By Debbie Irmen, managing editor

A national story which hit the wire service earlier this week hails the advent of 3-D and 4-D pre-birth photos of a couple’s baby.

Such photos seem to be all the rage, according to the story.

Parents like the idea of baby’s first portrait from the womb. It goes without saying that the commercial aspect of such a photo is appealing to retailers. Even many doctors seem to agree the ultrasound photograph poses no risk to either baby or mother.

However, some groups &045; the Food and

Drug Administration in particular &045; say the inutero photos aren’t safe.

&uot;When there’s no medical need (for an ultrasound), it’s risky business,&uot; according to the story. Laboratory studies have shown ultrasound, a form of energy, can physically affect tissue, causing jarring vibrations and a rise in temperature, the article went on to say.

Parents seem unconcerned. The visual of an apparently healthy baby outweighs the potential risk in their minds, they say. In addition, they believe it helps older children bond with their yet-to-be-born sibling.

Ultrasound has been around since the 1960s and there is no evidence the procedure is harmful, say doctors, who add the FDA &uot;takes the most conservative position possible&uot; when considering new drugs or procedures.

Parents must be under the care of a medical professional and have their doctor’s permission to have the ultrasound portrait at such trendy stores at Oh Baby, one of the first to capitalize on the trend. Also, only certified sonographers may perform the procedure and they may not give out any medical information. If a problem is found, the technicians stops the ultrasound and the doctor is called.

Cost of the ultrasound photo is still pretty pricey and many couples may find it prohibitive to have the image taken. Photo packages start at $180 for two 4-by-6 and eight wallet-sized photos. A deluxe package is available for a spendy $400, but includes a CD of photos set to music.

Of course, such fees are set to ensure retailers have the capability to pay back their equipment investment, which runs about $80,000 for the ultrasound machine.

Whatever happened to waiting until the baby’s birth to learn its gender and give it a name?

When my children were born 20-plus years ago, I found out Aug. 3 and Aug. 15 &045; the day they were born &045; what sex they were, and assigned them names based on that information. The suspense of seeing that little bundle of innocence was worth the wait.

Apparently, in today’s society, waiting for anything just isn’t tolerated. I ask: When will such craziness stop? Where do we draw the line in the sand against an overdose of early information? We already take so much of the fun out of life by planning it to death.

With my son, I had an ultrasound early in the pregnancy, a common procedure to ensure the baby’s health. I didn’t want to know my child’s gender. My former husband was convinced he saw a little … well … the baby’s boyhood, if you will, in the blurry image. I wasn’t convinced. Turned out he was correct and a little boy arrived in mid-August. I was content to wait out the pregnancy to meet my child.

Nowadays, it is customary to learn the baby’s gender and many couples expect to be told for planning purposes. I am against the release of such information, except as it applies to the health of baby or mom.

I advocate for the surprise. We have far too few happy surprises in life &045; this should be one of them. I contend if God wanted us to know ahead of time the gender of our babies, he would have provided a process to accomplish such.

(Debbie Irmen is the Tribune’s managing editor. Her column runs each Sunday.)