Monica's AN24 monitors unborn child's heart remotely
While Monica Healthcare's AN24 fetal / maternal electrophysiological monitor won't go down as the first device to take a pulse on one's heartbeat outside of the hospital, it is being dubbed the "world's first" device to allow "mother's-to-be to keep a regular check on their baby's heartbeat without having to go into the hospital and be attached to a machine." The pocket-sized device operates on battery power, weighs under 100-grams, and specializes in "non-intrusive passive monitoring." Moreover, it can detect and differentiate between the mother and the baby's signals, and can transmit real-time FHR / MHR analysis data to via Bluetooth or USB to any applicable handheld / PC. Notably, the AN24 has gone from "a research device into a medically approved product in only two years," and if the EU testing continues to go well, the company expects the device to hit the market in the October timeframe.[Via MedGadget]
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets, Wireless
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bman21212 @ Apr 28th 2007 11:31AM
By unborn child, you mean fetus right? That would be the correct term.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unborn%20child
vs
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fetus
boatboy @ Apr 28th 2007 1:34PM
Only if you're not smart enough to string more than one word together, bman.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unborn
plus
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/child
1 a : an unborn or recently born person
jd @ Apr 28th 2007 12:39PM
..and "fetus" comes from the Latin meaning "young one" or offspring.. so Unborn Baby is TOTALLY correct!
Ever been to a "fetus shower"?? NO!
Matt Brundage @ Apr 28th 2007 2:05PM
It's only an "unborn child" if the mother wants to keep it. Otherwise, it's a "nonviable tissue mass."
Josef F @ Apr 28th 2007 3:45PM
Hey, I'm as pro-choice as the next guy, but it stands to reason that if a woman is using a device like this to monitor a fetal heart rate, she *probably* wants to keep the baby. So even by your (rather bombastic) argument, "unborn child" is probably appropriate.
paradroid @ Apr 28th 2007 2:38PM
Yeah, great. Let's have pregnant women worry about their little ones just a little more than they already do.
jd @ Apr 28th 2007 2:59PM
"Ït's only an "unborn child" if the mother wants to keep it. Otherwise, it's a "nonviable tissue mass."
hmmmm.. fails even the most basic logic. Objects don't change because of subjective opinions about them. A tree is a tree whether I want it to be horse or not.
We have already shown that fetus is in fact defined as unborn child.
So, go out and enjoy those "baby showers" everyone!!
nikster @ Apr 29th 2007 4:13AM
paradroid: spot-on. they will still buy it though.
Ben @ Apr 29th 2007 6:44AM
I'm with you paradroid. Without doubt, the main thing this will offer is maternal (and paternal) anxiety. There is no way that foetal heart monitoring by lay people could lead to any increase in safety. Sure the tech is easy to implement so it's not surprising someone is marketing this product, but the reality is it will lead to a lot of people not being able to find a heartbeat that's there.
Daniel Breslan @ Apr 29th 2007 2:09PM
Wow, my lecturer from university works on this product!!! aweosme :)
Ed Mullen @ May 5th 2007 12:45PM
Unborn children are only valued in Canada if the mother wants to bring them to term. They have absolutely no protection by law, regardless of age or size, or number of months gestation. Therefore, the only market for this device in Canada would be to mothers seeking to protect a wanted child.