or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › February 2009 › Anyone not giving newborn Vit. K inj
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone not giving newborn Vit. K inj - Page 2

post #21 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommabear207 View Post
i'd just like to ask why not vit K shot besides that its an shot? and about the eye goop- it is for what? with a hospital birth -particularly c-section- i believe these are routine so how do you get them not to do it (besides saying lets not and hope they don't claim they didn't get the message). is there a way to replace the benefits of these things? i noticed some of you are planning to up vit k intake in the 3rd trimester -how? and i think i read somewhere there is some sort of risk in increased intake (i'm interested in increased intake for dental health too) is there any truth to it? perhaps it was from taking it pill form? i'm not sure. lots of questions thanks
for vit k:
-the vax is linked to childhood cancers
-only necessary if the baby might bleed internally (like bleeding in the brain due to a bad artificial extraction during birth) or externally (like circ)
-you can always give it to the baby orally if it is of great concern (i wish i knew this with dd1 as we gave her the vax instead)

for eye goop:
-only necessary if you have certain STDS

for bathing:
-the vernix is actually good and protective for the skin. just rub it in and leave to dry. we bathed our first dd when she was two days old and our second dd when she was a week old.

for hep b vax:
-go for a stroll in the vaxing forums.
post #22 of 50

In the minority :)

Some things to consider (both sides of the argument about Vitamin K ):

Actually, the disease that Vitamin K prevents is not restricted to procedural issues, like circumcision or head trauma during birth. The disease that Vitamin K prevents is very deadly, yet rare. It used to be called "classic hemorrhagic disease of the newborn," because it was so common, and countless newborns died from it.

Nowadays many newborns do not need the shot, but honestly, a few do and there's no way to know ahead of time which ones are potential victims, in order to prevent a deadly condition of bleeding on the brain. Yes, procedures could increase the chances, but to claim that a baby who is born vaginally without trauma, and uncircumcised is not at risk is misleading, unfortunately.

And the real issue as I understand it, is that condition is totally undetectable until the bleeding has already started, and by then it's too late. And it happens more often in breastfed babies (because formula's loaded up with Vitamin K). But Vitamin K can prevent it from happening to begin with.

So what about side effects? The main concern is the potential link between the shot and childhood cancers (primarily leukemia). But is the risk of childhood cancer worse than the risk of infant death? That's obviously a personal decision. Vitamin K is a fat soluble vitamin, so the concern is not in giving a newborn a vitamin. It's the level/quantity of that vitamin, and this is something you can speak to your pediatrician about in terms of getting a smaller dosage, etc., and the manner in which it's administered (intramuscular versus intravenous) also plays a role in terms of risk.

In recent years, several studies have came out showing a potential link between the Vitamin K shot (because of the levels, as I understand it -- not just the vitamin itself) and childhood cancers, and that the risks were according to some studies, higher that a baby would develop cancer (which may or may not be deadly, but is certainly scary) than die from bleeding on the brain. But other equally reputable studies came out showing no relationship at all.

So overall the studies linking Vitamin K shots to childhood cancers are not, in our reading, conclusive at all. Some are very contradictory. : Some are very convincing. But pretty much all were very scary, absolutely. In the end, when it came to making this decision for our firstborn, there just seemed to be too many other factors that could be playing a part for us to accept a definite cause/effect between the shot and leukemia. Though I can still understand even the potential connection causing concern, absolutely. And that being enough for some parents to opt not to get the shot.

The main conclusion we came to was that it seemed as if the majority of children who'd had the shot and developed leukemia were carriers of a specific gene that meant they were at greater risk for leukemia. Now could the Vitamin K shot have been some kind of catalyst? I have no idea. Possibly. But I think the argument could be (and has been) made that there are other potential triggers/contributors as well, just as the argument has been made that the Vitamin K shot can be a catalyst.

It's confusing, for sure. And deserves a lot of thought, I think. And as I said, both sides make compelling arguments. So it's not an easy decision to make. But it's not one that deserves automatic dismissal. I urge anyone to research it for yourself and come to your own conclusion, if you haven't already.

We are very proactive about our child's health -- she eats organic, was breastfed past age two, and isn't exposed to flame retardant chems, pesticides, etc. We aren't comfortable with the additives in any available vaccines for her at this age still, so she remains unvaccinated, but we compensate by ensuring healthy habits, including extended BFing, etc. I don't do the flu shot (esp. while pregnant). And so on.

But for us, we ended up feeling the Vitamin K shot did more potential good in preventing a deadly and untreatable disease, than potential harm. And the clincher for us was that we had to cut the cord immediately -- it was wrapped around her neck twice, tightly, and had to be cut in order for her to be born. This was the deciding factor for us in allowing the smaller dose shot of Vitamin K.

---

It's a tough call, though, I know, and I respect both sides of the argument. And will be researching the issue again as it comes closer to time for this babe to be born, to see about more recent studies.

Bottom line: the more research you can do, the better.

My suggestion to anyone who's uncomfortable with the high levels of Vitamin K in the shot is to look to an oral version instead, especially if you're planning to breastfeed. That way the baby is still getting some benefit of additional Vitamin K, but without the single megadose amount that has been linked with health issues. And consider letting the cord stop pulsing before cutting it. Some studies indicate delaying the cord clamping can help.

But taking Vitamin K yourself while pregnant is not effective. It does not pass through placenta in levels that can prevent hemorrhagic disease of the newborn. It does pass through breastmilk, but the levels there are arguable, given that most women's milk doesn't come in for several days post-partum (and how much quantity of Vitamin K carries through colostrum), versus how quickly the newborn needs to be exposed to the vitamin for it to be most effective. Again, there's a lot to consider.

Had we not gotten the shot, we'd have gone with the oral administration instead. It's my understanding the oral is not as effective as the shot unless it's specifically prepared (so be sure to research your source there), however it is far more effective than nothing at all, especially for a breastfed babe, and can be just as effective in some cases. So if you're uncomfortable with the shot, but concerned about the potential risks of the bleeding issues, then the oral might be a good solution for you.

---

We declined the Hep B (not at risk) and the prophylactic eye ointment because I tested negative for the two STDs it treats -- and eye treatment can be made retroactively and be just as effective.
post #23 of 50
Definitely do your research before making a choice. I spent many weeks researching this topic, and some of my research and stats came out a bit different than Renee's. So, the most important thing is to do your research and make an informed choice!
post #24 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larissa View Post
Definitely do your research before making a choice. I spent many weeks researching this topic, and some of my research and stats came out a bit different than Renee's. So, the most important thing is to do your research and make an informed choice!
And I should've pointed out perhaps that the information our previous decision was based on was from 2006. There very well may have been new studies that have come out since which sway the argument more one way or the other. I'm not entirely sure what we'll do this time, but I definitely plan to research it some more just to be safe.
post #25 of 50
We're declining the vitamin K shot ... but I did want to add that our midwife (who has yet to have her own children) is unsure about what she'll do when it comes to her own newborn. I found that interesting. She's considering the oral dose.
She's delivered nearly 1,000 babies and has had one case where the infant died as a result of a hemorrhage that would've likely been prevented had they parents consented to the vitamin K shot.

As for the eye ointment, our midwifery practice offers testing for the relevant STD's when they do the first internal exam. Chlamydia and Gonorrhea are the two big culprits, and are not picked up via standard STD blood work, only via a swab. So we'll do that, just in case.
post #26 of 50
I'm not sure about the Vit K, but we will be declining the ointment, and hep B vacc.
post #27 of 50
We have decided to do the Vitamin K but are declining the eye ointment and the HepB. My doctor is very supportive of this.
post #28 of 50
Just wanted to note that the that the previous poster mentioned the eye ointment being routine even for c-sections. This should be especially not necessary for a c-section since the baby did not pass through the birth canal, thereby eliminating their eyes being exposed to possible STD's!
post #29 of 50
Declining eye ointment and newborn bath.
Probably doing Vit-K.
Undecided about Hep-B...need to research!

------------------------------------------------
To elaborate on the Vit-K decision--both my brother (as a young child) and my grandfather (throughout his life) have had weird blood issues resulting in hospitalizations, so I'm scared not to.
post #30 of 50
Vit K is the only newborn procedure we allow. Bleeding problems are more common in asian babies and since I am on baby aspirin and injected blood thinners I think it is prudent to make sure that the baby is protected.
post #31 of 50
I am on the fence with vitamin K - but I'm hardly routine. I wish I were, it would make the decision so much easier.

I have two clotting hereditary clotting genes, FVL and MTHFR. If my husband doesn't have them, then there's a 50% chance that my kids do. Both make the blood clot more than it should. (Though it's not common for babies and children to get blood clots from these genes). I'm on heparin shots twice daily, which won't cross the placenta. But I'm also on a daily baby aspirin which does cross in small amounts. I'll be on the aspirin while breastfeeding the baby as well. Plus, my peri said she wanted me on coumadin, not heparin, for the 6 weeks after the birth. If I decide to do the coumadin, then I'll definately get the vitamin K shot - since traces of it does show up in the breastmilk. I'm leaning more toward the heparin though. So, that means I'm on the fence since I'm not sure how much me taking baby aspirin will effect the baby. Plus, I'm not sure how traumatic the birth will be. I am high risk and will need a c-section. Due to my clotting disorders and screwy insulin issues, the baby will be taken a little early - which would make me more apt to want the vit K shot. (Early being somewhere between 37-39 weeks. My other kids were 41 and 42 weeks so even technically "term" sounds early to me).

The other options are MUCH easier since there are no abdnormal risk factors for us.
*No eye ointment
*No newborn bath
*No hep B at that time. I will likely do hep B but delay it.
post #32 of 50
We skipped al routine NB procedure with our last. This tiem we will as well. We have it in our birth plan and inform them as soon as we arrive and also one teh baby is born. They just had me sign a form stating that i delined the eye goop, the vit k. Baths are totally optional >Onlyour oldest was bathed at the hospital. becuase we didnt'; really think about it (Sadly he was the one who also got circ'd and got all the routine crap that we now decline, also because we failed to think ) NOW we know better and we do better. Our hospitals dont' do hep b at birth and we don't vax so that one si easy to decline, an also a question abotu soemthign posted above.... if vit k is administered hours after birth (as it is here) how will that help when cutting the cord? isnt' that blood already bleeding? Just curious... mayeb i'm not understand the thought behind it.
Also both of my older 2 that had teh Vit k shot got jaundice and DS #2 did not get the injection and was not jaundice.. so for me that is proof enough tha tit does something odd to MY children's bodies.
post #33 of 50
Hmmm. Does the hospital usually have an oral vit K available, or do you have to bring your own?
post #34 of 50
I have the drops......a friend gave it to me. I don't know if the hospital will have it, I would check your hospital.
post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cagnew View Post
Hmmm. Does the hospital usually have an oral vit K available, or do you have to bring your own?
Not typically. I would talk to your pediatrician and find out if s/he can order it for you, or if you need to get it yourself.
post #36 of 50
I always thought that vitamin K contributes to jaundice, and I believe that it most likely does, and please know that I am not being argumentative at all.

However, strangely enough, of my 3 boys only my 2nd child went without the vit. K. We didn't do all the research with my 1st son(except for vaccinations,which we did not do). Anyway, we refused everything with my 2nd son, and we refused everything except the vit. K for my 3rd son. We had planned to not do the vitamin K, but his birth we traumatic enough that we felt it was warrented.

Anyway, of the 3 boys, the only child that I had that was jaundiced, was the 2nd son, who did not get the vitamin K. Somewhat interesting. Because everything that I have read leads me to believe that vit K helps contribute to it.
post #37 of 50
:
post #38 of 50
We're not doing the eye antibiotic. I tested negative to GC/Chl and so I feel no need for it. This baby is low risk for hep B exposure so we're declining that as well. We won't circ either.
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larissa View Post
I always thought that vitamin K contributes to jaundice, and I believe that it most likely does, and please know that I am not being argumentative at all.

However, strangely enough, of my 3 boys only my 2nd child went without the vit. K. We didn't do all the research with my 1st son(except for vaccinations,which we did not do). Anyway, we refused everything with my 2nd son, and we refused everything except the vit. K for my 3rd son. We had planned to not do the vitamin K, but his birth we traumatic enough that we felt it was warrented.

Anyway, of the 3 boys, the only child that I had that was jaundiced, was the 2nd son, who did not get the vitamin K. Somewhat interesting. Because everything that I have read leads me to believe that vit K helps contribute to it.
I'm not arguing as I don't know if that's the case or not, but there is also information suggesting delaying cutting the cord can cause increased jaundice (which I think is not a good enough reason to NOT delay cutting the cord -- the benefits far outweigh that possible risk, IMO). Honestly, I'm inclined to think that minor jaundice is just a normal state for most babies in the days post-partum, and while there are definite causes for concern in extreme situations, etc., it strikes me that oftentimes the cause/effect relationships seem anecdotal.

Could be the Vitamin K played a part, or it could be it was something else entirely. Either way, it's certainly worth considering, if jaundice is a concern for you.
post #40 of 50
We had no intention of doing the Vitamin K, particularly in injection form. Drops were a possibility only and l had discussed this with my obstetrician. He had issues about the absorption, measuring and baby swallowing the oral dose but still respected my wishes.

DD's birth was a normal delivery with no trauma or an increased risk of bleeding however, a couple of hours after DD was born she slowly started to bruise up. The staff recommended the administering of the Vitamin K via injection and after some discussion DH and l decided to allow it. Do l regret it? Definetly not. Given the situation if something happened to her, then l would've lived with regret for the rest of my life. The hospital did not have the oral dose available on hand and we felt it necessary for DD to have Vitamin K without any further delay.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: February 2009
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › February 2009 › Anyone not giving newborn Vit. K inj