or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Toddler › Life with a Toddler › Did you decline 12 month bloodwork?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did you decline 12 month bloodwork? - Page 6

post #101 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiemum View Post

In general I do not like the idea of mandatory blood testing being tied to qualifying for government based help. We are a country of 20 million people, so I would like to think that we can lift everybody up without coercion.
I agree with this. I think that sadly, the gov't's stance has been "make it required, because it's too hard to educate everyone." I was actually told that this was why they started to do Hep-B vax at birth. It's easier to get them when they're already in the hospital rather than to get people to come in for a vax when they're more at risk. Sigh.

My big thing is just to make it known that lead poisoning doesn't always follow the stereotypes, so that parents can make an informed decision for themselves.
post #102 of 160
Quote:
I was actually told that this was why they started to do Hep-B vax at birth. It's easier to get them when they're already in the hospital rather than to get people to come in for a vax when they're more at risk. Sigh.
I recieved this argument, too, from the midwives at the womens hospital when I took DS in to them the morning after his birth (long story). Not to sidetrack this thread, but what a bunch of rubbish! I'm sorry, but you want to vaccinate my 10 hour old for..... convenience?!?

I don't think so.

(and that's even from a mama who has selectively vaxed).
post #103 of 160
We weren't offered it after the questionnaire, but I now think that was naive of them. I hadn't thought of it much at the time myself. I would like her tested now in the light of recent events, but my question is why isn't a hair test sufficient, when it works to detect many other metal/chemical contaminants?
post #104 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiemum View Post
It's okay, you can call me out specifically. I'm just trying to work through this issue too, & as long as we can all remain respectful, it's cool with me.

Yes, of course we have all the lead based product issues that any country would have, but we do have a lower population density overall, so I think that would mitigate the lead levels that you would find in many places. Except, of course, in certain mining & urban areas, where the lead problem has been in the media recently.

In general I do not like the idea of mandatory blood testing being tied to qualifying for government based help. We are a country of 20 million people, so I would like to think that we can lift everybody up without coercion.

I know that I have posted opinions opposite to that stance in recent months regarding indigenous Australians, & I still stand by those opinions. I don't think indigenous children should be subject to mandatory blood tests, either. All children should, however, receive mandatory access to healthy food on a regular basis- it's a human right, imo. Access is the key issue there, imo.
Oh, I absolutely agree with that. I don't think it should be mandatory and tied to food assistance.

As far as that goes, I think the income limits and amount of red tape a person has to go through should be WAY more relaxed for food assistance than for monetary assistance, and that everyone in this country should have access to decent health care for their children that includes EDUCATION about the dangers of lead poisoning so that mamas can make an educated decision for their kids...but now I'm on a whole 'nother thread.
post #105 of 160
I think the "ideal" reasoning behind linking certain tests (like lead) to aid programs is that the children being served by these programs tend to live in situations that elevate their risk... older homes or apartments, urban environments, rural settings that may have fuel contamination in the soil, etc. And due to economic concerns these children may have other exposure risks...for example they may have more imported toys or older toys with higher lead levels. And, sadly, some people may miss the early signs of chronic poisoning simply because they "expect" children in aid programs to be aggressive or delayed or frequently ill...so individual detection of a problem may be missed.

Obviously the cynical explaination ("cause we can", "cause people in aid are somehow less", etc) is there too. But I try to look at everyone in the best light possible. (and I say this as a mama who was on aid for a while when my oldest dd was little)

Personally I appreciate efforts to make lead testing more universal since this acknowledges that lead poisoning is NOT just a problem for certain economic, racial, or ethnic communities. But that's neither here nor there in terms of this thread's central topic!
post #106 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swirly View Post
We weren't offered it after the questionnaire, but I now think that was naive of them. I hadn't thought of it much at the time myself. I would like her tested now in the light of recent events, but my question is why isn't a hair test sufficient, when it works to detect many other metal/chemical contaminants?
Because hair testing is not really reliable for anything other than DNA. There are no standards for hair testing for heavy metals. Results can vary wildly even from a single sample. There are too many external variables (air pollution, shampoo, water).
post #107 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangefoot View Post
I am and just at the title of this thread.

There is no such thing is this country. Lead solder, let alone lead pipework has been illegal here for use with drinking water supplies for over 15 years.

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country? Or would insurers not pay for that? /irony/sarcasm call it what you will
Okay, well, my house was built in 1953. I assume that quite a few other people also live in houses older than 15 years old! So I am quite sure that there is lead used in the solder in the copper pipes in my home, because that's just how it was done in those days. And I'm sure that every building built before 1995 in the UK was not replumbed completely, either. Generally buildings are not required to be changed to comply with new building codes, it only applies to new construction or houses when they are significantly remodeled. (Like if you were installing a new water heater, that would have to be done up to the current code.)

But that's not even the point--plumbing or drinking water is not necessarily even the main source of exposure for lead. There are a lot of sources, as previous posters have noted.
post #108 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by huggerwocky View Post
I was thinking some studies showing that lead poisoning and anemia are not uncommon in 1 year olds and thus showing the need for invasive mass testing I at least don't know of any European country that does itThe year is 1989 in the european union


I wouldn't call it safety conscious, but that's not the point.

No, I don't. unknown genetic/metabolic disorders are common, which is why i support the newborn screen. It's also less traumatic than a blood draw if done properly.

Why don't they test for Mercury then? it looks like testing for the sake of it


That's all good, I still believe mass testing should be statistically justified.
I think it's stretching it to call a fingerstick an invasive procedure!
post #109 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
My child had blood drawn for health reasons, and it was the single most horrific experience of her or my life.

She absolutely freaked. I was holding the baby, and my partner was holding her. He couldn't hold her. The nurses tried everything and eventually had to help him hold her down.

We certainly did not instill any fear in her. We explained what would happen, why they were doing it, and that it wouldn't hurt, but might pinch.

She cried for an hour afterwards. She was scared for weeks to go anywhere in the car. She is still scared to this day to go to the doctor.

My daughter has anxiety issues and is very nervous around strangers.

PLease don't minimize what my child went through or say that it won't traumatize her.

I know of course there is no choice sometimes, and that the tests she had were important for her health, but to say it won't traumatize a child is ridiculous. Just because it didn't hurt or traumatize your child, doesn't mean it will be the same for every child.

One of the things they tested was her iron, and it was fine, so it doesn't concern me.

Also, since the tests are not routinely offered here, and we don't have droves of children with iron or lead problems, I am not concerned.

ALthough this thread has inspired me to bring it up with my doctor when my son goes for his 12 month visit this month.
Really. My daughter has had two surgeries on her cleft palate. I've watched her held down, screaming, for over an hour while they tried to re-insert her IV line because she was dehydrated from refusing to eat because of the pain. She spent the first week of her life having multiple blood tests in the NICU, not to mention the MRIs and various other bloodtests she's been through since then. She is also afraid of doctors, for good reason. I still wouldn't say she is *permanently* traumatized. I save that word for extreme situations. I'm sorry if you felt I was minimizing your child's fear- I realize it was scary for her, that's valid, it's an unusual response to be quite that terrified of one blood test, yet I still wouldn't consider it traumatized in the true sense of the word.

If that is the most horrific experience of her or your life, please consider yourselves extremely lucky.
post #110 of 160
The Dr. (Family Dr.) for ds never brought up any testing for lead, iron or anything. When he was under 12 months, probably around 9 months, I asked about the iron but since they didn't have the finger prink method available I decided drawing his blood just for that wouldn't be worth it, and especially since I didn't have much concern.

Very recently, a friend with a baby 5 months younger got her dc tested when the Ped did a routine lead test. It came back over the "acceptable" limits for lead. Per her Dr. that was the first time in 3 years that this happened. They got their house tested, which came up positive for lead both inside and out. They only lived in this house for 9 months. They were renting so ended up moving pretty fast and got their new house tested before they moved in. With the new house somewhere on the garage floor, tested positive for lead so the new landlord sealed it up prior to them moving in. Just thought I would note that because I found that interesting, I would have never of thought a garage floor would have lead. So anyway, I found out from her that lead tests are often a routine test that is offered at 12 months. I never knew this. While I certainly avoid uncessary medical interventions, to me the benefits certainly outweigh the negatives for this test.

Ds is now 18 months and I am getting him tested for lead. I specifically requested him to. We live in a house from the 40's and with all the recent talk about various toys coming back with positive tests for lead it make me nervous. Although, I would still get him tested just based on the age of our house. Right now, I'm trying to get them to give me an order so I can take him to the local Children's Hospital Lab instead of having one of the Dr.'s techs do it (as I know the tech doesn't draw blood very often from young children).
post #111 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by bri276 View Post
Really. My daughter has had two surgeries on her cleft palate. I've watched her held down, screaming, for over an hour while they tried to re-insert her IV line because she was dehydrated from refusing to eat because of the pain. She spent the first week of her life having multiple blood tests in the NICU, not to mention the MRIs and various other bloodtests she's been through since then. She is also afraid of doctors, for good reason. I still wouldn't say she is *permanently* traumatized. I save that word for extreme situations. I'm sorry if you felt I was minimizing your child's fear- I realize it was scary for her, that's valid, it's an unusual response to be quite that terrified of one blood test, yet I still wouldn't consider it traumatized in the true sense of the word.

If that is the most horrific experience of her or your life, please consider yourselves extremely lucky.
That's condescending. What traumatizing to one person isn't to another.

I'm sorry but comforting my child when she woke up with nightmares about it fits my definition of traumatized. Being so scared that she couldn't get in the car for weeks without freaking, and thus interfering with her normal activities, again fits my definition of traumatized.

You also completely missed my point. Most kids won't be traumatized, but some kids will, and it certainly isn't because their parents instilled fear in them.
post #112 of 160
I'm sorry if I sounded condescending. I have a different perspective, and maybe spending time in the PICU or belonging to groups that have members with severe health problems has affected me. Your definition of trauma is a little different than mine, no need to be offended by that. If I'd had a different child and a different life, maybe I'd feel the same as you. this kind of bantering really takes the focus off the important issue at hand, which are that simple bloodtests for anemia and lead ARE important. I AM sorry that your little girl had such a rough time, as I said, in a failed attempt to mend fences. And by the way, while I certainly believe that some parents make their children unnecessarily nervous about needles by projecting their own fear, I never, never said that's the only reason children are afraid. Clearly, children with anxiety issues are an exception.
post #113 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangefoot View Post
I am and just at the title of this thread.

There is no such thing is this country. Lead solder, let alone lead pipework has been illegal here for use with drinking water supplies for over 15 years.

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country? Or would insurers not pay for that? /irony/sarcasm call it what you will
Amen!
post #114 of 160
This is actually a routine check that ped's choose to do at either a 6, 9, or 12 mos visit and is a finger prick. I am one who doesn't go to a well visit unless I really want to discuss something or have a concern (we don't vax, so its really unnecessary for us). Our ped is also a lactation consultant and fan of AP, and I enjoy seeing her once in a while, though. HOWEVER, I must say that I am glad at 9 mos. I happened to be there when she recommended these finger pricks. Ds didn't even notice the pricks (I nursed him during it) - and we ended up finding out that he had a pretty severe iron deficiency. It took me and the ped by surprise because he is SOOO active and exclusively breastfed until 8 mos. or so when we introduced some foods like banana, avocado, sweet potato, the norms. She was shocked that his iron levels were so low because even though he was born 1 month early and only 4 lbs 13 oz, he is developing either right on or advanced in every area. After further testing, which meant more blood (3 vials taken from his little arm - which I think upset me more than him, he just stared at it), I did tons of research. We think we have it figured out as to why he was low in iron (because that is not typical of a breastfed baby unless other factors play into it) and now I have learned how to include more iron in his diet and getting things into him to help his body create more red blood cells, etc. But, I always think, wow, what if I never knew? Maybe he'd turn out ok in the long run, but maybe he would have suffered learning problems later...we'll never know.

You don't want to wonder what if, yk? Strange things happen and not every child fits into a box. And as far as the risk factors go for lead, I have heard tons of moms say that they were shocked that their child's lead test came back high.

Just do it. It won't bother him and it will give you peace of mind. Both of those things are important levels to know about I think. This is one of those things that is just not a bad medical intervention. We would've never known of his iron deficiency because he wasn't showing symptoms (yet).
post #115 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by becoming View Post
I would definitely decline. I've never heard of routine bloodwork for a 12-month-old. We try to avoid medical procedures all together unless absolutely necessary.

There are cities where there are more lead pipes, and that's why you may not have heard about it, whereas in other cities like Washington DC there's such a high prevalence of lead poisoning in children with no symptoms.
post #116 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by slsurface View Post
Amen!
Slsurface, the sentiment you were applauding was apparently Orangefoot's shocked disapproval of testing, followed by: "Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country?"

My first thought was to wonder if you'd actually read the thread.

My second was to check your location, since in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand the nature of lead exposure. I see that you are located in Michigan. In 2004, the state of Michigan had the following to say about lead poisoning:

Quote:
Michigan currently ranks as the sixth highest state in terms of the estimated population of children with lead poisoning, and the percentage of children found in Michigan with elevated blood lead levels remains higher than the national average. In 2003, more than 100,000 children under the age of six years were tested for blood lead status and 3,141 children were found to be lead poisoned. Another 747 children with preliminary finding of elevated blood lead levels await confirmation of their lead status.

Lead-based paint was in common use for the interior and exterior of houses prior to 1950. Between 1950 and 1978, the percentage of lead in paint utilized in housing gradually decreased, but it was not until 1978 that lead-based paint was banned for use in residential structures. A review of 2000 census data for Michigan indicates that the number of homes constructed prior to 1950 is in excess of one million. Lead poisoning may affect as many as 20,000 children under the age of six in Michigan
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lead_108767_7.pdf

Under the circumstances, I find your attitude inexplicable.
post #117 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrklynMama View Post
...since in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand the nature of lead exposure.
And in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand why anyone would choose not to test.
post #118 of 160
Our DD was tested at 9mo and again at 12mo for Iron. Then at 12mo for Lead. The lead came back a little high, but the doc wasnt that worried cause we have city water(since then we have used a PuR 3 stage filter). But the reason we agreed to the 2 tests for Iron was cause I am VERY anemic and she was 9 weeks early. With those 2 risk factors the ped believed that it was warranted to test her early. She has been through quite a few pokes and draws and been held down and strapped to boards due to her suseptability to infection from a lower immune system as a baby.
We were lucky to find out early that she has anemia and since have been able to control it (first with scripts, and now finally with just an every day multi vit. w/extra Iron).
I am all for tests. We did delayed vaxes because of her immune system and it worked out great.
I think it really doesnt hurt to know. Kids can have blood issues and never know. I was never tested for certin things as a child and now come to find out(I didnt find out till two years ago and I am 24)that I have an Auto Immune Disease that is the reason why I was sick so much as a child. My mother expresses her regrets to me all the time for not having me tested as a child for this.
This is just my experiences and MHO.
post #119 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangefoot View Post
I am and just at the title of this thread.

There is no such thing is this country. Lead solder, let alone lead pipework has been illegal here for use with drinking water supplies for over 15 years.

Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country? Or would insurers not pay for that? /irony/sarcasm call it what you will
Sure you can test your water and many people do but that doesn't eliminate the need to test your child. Lead exposure can happen so many ways that you could spend years testing everything your child comes in contact with and still miss something.


A while back somebody came up with the idea of hunting canada geese and feeding the meat to the homeless. The idea was that they could solve both the goose over population problem and the hungry homeless problem at the same time. After having kill a few geese they decided to test the meat before giving it to the homeless and found that the geese had such high lead levels they were not suitable for consumption.

These geese were not drinking water from lead pipes they were merely eating grass next to roads where for decade cars drove by with leaded gasoline.

If you don't take your shoes off when you enter your house this is the soil you treck in.

Lead comes from too many sources to be sure your child ins't being exposed to any of them unless you have them tested.
post #120 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrklynMama View Post
Slsurface, the sentiment you were applauding was apparently Orangefoot's shocked disapproval of testing, followed by: "Surely it would be simpler to test your drinking water supply for contamination than draw blood from every 12 month old in the country?"

My first thought was to wonder if you'd actually read the thread.

My second was to check your location, since in some cases regional differences account for some people's failure to understand the nature of lead exposure. I see that you are located in Michigan. In 2004, the state of Michigan had the following to say about lead poisoning:



http://www.michigan.gov/documents/lead_108767_7.pdf

Under the circumstances, I find your attitude inexplicable.
I am not against testing per se. Rather, I am against the notion that one solution fits all. I suggest that it is important to be mindful of the environment in which we choose to live. I am aware that there are many contaminants in my area. Arsenic is actually a bigger problem in my town than lead. In addition, before we bought our house, we made sure it did not have lead pipes and tested it for lead elsewhere. If we made these decisions, there may not be the need for everyone to test their child.

As for toys with lead paint. Only a handful have been recalled in the past decade due to lead (and most of those were not meant for infants/toddlers). My dh and I also make careful decisions about the types of toys our ds has. For example, we do not buy toys from China (for moral/economic principles more than anything else).

Frankly, I am just surprised at the level of hostility in this thread. We should be channeling this energy into getting our lawmakers to reduce the amounts of toxins released into our environments and placed in our foods and health products without or knowledge. In the last decade these controls have been repeatedly loosened and are seldom enforced when they are in place. The question of when and whether to test your child is a personal one, just like vax-ing and circ-ing. I don't hold any judgment about whether or not you do any of these things, let's try to be more respectful of each other's person decisions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Life with a Toddler
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Toddler › Life with a Toddler › Did you decline 12 month bloodwork?