Last time I refused most of these...No need for eye drops since I know our std history is all clear...But are there some that you think have real merit...?
Are there any newborn procedures (eye drops/vit k/pku) that you are planning to say 'yes' to?
Similar to Mattie, we are refusing eye drops. We are also declining Hep B (our midwife told us there is no real reason to do this in the hospital so we will just do it with our pediatrician) and we are also not having the vernix cleaned off (if you count that as a "procedure"). We are consenting to vitamin K and PKU.
Our "baby care plan" also says that we want all procedures delayed as long as possible (ideally for first 2 hours) and performed while baby is nursing/skin-to-skin.
I plan on doing vit K and the PKU test. We skipped the Hep B shot with our daughter, but there's an outside chance I might have been exposed to blood-borne illness this pregnancy so we're going to go ahead and get it this time. That leaves us with the eye ointment, which I don't think is at all useful in our scenario but is also the least invasive, so if I'm not arguing with the other stuff I might just let that one go so I have one less thing to wrangle about.
interesting! Sounds like just getting the vit k and the pku, delayed at least 2 hours and done while skin-to-skin, is kind of a general consensus. I am taking alfalfa supplements, supposed to up baby's natural vit k level though, so maybe I could skip Vit K if birth goes smoothly...What about the newborn hearing test..? I think that was one thing that the nurses "had" to take my last baby away from me (to some sort of special room) for...
The only thing we will be doing is the PKU screen. I actually carry the gene and have a cousin who has it so this is obviously important for us. Other than that I have a clean STD panel and have had also havent come in contact with anything that would lead me to need the hep vax. So just the foot prick for us!
I know. I think part of it is that a lot of parents don't care that much if they are separated for a little while in post-partum, and might choose to send baby to the nursery for a little while, so the staff don't get that much pushback against their protocols, and as a result do what is easiest for them. I can understand it but it is a little frustrating to deal with. I honestly probably wouldn't care as much this time if I was having another girl, but I really don't want to take the chance of them taking my son and bringing him back sans foreskin. I know it doesn't happen much these days, but I'm still a little bit paranoid because the stakes are high.
My perspective on hospital newborn procedures has both changed and not changed since watching my friends go through a NICU stay with their micro-preemie. On the one hand, anything that can happen to an average healthy full-term baby seems small potatoes now. On the other hand, their baby had good legitimate reasons for every separation they had, so I'm less inclined to consider "hospital procedure" as a good reason for a separation when looking at that experience as a contrast.
Wildflower - if you aren't already planning to do it, you might want to consider writing up a "baby care plan." Similar to a "birth plan," it outlines the procedures you consent to and those you do not and generally how you want your baby treated. In my baby care plan, I have things like:
- no circumcision
- the various types of procedures we consent to
- the procedures we are declining
- that i am exclusively breast feeding and that no formula/sugar water should be given tot he baby w/o my consent
- that i want the baby to remain with me/us in the room the entire time unless an emergency occurs. And in that case, that I want me/my husband to accompany him/her
Even though you might have all of it in your head, helpful to have it written down and you can just hand it to hospital staff when you arrive.
That's a great idea, Ash. I'll have a little birth plan section, then a little baby care section. We're pretty much in liberal hippyville up here, I don't think more than maybe 10 percent circ in these parts, but you can never be too careful.
I did have one scary thought...Ok, the Vit K sounds not too terrible for babe and potentially important, but...are we sure there are no yucky additives/preservatives in it, like the thimerosil (sp?) in vaccines..?
Ehhh mattie I'm not so sure on the Vitamin K just being "just a vitamin". Here's the package insert (from 2003 - still trying to find a recent one). http://web.archive.org/web/20070213093306/http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2003/03Feb_PI/AquaMEPHYTON_PI.pdf
ETA: Found this too...:
Severe reactions, including fatalities, have occurred during and immediately after the parenteral administration of AquaMEPHYTON* (Phytonadione). Typically these severe reactions have resembled hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis, including shock and cardiac and/or respiratory arrest. Some patients have exhibited these severe reactions on receiving AquaMEPHYTON for the first time. The majority of these reported events occurred following intravenous administration, even when precautions have been taken to dilute the AquaMEPHYTON and to avoid rapid infusion. Therefore, the INTRAVENOUS route should be restricted to those situations where another route is not feasible and the increased risk involved is considered justified.
What are you unsure of in that package insert, JelloPanda? Looks like it's a vitamin with fatty acids (to stabilize the vitamin, which is fat-soluble), dextrose (sugar), water, and benzoyl alcohol (preservative). As for the reactions, there are potential reactions to any drug, and they also note that most of the reactions were when it was infused intravenously, which is not what is happening when the shot is given to a newborn--it's intramuscular
Also, for completeness's sake, you'd want to consider the risks of not getting the shot.
They give an intramuscular shot though, not an intravenous shot.
I found these two articles interesting:
I found that the second one resonated with me a lot more than the first. I am a logical thinker, and am offended by scare tactics, and I just found the pro article to be a well reasoned argument, while the con article seemed full of SCARY BOLD HEADLINES!!!!!!
As far as what is IN the shot, it doesn't look too scary to me.
These are just my thoughts though, and I certainly accept that we will all make our own choices, and do the best we can with the information we have.
Roughly 1 in 100 babies without the vitamin K shot will have "hemorrhagic disease of the newborn," which means they just bleed (often into their brain) and often die or at least have severe complications/brain damage. The bleeding CAN be caused by a trauma of some kind, but very often it just happens in otherwise perfectly healthy babies. When you actually read about it, it is a pretty scary thing.
When you say "1%" it sounds like a very small number. When it happens to your baby I am willing to bet that it sounds like a much bigger number. I know with miscarriage, I always sort of thought, "20% is a pretty small number. Chances are good that this will never happen to me." When I had a miscarriage, 20% seemed like a LOT bigger number.
So if you go strictly on numbers, you are weighing the risk of a bleed (1/100) against the risk that your baby will be allergic to one of the pretty benign things in the shot, or get an infection from the needle, or will experience a momentary pain. I don't have numbers on the allergies, but I'm sure if it was even close to 1/100 they wouldn't be using it. Infection risk is higher if you are in the hospital, but it isn't too hard to keep a needle sterile (compared to an open wound or during surgery which I think is how most of those super bugs get contracted). The risk of a short pain is 100%. Your baby will feel the shot. What you have to decide is if you think this pain is enough to cause them lasting trauma.