or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Immunization Action Coalition: Forced Hep B Vaccination?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Immunization Action Coalition: Forced Hep B Vaccination?

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
Well this is creepy. http://www.immunize.org/express/issue1082.asp#IACX1

"To be included in the Hepatitis B Birth Dose Honor Roll, a birthing institution must have: (1) reported a coverage rate of 90% or greater, over a 12-month period, for administering hepatitis B vaccine before hospital discharge to all newborns, including those whose parents refuse vaccination . . . "

Including those parents whose parents refuse vaccination. Am I reading that correctly?

If so, why stop at Hep B vaccines? Let's just perform any intervention we want to without parental consent. Docs know best, after all. Aren't some doctors claiming that circumcision is a matter of public health? Hmmmm....
post #2 of 10

I read that differently.  I read it as that they are looking for 90% compliance overall, and the parents who refuse vaxes must be counted in the statistics.

post #3 of 10

I agree with chickabiddy on interpretation.

 

I do think the whole thing is creepy, though.  Hep. B. honour roll?  Certificates suitable for framing?  Ick.

post #4 of 10
Thread Starter 
It looks like that could read either way. But . . . touche. I'll give them the benfitt of the doubt until thy clarify what they mean

It seems really, really odd to mr that in a country with unacceptably high maternal and infant mortality rates, low breastfeeding rates after 6 months, and large numbers of hospital-acquired infections and iatrogenic deaths, that routine, assembly-line neonatal Hep B vaccination is somehow THE priority for these people . . .
post #5 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

It looks like that could read either way. But . . . touche. I'll give them the benfitt of the doubt until thy clarify what they mean

It seems really, really odd to mr that in a country with unacceptably high maternal and infant mortality rates, low breastfeeding rates after 6 months, and large numbers of hospital-acquired infections and iatrogenic deaths, that routine, assembly-line neonatal Hep B vaccination is somehow THE priority for these people . . .

Let's not forget the fact that all pregnant women are already routinely screened for hepB infection, which provides the necessary information to determine which infants might actually be at risk.  

post #6 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

Let's not forget the fact that all pregnant women are already routinely screened for hepB infection, which provides the necessary information to determine which infants might actually be at risk.  

Well, all pregnant women who get prenatal care are. But not everybody does and so some moms are coming into L&D with an unknown status. Apparently it's too hard to get the hospital to pull these records and see who needs the shot, though, so they just do everybody for expediency. I'm not a fan either. I'm not opposed to the Hep B vax for little kids but I don't think it needs to be started at birth for everybody. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


It seems really, really odd to mr that in a country with unacceptably high maternal and infant mortality rates, low breastfeeding rates after 6 months, and large numbers of hospital-acquired infections and iatrogenic deaths, that routine, assembly-line neonatal Hep B vaccination is somehow THE priority for these people . . .

They get a lot more "bang for their buck" with an initiative like this, that doesn't require a lot of resources to implement and relies on hospitals using procedures they already have, and doesn't require them to address multiple different challenging cultural factors, some of which would require large-scale campaigns on their own. 

post #7 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

Well, all pregnant women who get prenatal care are. But not everybody does and so some moms are coming into L&D with an unknown status. Apparently it's too hard to get the hospital to pull these records and see who needs the shot, though, so they just do everybody for expediency. I'm not a fan either. I'm not opposed to the Hep B vax for little kids but I don't think it needs to be started at birth for everybody. 

 

 

They get a lot more "bang for their buck" with an initiative like this, that doesn't require a lot of resources to implement and relies on hospitals using procedures they already have, and doesn't require them to address multiple different challenging cultural factors, some of which would require large-scale campaigns on their own. 

But that's akin to treating all babies as "crack" babies because they don't know the status.  It's ridiculous. They can check moms for hep B status in L&D, and then vaccinate only the babies of the mothers who test positive.  And they can stop threatening the mothers who already tested negative for hep B, and who don't want their newborns vaccinated.

post #8 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

But that's akin to treating all babies as "crack" babies because they don't know the status.  It's ridiculous. They can check moms for hep B status in L&D, and then vaccinate only the babies of the mothers who test positive.  And they can stop threatening the mothers who already tested negative for hep B, and who don't want their newborns vaccinated.

Taxi, I'm not disagreeing with you in not favoring the routine neonatal Hep B vax. I could speculate on why hospitals might not want to have to pull files to figure out which laboring women to draw blood and run blood tests on and worry about the blood tests coming back in time to vaccinate the appropriate neonates, though. I wouldn't think it would be so hard, though, to exclude the neonates of mothers who have already had the tests done. 

post #9 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

Taxi, I'm not disagreeing with you in not favoring the routine neonatal Hep B vax. I could speculate on why hospitals might not want to have to pull files to figure out which laboring women to draw blood and run blood tests on and worry about the blood tests coming back in time to vaccinate the appropriate neonates, though. I wouldn't think it would be so hard, though, to exclude the neonates of mothers who have already had the tests done. 

NOPE!

 

it's really easy and in my state IF you have not been tested by OB for strep you are FORCED to be put on antibiotics immediately after birth at most hospitals, so if they wanted to do this testing for Heb B, they WOULD - the large majority of hospitable (even the small ones in my state) require a paper trail - they have your file and or birth plan - if they don't they automatically test your blood upon arrival and they could just throw in Heb B - super easy!

post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

Taxi, I'm not disagreeing with you in not favoring the routine neonatal Hep B vax. I could speculate on why hospitals might not want to have to pull files to figure out which laboring women to draw blood and run blood tests on and worry about the blood tests coming back in time to vaccinate the appropriate neonates, though. I wouldn't think it would be so hard, though, to exclude the neonates of mothers who have already had the tests done. 

You wouldn't think it would be, but...when I requested to delay (not skip, just DELAY) the birth dose, and got pediatrician approval, with a HUGE special note on the chart, the hospital nurses still gave baby #2 the hep B shot.

 

They tried to give baby #3 one, too, except I wouldn't let her out of my arms unless she was in dh's arms.

 

And yes, I was negative for hep B and the nurses knew it.

 

It shouldn't be hard at all.  But every way you turn, it's made impossible.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Immunization Action Coalition: Forced Hep B Vaccination?