly new. I've seen little kids allowed to play and dance standing right in front of giant sound system stacks at outdoor concerts. Gaah. I'm a perfessional and wouldn't go near those stacks without hearing protection. But can you put parents in jail for being dummasses?

 

For instance, back when I was a kid, old farts who had been carpenters or railroad workers or heavy industry workers, were frequently deaf enough you had to shout to talk to em. Both gramps were like that. So now that I've arrived at the same age, inheritance might imply that I ought to be deaf as a post, except the ears still work "pretty good" POSSIBLY because I started protecting them early on? If I'd been slinging a hammer on 2X4's with no protection for 40 years, I'd most likely be deaf as a post by now.

 

Am not claiming shooting while preggers is definitely bad. Just an unknown risk. Like if you are noodling and you don't know fer sure whether there is a catfish or snapper or water moccassin or beaver in that hole, do you really want to stick your hand in there?

 

Here is another possible psychological/developmental hazard that may sound too "touchie feelie" but nontheless is quite possible-- There have been studies of children gestated during times of war and stress, compared to the same populations gestated during times of peace, which show larger incidence of serious mental defect for the children born from anxious moms. Maybe it is an overdose of adrenaline for the 9 months gestation, or maybe something else, or maybe some other factor not directly related to mom's anxiety. But it is enough justification to go out of yer way to keep mom happy calm and worry-free when she is preggers. Dunno, but maybe a fetus could get upset by loud noises during gestation even if the noise doesn't hurt the ears?

Edited December 14, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[kckndrgn]

Guess I don't see the need to wait.  Find a range that doesn't need you to get a note from your doc.  My wife WORKED at a range while pregnant.  Talked to the DR. and she said no problem.  Wash your hands frequent, where a dust mask when needed.  The little bit of time on the range should not be an issue.  Wash your hands immediately after the range time.

 

My son is just fine, no hearing loss (unless you count the selective hearing he has when we tell him to clean his room or be nice to his sister), no mental problems (again, don't ask sister she'll tell you otherwise).

[Clod Stomper]

My wife's OB said that it should be no problem.  I asked specifically because we would be doing some shooting on Independence Day.  It was early in her pregnancy, though.  

 

I would worry less about the noise than the lead levels in an indoor range.  Yes, fluid carried sound very well, but in my experience sound waves don't make air to water transition very well and vice/versa.  Go to a public pool (if you dare) with a bunch of kids screaming.  Dunk your head underwater and it suddenly gets very quiet.

 

One could even try it with gunfire if that doesn't convince you.  A bucket of water and a friend to shoot near you.  

 

And shooting outside, I don't think lead exposure is going to be a real problem.  Inside, probably so.  Just make sure to wash hands after handling ammo and dirty guns.

 

All that said, I recommend not risking it.  Just wait a few weeks.  I wanted to send my wife to a training class last month, but we decided to just wait.  Mostly because of money, but the risk was another (small) factor.

 

Will

[Makiaveli]

 

Here is another possible psychological/developmental hazard that may sound too "touchie feelie" but nontheless is quite possible-- There have been studies of children gestated during times of war and stress, compared to the same populations gestated during times of peace, which show larger incidence of serious mental defect for the children born from anxious moms. Maybe it is an overdose of adrenaline for the 9 months gestation, or maybe something else, or maybe some other factor not directly related to mom's anxiety. But it is enough justification to go out of yer way to keep mom happy calm and worry-free when she is preggers. Dunno, but maybe a fetus could get upset by loud noises during gestation even if the noise doesn't hurt the ears?

 

My wife (the Nurse Pratitioner/Nursing Professor) says this is absolutely true. We took active measures to reduce stress on her etc while pregnant, on the basis of if a lot is bad, a little can't be good.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

My wife (the Nurse Pratitioner/Nursing Professor) says this is absolutely true. We took active measures to reduce stress on her etc while pregnant, on the basis of if a lot is bad, a little can't be good.

 

It is an interesting topic perhaps impossible to ever adequately research, if a lot is bad then a little can't be good.

 

Many things have a U curve. Too much selenium or copper in the diet will kill you, but zero selenium or copper will also kill you, though perhaps not so quickly as huge doses. There is some "optimum level" though in my ignorance dunno if anyone has determined the exact optimum amount. Perhaps the exact optimum depends on individual metabolisms, and a ballpark is as good as you can do?

 

One interesting study I read some years ago-- May have been BS or perhaps invalidated by now, or not. Population health studies versus environmental ionizing radiation levels. That too surprisingly followed a U mortality curve though the U minimum was fairly close to the origin (zero radiation). In other words, at least in these studies, people who live in places with the lowest radiation environments seem to be less healthy than people who live in environments with "slightly higher" radiation. Implying that PERHAPS there is even a minimum level of ionizing radiation that people need, just like vitamins, minerals or sunshine? One proposed explanation was that "just a little radiation" might help activate the immune system. But there are so many possible explanations even if the stat data ain't bogus. Maybe a geography lacking in ionizing radiation also tends to be lacking in essential non-radioactive minerals which geologically tend to accompany radioactive minerals, and the lack of those coincidental minerals are what is measured?

 

Apologies babblin. Just sayin, though it seems pretty solid that a higher percentage of children born of wartime turn out crazy later in life, they don't all turn out crazy. Just a statistically significant larger minority of crazies. Wouldn't it be a bitch if further research were to also find that children born of wartime also turn out a slightly higher percentage of geniuses or resourceful leaders? That the war stress widens the bell curve rather than shifting it downward?

 

Or alternately, maybe it is like selenium, where a "little bit" of emotional stress on mom is statistically better than none at all? Though that is probably not much to worry about. The hormones in play virtually guarantee some emotional stress in mom (and therefore in dad) even if external stress is minimal. If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy! :)