Vit K eye ointment and the law

[jannk]

Hello -
I am pregnant with my second child. My first is not vaccinated. However, when he was born I was not informed on the vit K and the eye ointment administered at birth - both of which he received. I just asked my midwife what my options were in regard to refusing these medical procedures. She said I was allowed to refuse (in New York state) but that they were required to report this to the Dept. of Child and Family Services who where it will be put on record and that they'd probably call to discuss. For my first, I've basically just tried to fly under the radar in terms of not vaxing him. My concern is that I don't want to raise any red flags and while I don't want these administered they are the least of my concern. I do still have to research these more though. My question is this: is it worth it to have these administered (I can delay them for up to 1 hour) so as to avoid being identified as the delinquent / abusive parent the state will assume me to be?
Thank you!

[Emmeline II]

I would read the actual law yourself and see exactly what providers are required to do; I believe that NY requires a religious exemption to "legitimately" deny these things. Check vaclib.

[amnesiac]

Since this isn't about vaccines I'm moving to B&B.

[khaoskat]

If I remember correctly, you can tell them that instead of the eye ointment that you are going to do breast milk in the eyes. The antibacterial qualities of the bm will do the same thing as the eye ointment (as it is an antibacterial).

I had wanted to decline with DD2, but they did it while I was in the OR and before DH could say no.

[mwherbs]

the case reviews done by the health department in NY state on the numbers of babies who had HDN, LHDN or other types of hemorrhage that were attributed to low vitamin K levels in babies who were not given vitamin K at birth in New York state were at a high rate something like 2 per 1000- this is a very high rate much higher than you will read about in many other countries but this rate does exist in a few places- so they decided to make very clear statements about requiring vitamin K with good reason because babies who have hemorrhages from low vitamin K 2/3 will have a brain bleed before other symptoms show up, of the ones that do survive they could still end up being children that the state will have to help care for.
other things to consider - how much vitamin K do you eat daily? are you considering forgoing something supplemental for your baby that you are deficient in yourself? in countries where there are very low incidence of vitamin K deficency bleeds in babies that don't commonly get supplemental vitamin K- mom's intake is about 230 micrograms/day throughout pregnancy and during postpartum- average daily intake in the US women of childbearing age is about 45-50 mcg/day ---

[AlexisT]

New York State is an exception. There are no exemptions for Vitamin K and eye ointment, and by law the Vitamin K must be given parenterally--no oral. Khaoskat, the law reads as follows:

12.2 Precautions to be observed for the prevention of purulent conjunctivitis of the newborn. It shall be the duty of the attending physician, licensed midwife, licensed nurse or other authorized provider in attendance at a delivery to place into the eyes of the infant, on delivery, an agent effective for preventing purulent conjunctivitis of the newborn, such as tetracycline or erythromycin eye preparation or a one percent solution of nitrate of silver.

Now, you could argue that breastmilk is "an agent effective for preventing purulent conjunctivitis" but I don't think most hospitals will accept that.

In NYS, DCFS will take custody and do the procedures. Some home birth midwives will overlook the law. If you are in a hospital, they almost certainly won't. As far as I have ever read, you can't refuse, and your midwife is wrong. THis topic comes up periodically on MDC.

[Pyrodjm]

Originally Posted by AlexisT

New York State is an exception. There are no exemptions for Vitamin K and eye ointment, and by law the Vitamin K must be given parenterally--no oral. Khaoskat, the law reads as follows:

In NYS, DCFS will take custody and do the procedures. Some home birth midwives will overlook the law. If you are in a hospital, they almost certainly won't. As far as I have ever read, you can't refuse, and your midwife is wrong. THis topic comes up periodically on MDC.

Another reason I birth at home. You CAN'T refuse these procedures here.

[jannk]

Thank you for all of this information. From what I understand, Connecticut does not require vit K nor the eye ointment. I am considering using a birth center there.

[Mommal]

If you choose to birth in NY, you may be able to administer oral Vit. K instead of the injectable form. (Ask your midwife, obviously- she probably knows how that works out, legally.) Regarding the eye ointment, my midwife winked and said "Legally, we have to put it in. But that doesn't mean it has to stay in- you can wipe it right out again." Another thing you can play with is timing- you might be in a situation where you feel like you need to accept the Vit. K and the eye ointment, but you can (and should) ask that they and all other routine procedures be delayed for an hour or more, until after you and your baby have had a chance to nurse and bond.

[AlexisT]

The law specifies a parenteral dose (i.e. injection), and I very much doubt a hospital would permit oral vitamin K given that restriction. At home, a MW might though.

[wombatclay]

You can request/demand that they wait till one hour after the birth. In all three of my births (two different NY hospitals, three different providers) there was no "push" by staff to do it right away, although there is a legal time limit. In two cases the eye goop went on the closed lids of a sleeping babe, in one case I nursed through the shot (the other two slept through the shot).

[claddaghmom]

I had no idea!

[wombatclay]

Yeah... it falls under public health instead of vaccination, so there is NO exemption process. There used to be, but no longer. Of course, a parent can refuse (and I know some who have) but the hospital/care provider is required by law to report this. And there is no legal repurcussion for a hospital/provider that administers the goop/k against parental request or without parental notification.

Apparently there is one province in Canada with a similar hard nosed approach to eye goop/k. It showed up in one of the other discussions on this topic.

[NonnaYolanda]

Vitamin K injection and Antibiotic Eye Ointment for Newborns

Hi, I am a pediatrician, mother, grandmother. I am reading these forums to learn things, like about elimination communication, something our first grandchild started late, and also to learn people's issues about things that I encounter in my practice.

I can understand people objecting to antibiotic eye ointment from the standpoint that it is used to prevent problems from gonorrhea and chlamydia, two sexually transmitted diseases. If you know you have there is NO chance you or your partner have contracted either of those diseases, then you can make a case that it is unnecessary. However, my question is, since the diseases can cause blindness, severe pneumonia, etc, why is their prevention met with such hostility?

The vitamin K prevents brain hemorrhages! My goodness! Why is that administration of a vitamin felt to be so awful? Please, enlighten me.

I really want to know what is so upsetting. I am not asking rhetorical questions.

Please don't leap on me like I am a mean rotten person. I am anxiously awaiting our second grandchild within the next two weeks. I have two wonderful adult children. I have been a pediatrician for a long time. Shoot, I left med school in 1973!! Most peds want to help people and are as concerned as you are about children.

So, do let me know your concerns. It would help a great deal.

[jannk]

NonnaYolanda - I really respect your inquiries. My concern is administering unnecessary medications that have side effects. Here is a concerning article siting a link between increased rates of cancer in children to vit. K and an option of a safer alternative.
In terms of the eye ointment, I know that it interferes with the baby's ability to nurse which for me, is of great concern. And as we know, antibiotics come with their own set of side effects.

"Are Vitamin K Shots Necessary?
Randall Neustaedter, OMD, LAc, CCH

Injected vitamin K ran into a problem when researchers in 1990 noted an increased incidence of childhood cancer in children given vitamin K injections at birth. Specifically, they found that injected vitamin K doubled the incidence of leukemia in children less than ten years of age. A subsequent study in 1992 revealed the same association between injected vitamin K and cancer, but no such association with oral vitamin K. These researchers recommended exclusive use of oral vitamin K.

[zjandosmom]

For my last birth I asked my mw to test my for the STD's so that my child would not need the 'eye goo'....I knew I had no such diseases. For the vit K I decided that if it was a boy we would not circ so it wasn't nec but if the birth was 'traumatic' in a way that we or the mw felt blood clotting could be an issue we would consider the shot. We ended up not needing either thing and are happy with our choice. We live in GA.

[wombatclay]

Heyla NonnaYolanda! I don't think anyone would call you rotten for asking an honest question! (if they do, please let me...or another mod... know.)

Vitamin K injections seem at first glance to be a "no brainer"... a simple solution to a potentially fatal complication. But a closer examination of the subject shows it's not as clear cut. There is no totally benign intervention, especially in a newborn infant, and there is always a risk that needs to be weighed against a benefit. Mothering and MDC encourge people to make informed decisions and search for natural approaches first. From the user agreement:

Mothering.com is the website of natural family living and advocates natural solutions to parenting challenges.

Many women prefer to avoid any "routine" interventions and instead take a "wait and see" approach (using the shot after a difficult birth or when bruising is apparent for example and choosing an oral vitamin k routine or nothing after a gentle birth).

You may be interested in browsing some of the vit K articles provided on the main Mothering website.

newborn decisions
alternatives to vitamin k

As well as the following articles or databases:

Vitamin K Controversy? (this has a nice overview from a "no k" perspective)

Administration of Vitamin K to Newborns (This has a nicely balanced review of the literature as well as discussion by medical professionals, you may have some of the publications referenced if you'd like to read the original studies. It's also the site referenced by Dr Jay Gordon and linked on his website so you may have clients using this resource).

Please keep posting and asking questions! And congrats on your soon to arrive grandchild.

[MegBoz]

Originally Posted by wombatclay

There is no totally benign intervention, especially in a newborn infant, and there is always a risk that needs to be weighed against a benefit.

Well put, and basically what I was going to say. If I know DH & I don't have STDs, why on earth would we "just do it anyway"? That just doesn't make sense to me. I'm not going to take "precautions" against things I'm certain are not even a risk anyway.

If I lived my life that - taking precautions against things which were absurdly small risks or not a risk at all, I'd never leave the house!

As for the vit K, I think it's just a matter of trusting natural processes. I don't think interventions & medical procedures are necessary for healthy people! That includes newborns. I'm happy to turn to medicine when problems arise, and my DH & I do normal screenings, like PAP smears, skin examinations for DH with his family history of skin cancer, dental cleanings, etc.

But we don't see any need for any medications or procedures without due cause. Heck, I don't even believe in taking vitamin supplements without cause! (Although I did take prenatal vitamins.)