Mothering › Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › To "K" or not to "K"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

To "K" or not to "K"  

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
Alright - my mw gave us a sheet explaining what Vitamin K is and why it is normally given along with a waiver we have to sign saying yes we want it or no we don't.

After reading the sheet I'm a bit confused as to "why not"??? I know a lot of people are against it - but if it covers a potential big problem...my thought was to why risk my baby getting said problem? Even if it's a slim chance?

Any thoughts?
post #2 of 42
I think there's always a risk with putting any foreign substance into our baby's body. Though I doubt that there are huge risks, or we'd see more of it by now.

There was a study that linked childhood leukemia to injectible vitamin K, but that was never reproduced even though the studies were repeated.
post #3 of 42
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2...EPHYTON_PI.pdf

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dru...ation/DR202599

There can be adverse reactions. No medical intervention is 100% safe. And I tend to think there is a reason babies have some level of vit k deficency in the early weeks.
post #4 of 42
it is painful, and an injection is a possible site of infection

the real question is, how come mama nature designed us to not make our own vit k until day 8??
post #5 of 42
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=421836 This is an excellent thread about Vit K.

If you will breastfeed, your baby will get the needed Vit K, anyways, why put them at risk of adverse reactions from a shot or oral drops?
post #6 of 42
I am of the thinking that baby is born with reduced levels, and that the Vit K in breastmilk although small is extremely absorbable so why mess with something so perfectly designed :
post #7 of 42
IF the infant has a traumatic injury (circumcision, birth trauma) or clotting disorder, it's supposedly to help the blood clot. I don't know if it's necessary, but that's what I've been told is the reasoning.
post #8 of 42
We didn't do the vitamin K because I feel like my body was designed to perfectly nourish my babies and we don't need man-made substances to help us out. Also I didn't want to put my precious newborns through pain of a shot. I am all for medical care when it is needed, but I tend to steer away from unnecessary interventions.
post #9 of 42
I decided to give ds oral botanical vitamin K. He was born posterior and his head was pretty bruised up. He didn't seem to mind. Every birth/baby is different though.
post #10 of 42

Oral Vit K

We bought the oral stuff and had it on hand, though we were undecided prior to the birth.

I was glad we had it, because my son was acynclitic (his head cocked to one side in the birth canal), and had major molding and caput at birth, so the midwives recommended it. We started it within the first hour and then redosed it as recommended.

Its a good thing they said something because I never would have thought of it. He developed a major cephalohematoma which wasn't really evident until late in day 1 or day 2 or so, and I was very reassured that we had done the Vit K.

"Major" meaning it looked bad, but of course there was nothing really bad about it.
post #11 of 42
Thread Starter 
Wow! Thank you - that was a wealth of information! Thank you for sharing everyone...I am thinking now just having the drops on hand will be fine. I do hate the thought of giving our little one shots - and if the drops work - and they get it in our bmilk anyways...

Thanks again! I appreciate the help!
post #12 of 42
We chose to give Vit K as an injection following our homebirth (I am more uncomfortable with messing with a 'virgin gut' than I am with giving an injection and the research I have read tends to indicate that injected Vit K is more effective than oral). It was not due to particular trauma just because DH felt it was important (More likely DH's mother felt it was important LOL but he was being a stickler) and I had dragged him pretty hard into homebirth to begin with. I did not feel that the risks associated with a Vit K injection were such that I should dismiss his wishes.

On a positive note, it gave me a good opportunity to breach the homebirth topic with our pediatrician (who I called to ask for a scrip for the Vit K shot). I was amazed at how supportive and helpful he and his office were and it gave me an opportunity to take the weight of "will the pediatrician cause us trouble when we show up with a homeborn baby?" off of my mind, which I had definitely been holding onto fear about.
post #13 of 42
Thanks for starting this thread - I'm researching the same issue right now and I was having a hard time deciding.
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2bMN View Post
We bought the oral stuff and had it on hand, though we were undecided prior to the birth.

"Major" meaning it looked bad, but of course there was nothing really bad about it.
Did you purchase the oral vit K through a local health store or online??
post #15 of 42
We did not do Vit K. All mammals are born with low Vit K levels (when compared to adult mammals). There is obviously a reason we are biologically designed to be born that way, and just because we don't understand why does not make it any less valid.
post #16 of 42
You can include alfalfa in your diet either in tea or capsules. It has high levels of vit. k. We did the oral pill-crushed in a little water. No biggie. No shots here. It's not the injection-it's what IN the injection.
post #17 of 42
On the form my midwife gave me there was an option for plant based Vit. K AND simply to wait and see if we thought the baby might need it. I choose the wait and see/plant based. He wasn't being circ. anyway so I didn't think it would be an issue. At two days old, so far it is not.
post #18 of 42
We also waited before deciding to see how the birth went but it went well and he came out perfect and so we declined the vitamin K. I'm thinking that's probably what we will do this time as well.
post #19 of 42
My baby is perfect too. She also was bruised and had a heart defect. Maybe I am oversensitive tonight but I am tired of the "nature is perfect" rhetoric. It doesn't hold up logically and it ends up being kind of

Nature is great, but I also like using my computer. We gave vitamin K because the risk seemed minimal compared to the disorders it is intended to prevent. It was one of the easier risk:benefit decisions we have made so far.
post #20 of 42
Quote:
My baby is perfect too. She also was bruised and had a heart defect. Maybe I am oversensitive tonight but I am tired of the "nature is perfect" rhetoric. It doesn't hold up logically and it ends up being kind of

Nature is great, but I also like using my computer. We gave vitamin K because the risk seemed minimal compared to the disorders it is intended to prevent. It was one of the easier risk:benefit decisions we have made so far.
We all have different opinions here and that's ok. Just because someone's point of view differs from your does not make it illogical. You felt it was important for your daughter to receive the vitamin K and I made a different choice for my babies. I also stated in my first post that I am all for medical care when it is needed. I don't think anyone was saying babies who receive vitamin K are less perfect. The OP asked for opinions and I shared mine. It is what I believe and it is the same thing I told dh when he wondered about whether we should do it or not.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Homebirth
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › To "K" or not to "K"