The midwife group I'm delivering with either recommends getting the test, and then doing the antibiotics as indicated with a positive. However, one of them said to me that if I were going to refuse the antibiotics, it would be easier for them if I just refused the test. (I assume she's referring to hospital politics.) If I did refuse the test, they would go with the old standard which was to watch for symptoms. So, without the test, they would push the use of antibiotics if I got a fever in labor or had water broken for 18 hours or more. Our current ped. who delivered babies for 30 years both in hospital and home settings said that is a safe set of standards to go by. My only concern is that I can't find anything that says if you are GBS positive if waiting 18 hours after water is broken truly helps rates of infection go down. Studies I've seen say that rates of infection to the baby go down significantly for GBS positive women if antibiotics are given before delivery, and that seems to be all.
Basically, I'm not really comfortable with having antibiotics if I test positive, but I also don't want to risk the baby's health. We had some traumatic early times with our first son, so my husband would be really upset if this kid were to have a GBS infection and I had refused the test. So, has anyone read anything about the rates of infection when the symptomatic standard is used (fever or 18 hours after water breaking)?
Thanks for any input!