Originally Posted by staceychev
But I feel really strongly that implying that only children "at risk" should be tested is wrong. There's this feeling among the public, especially in the suburbs and higher socioeconomic brackets, that impoverished inner-city children who regularly gnaw on windowsills are the only kids at risk of lead poisoning. It's not the case. I'm constantly encountering people who are shocked at my daughter's lead poisoning, as if "people like us" don't get lead poisoning and it must be some kind of fluke.
I am soooo thankful that we caught our daughter's elevated lead levels early, so that we had plenty of time to do something about it. The blood draws were stressful for all of us, but we endured it to keep her healthy. And finding it early meant that we could treat it with iron supplementation (done largely via diet and cast iron cooking), and by taking the time to thoroughly clean our house. She did not have to endure anything invasive like chelation. She did not experience any developmental delays.
I totally understand your feelings about all the public health requirements that are placed on babies and kids. For many of them, you can easily ascertain your own risk level and make an educated decision to decline.
But it is very hard to know whether or not your child has been exposed to lead, and whether or not that exposure lead to a dangerous level. For me, I see it as having the same level of importance/benefit as the newborn PKU test, which can tell me something about my baby that I would not be able to know on my own, and with enough time for me to do something about it. If you decline the PKU, then I guess that argument won't hold water with you, but it's how I feel.