Did you decline 12 month bloodwork? - Page 3

[ChristianMomOf2]

With the new Fisher Price recalls for lead based paint in kids plastic toys made in china... I'd do it...

[aussiemum]

I've never heard of a 12 month old having routine blood draws! But I did have my 6 month old (in 1999, in the UK) have blood drawn done for FTT....the procedure was horrrific, tbh.

Without reading the replies, are you sure you want your bub to go through a blood sample testing at such a young age? :

I'll come back to this soon, as I am so not a fan of routine baby blood work.

But it is late at night here, so give me a few hours to gather my argument, okay?

[nabigus]

We don't do well baby visits, we're not vaxing yet, we pretty much don't see a doctor. Plus I'm terrified of needles. All that said:

We absolutely absolutely did the blood draw for the lead test. I'm not a fan of fear mongering, but I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that lead IS scary stuff, more so because a) it can have long-term effects, b) you can't tell your child has been exposed, c) some things are just random, even if your house is plastic free with no lead paint.

And there are lots of things you can do to help make sure it's not a terrible experience for your dc. We went to a pediatric lab, so someone who does this all day long took his blood with a butterfly needle. We made sure he had eaten throughout the day and had had a ton of water. I sat him on my lap and we sang songs and talked. He didn't cry at all and seemed more curious than anything else.

And I would recommend a good draw over a bad finger stick any day, ALSO because it's more accurate.

[sweettalker]

We had the lead testing done, absolutely. You can call it fear-based reasoning, and you might find it empowering to reject a test to make some statement against our fear-based culture and prevent what you think is unnecessary harm to your child. But the facts are that lead poisoning is very very harmful to kids, a small amount can cause a lot of damage, and IMO, the "cost" of one blood draw cannot be compared to the damage that lead poisoning can cause. And as stacychev said, she still doesn't know from where her dc got her lead exposure.

Sometimes precautions are worth it.

[Ellien C]

We were not offered a 12-month blood test but I asked for lead testing because we are at-risk. In fact, our whole city has high lead levels for too many children. I had to go to a separate lab on my own to get it done. I didn't end up going until she was much older. It's all OK and she had no lead problems, but it would have been better for me to have gone earlier. Then if she did have a problem, I would have had a baseline for what it was at 12-months.

I would look into your risk factors for lead and make a decision on that. I've never worried about anemia.

[gretelmom]

Originally Posted by DklovesMkandJK

Jack's Pedi (who was mine pedi and more like family than anything else, I feel is a pretty reasonable guy - understanding of AP and very supportive of us leaving J intact) advised us to get 12 month bloodwork for Jack.

He said it was to check for lead and anemia. I was on the fence about it until he said that it was only two vials and he would only have to be held down for a minute. I'm a pretty big fan of minimizing any pain and just couldn't put him through it considering it was a 'just to check' thing versus something he really needed. (so far he is up to date on vaxes and Pedi feels really strongly about that - I am starting to do research)

Anyway....long story short - did anyone else decline the bloodwork? Did you do it and are glad you did?

(It's only coming up now because our next well baby check is coming up soon and I have the sneaking suspicion it's going to come up!)

I just heard an amazing show on lead poisoning on NPR. There's been significant research to show that the increased levels of violence in America can be tracked to the increased levels of lead in our environment (I think this was last week on Diane Rehm if someonewants to look more specifically). That children who have been exposed to lead (even the smallest paint chip dust ingestion or water through pipes, etc) may not show signs right away but has a tendency toward more violence as time passes. Supposedly there are things they can do to treat exposure, but the longer it's in the system the more irreversible damage is done.

To me, just personally, I would want to know since the effects of lead are so intense and damaging.

Also, unlike many other things pediatricians do "routinely" there are no long -term effects of a blood draw, nothing is left in the body like a vaccination, nothing is removed that isn't replaced quickly, like the foreskin doesn't grow back.

Go to a lab that does a million draws a day, like at a hospital. They're sooo mch faster andmore painless!

[huggerwocky]

Why is this done? I've never heard of such a routine blood drawing from any other country.

[alegna]

We don't do WBV at all....

-Angela

[riverscout]

Originally Posted by huggerwocky

Why is this done? I've never heard of such a routine blood drawing from any other country.

It's not routine throughout the US as a whole. It is generally only routine in certain areas of the country where there is a higher risk of lead poisoning (urban areas, lots of older homes, etc.). However, it is an option elsewhere.

[wombatclay]

Why is this done? I've never heard of such a routine blood drawing from any other country.

Lead testing is often part of a state mandate for children's health, but it is also part of the medicaid system. Different states and counties within each state do it differently. For example, in parts of MA lead testing is part of the pre-school enrollment process while in my region of NY all doctor's offices and health services (like medicaid, WIC, home health visitors, etc) are required to offer testing at 12 months and 24 months...there are even posters and banners in public buildings ("first at one and then at two, testing for lead is what we do").

Many state testing programs began in the early 90's...here's a readable/quick look at the reasoning behind the MA state mandate (http://www.chmed.com/mod.php?mod=use...05&page_id=108 ). From that page:

In actuality, routine screening of children for this hazard is simply good medicine. This has been well known in the scientific and pediatric communities for over 25 years. Lead is by far the most common and important environmental toxic hazard affecting the health of children in the USA today.

Overt symptomatic poisoning with lead can be quite a dramatic event. It often involves irritation of the brain with vomiting, convulsions, and coma. Fortunately, few kids nowadays get to that point. The prevalent form of Lead Poisoning today is quiet and insidious. It produces symptoms which are subtle (irritability, personality change, sleep and appetite disturbance) if they are present at all. Nonetheless, it yet can lead to marked anemia, developmental delays, poor growth, and permanent impairment of intelligence and learning ability.

A normal lead level is zero. The human body has no use for it at all. One must go to a remote un-industrialized area to find someone with a zero level however. Most of us in the US and other industrialized countries have levels between 3-10mcg/dl, no matter our age. It takes levels above 80 to produce the dramatic symptoms described above, and below 40 a child will usually have no obvious symptoms at all. Unfortunately, the more research that is done the lower the level of lead which is shown to be harmful. We have been essentially unable to find a "lower limit" below which lead can be shown to be "safe". In the '70's we used to define 40 as the "toxic limit". In the '80's that was lowered first to 35, and then to 25. In the late '80's clearly harmful long term effects on intelligence and learning ability were demonstrated even for levels between 10-25. In the early '90's the "legal" definition of lead poisoning was again lowered to 10 reflecting this new medical knowledge.

Previously, testing mandated by the state was satisfied by a blood test known as the "FEP". While not a direct measure of blood lead, the FEP was used for many years as a "screen" because it was cheaper than an actual lead level and was reliably elevated in children whose lead levels were over 25. It could also be done by "finger stick" with accurate results. Things other than lead (notably iron deficiency) can also raise the FEP, so if the FEP was high actual lead and iron levels were then done by venipuncture. Unfortunately, lead levels between 10-25 will NOT elevate the FEP. Our new knowledge of the danger of such levels thus rendered the FEP test obsolete, and it has not been used for the past 5-6 years. We now do actual lead levels.

[elladee]

We absolutely had the lead testing done. Lead poisoning is scary for good reason. We had the arm blood draw done in a lab by a phlebotomist with lots of experience working with kids. I held DD on my lap and it was over quickly. She cried a little, but was over it as soon as we stood up.

[AllisonR]

?? We don't have it. 12 month checkup is weight, height, head circ., and "how is he/she doing?"

[cahwilson]

We had it done today actually. We do not go to WBV's but this was something important to me. It wouldn't have been bad at all, except the first lady missed (a lot) and so dd was quite upset by the time she had to have it done again: . And we were at a hospital where they do it all the time. Dd was fine as soon as it was over though and I will probably have her tested again at 2 or 3 years. I am still a bit upset that it was worse than it had to be. I definitly would not do the finger prick, it goes so quickly from the arm.

[LeslieB]

DS had it done at 9 months old. I was all for the lead test since we were bouncing around from different people's homes in New England. I think a lead test is important since it can be so harmful. We did the iron level test as well and DS's levels came back slightly low. It was good to know, even though it wasn't much of a concern.

[Bunnybee]

Oh my goodness...I'm glad I found this thread! We do live in an old house, (I even told the nurses at pediatrician) and they still said we don't HAVE to test for lead. I skipped it b/c I figured why put DD through that stuuf, it's not like she's eating from the windows or anything. But after reading this I am going to get her tested! Thanks.

[WhaleinGaloshes]

I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said, but we did the lead test at 12 months and will do another at 24 months. It is very important, IMO, for all the reasons others have listed. Lead damage is permanent, life-altering and no warning symptoms are present.

Our experience with the blood draw was a dream. I was not looking forward to it but DD sat on my lap, looked around the room and did not even notice she'd been stuck. I'm not exaggerating, she literally didn't notice. I'm hoping for such a good experience next month but I also agree with a poster above that, although potentially traumatic, there are no risks or long-term effects for a blood draw.

Even if we have a rough go I know we can handle it and there is no doubt in my mind that it is worth it..

[UUMom]

Because we've always lived in old homes that we've renovated, I have done the lead poisoning tests. Lead poisoning can be a serious issue if untreated.

If I had a little one today, I would as well, even if we lived in new homes, given the horror of lead in some toys. Unless I knew for sure that my child has never held a Thomas train or played with anything anywhere, I'd need to know her lead count.

For anemia etc? Not unless the child seemed sickly, and my children haven't and so we didn't.

[ryansma]

We declined. I actually posted about it too. After accessing our risk factors (for both anemia and lead) I didn't feel we needed it. But it contines to be something I am mindful of.

[425lisamarie]

I've never even heard of that!

But no, we don't do doc visits of any kind

[bri276]

yes not only do we do lead tests but iron as well. despite a wonderful diet of fresh fruit, veggies, bit of meat, breastmilk, and grains, DD was SIGNIFICANTLY iron deficient. not just anemic, specifically, the level of iron in her blood was tested and she was well below normal. that can also affect brain development. since then, I've known to limit her calcium intake and after supplementing for a short time, we've modified her diet to increase iron. I would've never known otherwise, as she wasn't sleepy and didn't look pale or get sick.

a simple blood test will not traumatize your child. being deficient in an essential mineral, or having an excess of a poisonous one, may affect the rest of their lives.