New Posts  All Forums:
 

Group B strep

post #1 of 5
9/16/12 at 3:24pm
Thread Starter 

I am 38 weeks pregnant and just got tested for group b strep and told them that even if I did test positive I did not want to be treated with antibiotics and they told me that if I refused my baby would be taken from me right at birth and given antibiotics. Can they do that?

Sponsored Links
post #2 of 5
9/16/12 at 11:11pm

No they cannot. Who told you that? Call the patient director or what ever they are called and get all the information fromt he hospital before you go. They will probably keep you and the baby jsut ot make sure the baby does not have a response. They also might want to put the baby in the nicu for observation. Do your research and figure out what the laws and rules are. They could also get cps and social workers involved. I would def look it all up.

post #3 of 5
9/17/12 at 12:39pm

Yes, they can if they consider the care to be necessary for the baby to live. There have been precedents that have been upheld legally that pediatricians and neonatologists have the legal responsibility to give life-saving care to a baby even if the parents refuse. There was one case that was upheld in court where the parents literally pulled the plug on their baby in the NICU, who was expected to survive. IIRC it was a 32 weeker. The physicians turned the machines back on and the parents sued - and lost. Once your baby is in the NICU, you cannot sign them out AMA.

 

If your baby has no signs of infection, then it is a grey area if they can force antibiotics, but if your baby shows signs of infection, they definitely can.

post #4 of 5
9/18/12 at 8:39am

The CDC guidelines changed in late 2010 - the write-up can be found here:  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5910.pdf  If you look at page 22, you can see the new recommendations. 

 

The new guidelines indicate that the baby is just 'observed' for sepsis that point with no routine diagnostic testing.  If the infant is born before 37 weeks and the membranes have broken for more than 18 hours, then the infant should undergo limited evaluation and observation.

 

Hope this helps.

post #5 of 5
9/18/12 at 4:48pm

My DD was born in 2009. I tested positive for GBS in week 37 and refused to consent abx treatment at that time with no hassle. I was birthing with a MW in a BC. After 60 hours of active labor and ruptured membranes for 3 hours, I transferred to the hospital for some pain management and some needed sleep. I birthed my DD 9 hours after arriving {so 12 hours of ruptured membranes} vaginally and refused ABX treatment for myself and her--we were never treated at any time. There was no issue at all. Why would there be? This is a prophilactic 'treatment' it isn't as if ALL babies born to GBS+ women are going to contract GBS infection without ABX. In fact, the incidence of infection is VERY low and the incidence of serious reaction to the ABX given is higher. 

YOu have a right to informed refusal for this for yourself AND your child. Parents are legally allowed to make health care decisions for their children without having to consent to everything medical staff suggests and if you are being bullied into believing otherwise than I suggest you think long and hard about finding a new place to birth where your health care decisions will be respected and honored. 

YOu also do not have to let them take your baby to NICU. You have rights as parents. 

Bottom line: try to find a new care provider ASAP or a different location to birth at.