Why NOT the eye gunk? - Page 3

[Abraisme]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post
Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanQueen99 View Post
This. And I like to see those beautiful eyes without being all goo'd up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcparker View Post
It also interferes with their vision, which is pretty fuzzy and near-sighted to begin with. Why put one more barrier between you and your baby during that sensitive bonding time? Plus, it's been shown that if the baby does get an eye infection in the first weeks of life, they can just do antibiotics at the time that there's an actual indication for it, and the outcomes are still very good.

That sums it up for me too!

[Sailor]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma

Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.

Yes, exactly.

I don't see the point in using medicine "just in case" when there is no problem. Especially since antibiotics kill good bacteria as well. I don't believe in shoving medication or antibiotics at someone (especially a newborn!!) for no justifiable reason.

[MamaMonica]

Moved to Birth and Beyond.

[Famatigia]

Thanks for putting this in the right place. How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

I will not get it, I just wanted to hear some other opinions.

[~Christina~]

How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

My hospital was fine. I made sure it was in my birth plan and that DS stayed in with me at all times so I could remind them. I just had to sign a paper that I declined it.

[XanaduMama]

Originally Posted by Friendlee

Yeah that's exactly why I was looking into it. I couldn't figure out what the point was. But my research said that it CAN prevent lots of yucky bacteria floating around hospitals and that newborn eyes are in particular very sensitive.

I'm still undecided though...

By this logic, you should be giving your baby a topical abx and IV abx too, because yes--anything CAN happen, and being in a hospital certainly increases your risk. The thing about eye infections, though, is that if one shows up, you treat it. There's no more reason to treat it prophylactically than any other potential infection.

[smeep]

Originally Posted by Asiago

I do wonder about the permanant hospital tubs though, how they are sanitized. Heck, you figure women are warned about pedicure tubs that are running water, apparently basins/foot baths that you dump out are easier to clean efficiently.

Sorry to get off track but just making a comparison.

I birthed at a freestanding birth center and my midwife was scrubbing that tub like crazy as we were leaving. Though I somehow wonder if hospitals would be as strict. Even if the rules are, who's to say the person doing the cleaning cares that much.

[AfricanQueen99]

Originally Posted by Famatigia

How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

It wasn't an issue for us - we just stuck it in the birth plan and nobody said "boo" about it.

[nia82]

As mentioned by so many posters before, I was tested for all sorts of STDs in the first trimester and didn't have any - no reason to get the eye gunk.
The nurses in the CA hospital where DS was born didn't bat an eye about our refusal of eye gunk, vitamin K shots and Hep B shots. Some of them liked our decision and felt things are overused. They were especially happy that we didn't circ DS. They were fascinated with the oral vitamin K we gave to DS - tasteless, plant derived vitamin K that works just as well.
The pediatrician on call however was mortified and thought we are dumb, dumber super idiots. He got flustered. Oral vitamin K doesn't work he said. I was like hm how come the babies in Europe don't die from hemorrhages then???? That shut him up.
My sisters live in Germany and had their babies there. Eye ointment is offered to moms with STDs. It is not routine for every child. Vitamin K is administered orally, always. No HepB shots at birth. Yet maternal and fetal outcomes are way better than in the US....

[ChristSavesAll]

Originally Posted by kcparker

It also interferes with their vision, which is pretty fuzzy and near-sighted to begin with. Why put one more barrier between you and your baby during that sensitive bonding time? Plus, it's been shown that if the baby does get an eye infection in the first weeks of life, they can just do antibiotics at the time that there's an actual indication for it, and the outcomes are still very good.

Actually you can skip the antibiotics and just squirt your breastmilk in their eye... colloidal silver works too!

[member234098]

Back in the days when silver nitrate was used, a friend of mine was given a double dose of silver nitrate in her one eye because the nurse was not sure that she got the drop in correctly. Years later in school, my friend was told that she was legally blind in the same eye - just that one eye.

The United States is the only country that does this as a matter of routine for such a long time ... decades ... there are educators that believe that one of the reasons myopia is a bigger problem in the United States is because of the silver nitrate. I do not know if this is true or not. No one knows for sure, and the studies will never be done because there are not enough persons interested in doing such studies.

My personal complaint is why give a drug or treatment for a non-disease? Doctors must simply think that all women have STDs.

[Belle]

Originally Posted by Famatigia

Thanks for putting this in the right place. How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

nak

no problems. didn't even sign a waiver or anything. my hospital birthed baby was born in oregon.

[sunnygir1]

Originally Posted by ChristSavesAll

Actually you can skip the antibiotics and just squirt your breastmilk in their eye... colloidal silver works too!

Lol! I couldn't get any milk out at first! Even later when dd had goopy eyes, I could never "squirt" milk from my breast into her eye...some mamas must be really talented!

I expect that after 27 months of breastfeeding with only 5 pregnant months off that it will come out easier this time around. Well, it always came out easily (leaking) but just not when I wanted it to.

[Beeblebrox]

Just saw this article and thought some might find it interesting:

http://www.drjaygordon.com/developme...ks/eyecare.asp

[Bluegoat]

I'm not doing eye drops, because I think they are silly, for all the reasons mentioned above. Now, at the time they began giving them routinely, a lot more babies were affected by STDs that caused blindness, and it was likely a reasonable idea - though silver nitrate in the eyes is nasty!

I am wary of infections "floating around" in hospitals - I hear about the weird and anti-biotic resistant stuff my step-father encounters at the local hospital regularly, but I think it is better to treat infection when it presents in all but a few cases - I wouldn't wait to have a full blown case of rabies before I got treated, but eye infection is another thing.

I don't intend to get Vitamin K or a sugar test either.

I am inclined to get the baby bathed, preferably just before we leave, or do it myself at that time. I think it is a good opportunity to get rid of any unusual hospital germs before we head home, and a bath isn't an invasive procedure or medicine.

[MegBoz]

Originally Posted by Famatigia

How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

Hopsitals vary WIDELY. Very, very widely. Some will have no problem at all. They'll be attentive to your birth plan (my nurse even bothered to read mine when she showed up for work the day after DS was born!) Others will think you're being silly, but follow your demands. Still others will lecture & pressure you.
Worst of all, they may do it anyway. They may do it anyway because it's "habit" & they are just going about their routine.

The best way to find out what your hospital is like is to take the tour, talk to the nurses, talk to your HCP, connect with other mama's who've birthed there & the local birth community (CBEs, doulas, etc.)

It really varys amongst different hospitals in the US so you simply must find out what yours is like.

[triscuitsmom]

Originally Posted by stella.rose

I would just add that they don't do this routinely in other rich countries. When I moved home to the US and got pregnant for the second time was the first I had ever heard about this.

If mom knows for sure she does not have the relevant diseases, I just don't see any reason this would be recommended, other than as another general "cover your a#$* even if it runs up costs and exposes people to unnecessary intervantions" doctor move.

Not sure what is meant by rich countries but I'm assuming Canada would fall under that category and it is unfortunately very routine here.

So routine that it is against public health law to refuse it. In fact I've had midwives twice and their mandate from the College of Midwives specifically says they do not need consent, do it regardless, just give the information about it prenatally and try and obtain consent but get it done regardless of whether consent is obtained or not afterwords.

There really aren't words for how furious this makes me. Whether I think it's important, neutral, useless or downright harmful it really really angers me that it is not my call (with my partner) to make for OUR baby. :

[mommy2two babes]

Originally Posted by triscuitsmom

Not sure what is meant by rich countries but I'm assuming Canada would fall under that category and it is unfortunately very routine here.

So routine that it is against public health law to refuse it. In fact I've had midwives twice and their mandate from the College of Midwives specifically says they do not need consent, do it regardless, just give the information about it prenatally and try and obtain consent but get it done regardless of whether consent is obtained or not afterwords.

There really aren't words for how furious this makes me. Whether I think it's important, neutral, useless or downright harmful it really really angers me that it is not my call (with my partner) to make for OUR baby. :

I live in the same general area and have had MWs each time.
With DD I had her in the hospital and I was never even told what it was or that they did it during prenatal appts or at the birth. I didn't even know it was done.
DS was a HB and same thing they didn't say boo about it.
This time I am refusing it. My MW ( different practice) told me that if I simply deny tham access to my baby that it won't be done.

[triscuitsmom]

Originally Posted by mommy2two babes

I live in the same general area and have had MWs each time.
With DD I had her in the hospital and I was never even told what it was or that they did it during prenatal appts or at the birth. I didn't even know it was done.
DS was a HB and same thing they didn't say boo about it.
This time I am refusing it. My MW ( different practice) told me that if I simply deny tham access to my baby that it won't be done.

Yeah, that's what my midwives with my first told me too... just refuse access to the baby. The assured me they wouldn't do anything without my consent. My midwife with DS2 told me she'd do it during the newborn exam anyway because she'd have access then and she has no choice but to do it (which is what prompted me to look up the public health law and midwifery position statement).

As it turns out it was moot anyway since I had a hospital birth both times and they don't even tell you they are doing it I'm hoping for a homebirth in the future and am still mad I have no choice since I have no other option for a midwife here (and an OB would do it without even telling me

[Astraia]

Originally Posted by triscuitsmom

Not sure what is meant by rich countries but I'm assuming Canada would fall under that category and it is unfortunately very routine here.

So routine that it is against public health law to refuse it. In fact I've had midwives twice and their mandate from the College of Midwives specifically says they do not need consent, do it regardless, just give the information about it prenatally and try and obtain consent but get it done regardless of whether consent is obtained or not afterwords.

There really aren't words for how furious this makes me. Whether I think it's important, neutral, useless or downright harmful it really really angers me that it is not my call (with my partner) to make for OUR baby. :

My midwife told me that by law she needed to do it as well, but she'd be willing to say that i was noncompliant (so she didn't get in trouble) and no one would ever double check it.

So I was noncompliant and they never questioned her or I about it, so no harm no foul.