So, I'm not overly worried about it hurting baby's eyes, but in a hospital especially, the concern is unnecessary exposure to antibiotics. However, for me, this is probably not the hill I would die on.
That said, I am incredibly uncomfortable with the oft-repeated, "Well, I KNOW that I couldn't possibly have an STD" reasoning that I hear all the time.
Now, say you got pregnant via IVF, and haven't had any sexual activity since then. Or say you were just tested relatively recently and haven't engaged in sexual activity since then. Okay. But that's not usually who is making this statement, because it almost always comes along with "I am 110% sure my husband isn't cheating on me."
I don't know what the thought process is here. Defensiveness? At being treated like "one of those" dirty people? At the fact that all women are sort of guilty-until-proven-innocent? But what of that "guilty?" To me, that speaks of there still being more stigma on STIs than almost any other health issue. People don't react in exactly this way about lots of veiled "accusations" surrounding many of the standard procedures of hospital births-- and many of those procedures don't have anything to do with the behavior of another adult who is completely out of our control.
I mean, I kind of do get the indignance at being assumed "contaminated." Frick, that's the general problem with the standard of care in hospital birth-- to treat everyone like a worst case scenario and a disaster waiting to happen. And it's certainly not as though some docs and nurses don't roll their eyes and get schoolmarmish with you-- "Honey, no one ever REALLY knows for sure."
I mean, kiss my butt.
People cheat. Even partners you'd never suspect, even partners who appear devoted, who only leave your side to work-- or maybe who work with you! And it is more common during pregnancy.
That doesn't mean we should go around suspecting everyone!
But if 20% of partners cheat during pregnancy, then even if your chance is a mere 1/4 of the average, it's a 5% chance. If your chance is 1/10 the average, it's 2%-- higher than the failure rate of BCP, and we all know someone who got pregnant on the pill.
Of course, the chances of a partner cheating AND infecting you with one of these diseases is significantly lower than that, so if you want to work out the numbers-- or not-- and you don't want the ointment, fine. If you just don't want the ointment for any reason-- fine! Statistically speaking, this is one of those things where the likelihood of a good outcome is extremely high no matter what decision you make. Even if your overall risk of Something Bad doubles in one case or the other, it may be similar to the risk of getting injured driving a mile to the grocery store at 10 mph vs. the risk at 25 mph. Your risk is probably 2 or 3 times as high going 25 mph, but the overall risk is tiny. In the case of the ointment, overall risk is higher-- yet still pretty danged small.
But it kind of chafes me when people talk about being 110% sure that their partner hasn't cheated on them. THAT's what I'm talking about in this context, not necessarily the ointment or even the chance of having an STI.
I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but it does chafe.
I'm FAR from the most rational or logical human being on the planet, but "My husband would never cheat on me" is not a good way to assess health risks. IDK. Just saying.