Anyone still NOT decided on vacs/GBS? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 29 Old 07-24-2006, 11:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
SummerTwilight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am SOOO behind the game that I am going to have my mind made up strictly by default.
I have NO idea where I stand on the GBS test or the rest of the procedures that you can wave at birth. What the heck. I don't even have the energy to research these points. I know circ is out if we are wrong about the gender and I know the one for gonerhea is also out. What are the other ones and what did you guys decide? Why? I want my husband to make this decision for a change to let me off the hook from doing more research! Yeah, THAT isn't going to happen.
SummerTwilight is offline  
#2 of 29 Old 07-24-2006, 11:19 PM
 
coop_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: monmouth county, nj
Posts: 559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've been busily researching these the past few days. I have my GBS test tomorrow, but am not sure what I'll do if it comes back positive (I'll be 36 weeks +1). I'm leaning against the vitamin K shot, and am uncertain about the eye drop antibiotics. I'm going to ask my midwife tomorrow if I can get tested for the STDs that the antibiotics treat and if they come back negative, I'll probably skip the eye drops/ointment.

I'm looking forward to reading more responses, these are tough decisions. Can't wait 'til I have to make decisions on vax

--kristin
coop_mom is offline  
#3 of 29 Old 07-24-2006, 11:35 PM
 
JenMidwife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 2,673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
so glad you posted this... I've been meaning to post about vaccines... we're still lost in the woods on this one. Ugh.

I decided to have GBS screening (did a week of 1 clove of garlic vaginally each night & double dosing of acidolphilous prior) & it came back negative. Not sure what I'd do if it was positive.

After birth, we will decline Vit K unless baby has any risk factors for hemmoragic disease of the newborn (vacuum, forceps, c-section, low birth weight, etc in which case we'd get the injection, not oral), decline Hep B at birth (can't see ANY reason for that), decline eye antibiotics. No circ.

DH & I both agree on all of these points (thankfully), but are both clueless about what to do about the vaccination schedule from 2 mos onward. We have books on the subject (& college degrees in other subjects!), but are just completely overwhelmed. How did you all make your decision on vaccination?
JenMidwife is offline  
#4 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 12:36 AM
 
Ursula Rose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
undecided here.

leaning toward:

no vacs
no gbs antibiotics even though i tested positive

no vacs seems easier than the gbs thing

i retest on thursday for gbs...i just hope it has gone away.
Ursula Rose is offline  
#5 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 07:16 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ugh. I'm sucking on these issues, too.

I considered refusing the GBS test, because I don't want to be on the IV drip throughout labor (which is what happens at hospital births here) but the midwife assures me that they can offer three intermittent 30-minute doses instead of the continuous deal. Which sounds tolerable.

So. I don't know. She's pretty supportive either way. The odds of having a baby with GBS seem so small, even if I WERE positive, that I'm just torn.

And the vax issue... well, I'm a mess there. I plan to delay till I can get my homework done, and REALLY done, on the issue. I guess if that means waiting till the kid is 18 and can make her own decisions, so be it.

I find myself having less and less faith in the medical industry with every passing week. It's all about the almighty $$$ to them... nothing is as it seems.

Sigh.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
#6 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 07:45 AM
 
KarmaChameleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: I come and go
Posts: 1,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I tested positive for GBS but my midwife recommends a douche of ChlorHexadine during labor (poor husband can't bring himself to say the word DOUCHE -- he keeps calling it a FLUSH ) so we don't have to go the antibiotics route.

We are going to deny Vitk and the eye goop, but we';ll do the PKU.
KarmaChameleon is offline  
#7 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 08:01 AM
 
Robynee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NH
Posts: 482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I tested neg for GBS.
We'll be at the very least delaying vax. I figure, we can always have it done later but we can't undo them. I am uncomfortable with the idea that my child needs to have his/her immune system bombarded with that stuff so early on.
I am skipping the eye drops. I asked to be tested for STD's at one of my first appts. just to have it in my file and help ward off any pushy drs/nurses.
We will be doing the vit K and PKU. I really struggled with the K shot descision, and who knows, I might change my mind again at the last minute.

~Robyn mama to
James, Sean, Christopher, and Michael~

Robynee is offline  
#8 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 08:20 AM
 
veganf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Framingham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm still undecided about GBS too. I didn't do it with my other two, but it was sort of by accident that it didn't happen. I may bring it up at my appointment today, since I forgot to mention it at the home visit, but maybe I'll forget again! I definitely wouldn't go to the hospital just because I was GBS+, but I would consider alternative treatments or oral antibiotics.

Definitely no eye goop or vitamin K here, though I've been taking extra vitamin K myself since 34 weeks for what it's worth.

We'll try to do the PKU test again. It only worked with our first baby. But we'll let the midwives do it, and can always let the ped try too on our 3-4 day visit to her office.

As for vaxes...originally we were in the "need to do more research" mode, planning on delaying and selectively vaxing starting at age 2. Well, the more research I did, the more I was opposed. I downloaded the PDF trial results from the actual vaccine manufacturers, and it really amazed me to see just how ineffective vaxes are in a considerable percentage, and how fast any immunity fades in many cases, plus the exhaustive list of side effects...and this is from the people trying to SELL this junk to us! Then I read everything from the CDC that I could find. Plus I read a few books on the subject (it's nearly impossible to find an unbiased author, but it was still informative). Top it off with 3 cases of autism in our families (2 on my side, 1 on my husband's) and the possibility of a genetic link, and I do not want to risk injecting any of the preservatives like mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc. into our children.
So in the end I'm now very against, and my husband is on the fence about a few. He's asked our pediatrician about which vaccines she thinks are "safe" so that we could just do those, and her response is always "none of them are safe, but if you want any done you can always go to your public health department office"; she's a pediatrician, an M.D., with priviledges at Children's Hospital Boston, and she doesn't think they're worth the risk with the exception of the occasional dose of tetanus.
So nope. I'm not consenting to any vaccines. Although I realize it's within my husband's rights to take the children himself if he decided to (which of course I hope he would never do, and doubt he would).

- Krista

milk donation : mother to Ryan (6), AJ (5), Nate (2), Maia (1) all born at home, I have a kid-friendly food & bento blog, : :
veganf is offline  
#9 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 09:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
SummerTwilight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sounds like most of us are in the same boat. I think the vit K is the tricky one And the GBS. For me anyways.
SummerTwilight is offline  
#10 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 11:32 AM
 
2 in August's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have been studying all these a lot lately. We decided:

Circumcision is out.

No Hep B vax.

No Vit K shot. But we did buy the oral drops and will give those ourselves. (only way dh felt comfortable and I like having the back up)

No eye goop. It's supposed to be the law to get it but I had the std tests early on and know that I don't have any so I'm not doing it.

I did have the GBS swab at my last appt. I'll find out the results today. Hoping to be neg. If not I'm going to talk to her about alternatives to the antibiotics (like the "flush" above, lol). I still wasn't decided about it then and I'm still not sure about it.

As for vaxes after the hospital. I'm strongly leaning to no vaxes. Dh isn't so sure but the more reading I do, the more I'm convinced that like ferrettoes said, it's more about the $ than safety for the babies. I'm at least going to delay until I'm 100% sure.

PKU I'm probably going to do, but I've read that it's more accurate after the baby has been nursing 3-4 days so I'm not sure about having it done at the hospital. Don't know if our ped does it at his office though, so I'm still not sure on that one.
2 in August is offline  
#11 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 11:50 AM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
GBS neg.

Declining vit k and eye ointment. Hep B isn't even offered here until age 12, but I would decline it if it were.

Doing the PKU.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#12 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 01:31 PM
 
BonanzaJellybean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Doing research on VAX has been on my TO DO list since early in this pregnancy, but I have not had the energy to open this can of worms... I know it is going to freak me out either way if I think about it too much. I wish someone would do it for me : , but alas, I think I may be stuck figuring this one out on my own.
BonanzaJellybean is offline  
#13 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 02:17 PM
 
vickin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Looks like I am in the same boat as most of you. Dh & I decided against Vit K and eye ointment. Still trying to figure out the whole vaccination thing. Definitely decided to delay them until we do more research. Leaning on selecting certain vaccinations, but not really sure which ones. I had my GBS test this morning. I hope it comes out neg or else that will be something else to consider. I am not fond of antibiotics, so I will probably have another test done or try some alternate treatment.
vickin is offline  
#14 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 03:46 PM
 
Meeshi Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Finger Lakes Region, NY
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am waffling on doing the GBS test on Friday.

I know, without a sliver of doubt, that there will be *no* vaccinations for our babe. I know two local families who lost their babies to "SIDS" within 48 hours of their 3 mo. vaccinations. I also saw my nephew go from normal two year old, to a little boy with Autistic tendencies (he's now "severely" Autistic) within a week of his 2 year shots.

Just seeing what I have first hand, there is no way on Earth my child will get any of those shots.
Meeshi Mama is offline  
#15 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 03:47 PM
 
jenmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: with lots of boys and a girl
Posts: 1,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm GBS + and I will be getting the IV antibiotics. It decreases the risk of baby contracting GBS by a huge amount (I believe it's 1/200 if you don't get the antibiotics, and 1/4000 if you do), and if I get them in my system soon enough, then baby doesn't need to have bloodwork done at birth (which involves getting blood out of an arm . . . that can't be easy to do on a newborn, not to mention the ouch factor). GBS can be really serious, so I'd rather not take any unneccessary risks. Even though I'd rather not do the antibiotics (I have terrible yeast/thrush problems when nursing . . . so as soon as the antibiotics hit my system the yeast is sure to form a conga line straight to my breasts), I just don't want to risk my baby contracting GBS.

I will be doing the vit K shot. I had looked into oral for baby, but the oral is not as effective as the shot. Again, I'd rather not do a shot, but that seems to be the best choice for baby's safety.

No eye goo . . . I do not have, nor ever have had, STDs. So no reason to do it.

No Hep B shot. I don't have Hep B, so baby is not at risk. Again, no reason to do it.

Absolutely doing the PKU. That's important, life-saving information to have.

No future vaxes for a while. My 4yo is completely vaxed through 2 years. My 2yo had a reaction to one of his 6 month shots and hasn't had any vaxes since. I started researching and it's scary stuff. The problem is, there doesn't seem to be a "right" answer when it comes to vaccines. It's so hard to know what to do, but I don't want to take a chance on my 2yo having a more serious reaction to the next shot . . . and don't really want to chance new baby's life either since big brother had a reaction.

Jen, mom of R (9), T (7), C (5), and E (2) ... my stillheart.gifs

jenmk is offline  
#16 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 03:51 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenmk
I'm GBS + and I will be getting the IV antibiotics. It decreases the risk of baby contracting GBS by a huge amount (I believe it's 1/200 if you don't get the antibiotics, and 1/4000 if you do), and if I get them in my system soon enough, then baby doesn't need to have bloodwork done at birth (which involves getting blood out of an arm . . . that can't be easy to do on a newborn, not to mention the ouch factor). GBS can be really serious, so I'd rather not take any unneccessary risks. Even though I'd rather not do the antibiotics (I have terrible yeast/thrush problems when nursing . . . so as soon as the antibiotics hit my system the yeast is sure to form a conga line straight to my breasts), I just don't want to risk my baby contracting GBS.
There are other treatments for GBS. Abx is not risk free. It increases the risk of other things, such as e. coli. The other problem is abx resistant strains of GBS. Countries that do not use routine abx for GBS have similar outcomes as North America. If I were GBS +, I would only have abx if I had other risk factors, such as prolonged rupture of membranes, high maternal fever.

Not trying to debate your decision personally. Just putting another side out there.

There are also risks to vit. k.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#17 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 04:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
SummerTwilight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
the lissa: What are the risks with Vitamin K? That is the one I am mainly stuck on.
SummerTwilight is offline  
#18 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 04:52 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The vax forum will have more info, but the one thing I can remember off the top of my head is a study that shows a correlation between the vit k shot and childhood leukemia. Correlation, not causation though.

The other thing about vit k is that it has all the chemical preservatives that other vaccines have that worry me.

Also, the blanket vit k recommendation came about when almost no one breastfed, and colostrum is actually a good source of vit. k, especially if the mom eats a good diet.

The oral vit. k is a good alternative for those who are worried about the risks of the shot, but still want to gie vit. k.

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#19 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 05:01 PM
 
peilover010202's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,425
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We're doing Vit K, PKU, and GBS was negative.

We are delaying vaxs at this point. I've been reading one of Aviva Jill Romm's books about vaxs (probably one of the closest to giving information both for and against) and it's really freaked me out.

My ds was fully vax'd up to age 2, and I won't be proceeding with anymore vax's for him. I've already written a letter (for school purposes) declining all vaxes due to religious reasons for him.

At this point, there *may* be a time that I feel a certain vax is worth the risks, but at this point, I can't imagine why. Dh is totally onboard (thankfully).

One thing that really hit me while reading Romm's book is that vaccine manufacturers have NO liability and admit NO fault for vaccine injury. They cannot be held liable for a death due to vaccine, etc. Instead, it goes through the Fed Gov't (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and *if* a settlement comes into play, it's a no-fault settlement. So, in my opinion, vaccine manufacturers have very little motivation for making vaccines safer than they currently are.

And, what veganf mentioned about the effectiveness also bothers me. At this point, we really have no idea how long a vax lasts or even if it's effective. I was checking out my state's preventable illnesses info and found that there was an unusually HIGH # of kids who were vaxed for flu, and still came down with it (just one example). So, I just wonder how well the vaxs even work.

Steph, wife to C, mama to O :, E , and I :.
peilover010202 is offline  
#20 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 05:18 PM
 
aries girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 78
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
the_lissa,
You mentioned that there are also risks to vit. k. I've been trying to find this information but so far have not been able to. Could you explain some of the risks of the vit K shot? And are there also risks with the oral drops?
Are the oral drops and the shot equally as effective?
Still haven't decided on the Vit K- need more information.

We are not doing any vax for at least 2-3 years, after that possibly the tetanus but we're not totally sure yet. That is the only one that I'm even leaning towards at all.

No eye ointment. I took the test for the STDs and there's no reason for it.

Will do the PKU, buy we prefer to wait for as long as possible. I don't want one of the first experiences our child has to be painful at all. I read that it is most effective 3-4 days after birth, but I'm not sure if it has to be done before we leave the hospital or if it can be done at the peds office a few days later?

No Hep B shot.
aries girl is offline  
#21 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 05:37 PM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm declining the vit K thing on the grounds that, AFAIK, it was originally intro'ed on a wide scale as a way to help prevent hemorrhage after circumcisions.

Which is a non-issue if you don't circ. But I could be wrong on that. The vit k thing seemed like a pretty easy call to me.

Plus, if the midwife doesn't clamp and cut the cord the millisecond the kid is born, that's supposed to help, too, from what I gather.

we'll do the PKU, though.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
#22 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 05:37 PM
 
NewAtThis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What is PKU??
Someone enlighten me please!
NewAtThis is offline  
#23 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 05:41 PM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,804
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewAtThis
What is PKU??
Someone enlighten me please!
It's the heel-stick test, where they prick your baby's heel and squeeze out some blood to test for phenylketoneuria (PKU.) If your kid has PKU, he has to follow a very specialized diet to avoid the buildup of toxins that produce severe mental retardation and death.

Though most places also do a few other metabolic tests along with the PKU, now.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
#24 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 06:28 PM
 
2 in August's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries girl
the_lissa,
You mentioned that there are also risks to vit. k. I've been trying to find this information but so far have not been able to. Could you explain some of the risks of the vit K shot? And are there also risks with the oral drops?
Are the oral drops and the shot equally as effective?
Still haven't decided on the Vit K- need more information.
Here are some of the sites that I looked at to decide about Vit K. Hope they help you.

http://www.healthychild.com/database...necessary_.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...54/ai_n6178126

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/vitamin-k.htm

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/VitaminK.html

Quote:
Animal studies have linked large doses of vitamin K to a variety of conditions that include anaemia, liver damage, kidney damage and death.

· Interestingly the common problem that occurs these days of jaundice in newborns has only been reported since the introduction of Vitamin K administration.

· According to the product insert, adverse reactions include haemolysis (or hemolysis - American spelling) (meaning breakdown of red blood cells), haemolytic anaemia (a disorder characterised by chronic premature destruction of red blood cells), hyperbilirubinemia (too much bilirubin in blood) and jaundice (yellow skin and eyes resulting from hyperbilirubinemia), and allergic reactions include face flushing, gastrointestinal upset, rash, redness, pain or swelling at injection site and itching skin. It also warns that large enough doses can cause brain damage in infants and/or impairment to liver function. Hypoxia has also been published as having occurred in infants after Vitamin K administration.
I think this is what sealed the deal for me.

http://birthwithlove.com/categories/...r+your+newborn

This is where I ordered my oral vit k drops. Got them within 3 days.

Hope this helps.
2 in August is offline  
#25 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 08:10 PM
 
taradt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: victoria, BC
Posts: 2,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I will be doing the GBS test and if positive only treating if we have risk factors come up.

we are not planning on the eye ointment

vitamin k will be only if other risk factors come up or if baby looks like he/she will have a long hospital stay. I have been eating extra vitamin k foods and will start on vitamin k supplements around 37 weeks.

regular vaccines will not be done unless I come across something that changes my mind. DD only got her first few before I got too freaked by what I was reading about the negatives, but I will never say never and I am always reading about them.

I don't know if they do PKU here, it hasn't come up yet

tara
taradt is offline  
#26 of 29 Old 07-25-2006, 09:26 PM
 
veganf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Framingham, MA
Posts: 8,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SummerTwilight
the lissa: What are the risks with Vitamin K? That is the one I am mainly stuck on.
I'm not declining vit K because of any specific "risk", (although it's not vegan, which to me is also important), but mostly because I don't feel it's necessary unless you have a family history with a blood clotting disorder. I don't think we would evolve to need external vitamin K for our babies after birth; it simply isn't logical.
This was recently posted on Midwifery Today which I think explains my reasoning better:

" Vitamin K - An Alternative Perspective
Midwife Sara Wickham provides a much-needed update on vitamin K
prophylaxis.
AIMS Journal, Summer 2001, Vol 13 No 2
Childbearing women today are faced with a whole series of choices,
from where they will give birth, to
who might cut the cord connecting them and their baby. In the
twenty-first century, an enormous
range of interventions is also available, and many of these have
become a 'routine' part of the care and
experience offered to women.

One of these choices concerns whether a woman would like her baby to
be given vitamin K, either
orally or by intramuscular injection. This has been an option in
most areas for over thirty years, and it
is perceived by the medical profession to be an important
prophylactic measure in preventing
haemorrhagic disease of the newborn.

The evidence which the medical (and midwifery) professions use to
support their arguments for all
babies receiving vitamin K is widely available - and will be
repeated many times to women who are
considering declining this intervention. Because of this, there
seems little point repeating this here.
Instead, I would like to present some of the 'alternative'
arguments, in the hope that offering an
alternative perspective will enable women to look at both sides of
the debate and be more able to make
informed choices in this area.

The information that most women are given goes something like this:

"In this hospital we offer all babies vitamin K. The reason for this
is that all babies are born with low
levels of vitamin K. Babies need vitamin K to prevent haemorrhagic
disease, which can cause serious
complications. There are also low levels of vitamin k in breastmilk,
so if you choose oral vitamin K and
are breastfeeding we will give your baby three doses of vitamin K
rather than the one which we give to
formula-fed babies. (Formula contains the high amounts of vitamin K
which babies need.)"

Midwives (or doctors) may then go on to explain the different routes
by which vitamin K can be given,
and some also discuss the possible link - which needs further
research - between intramuscular vitamin
K and childhood cancer. A study published in the British Medical
Journal in May 2001 showed a range
of seven distinctly different policies on the administration of
vitamin K within the UK; the authors
state that there is "no clear consensus" on this (Ansell et al
2001).

Whatever the clinical issues, a number of philosophical questions
are also raised by the 'facts' above,
and these form an important part of the alternative viewpoint on
vitamin K.

'Fact' 1: All babies are born with low levels of vitamin K.
'Low' in relation to whom? If all babies have low levels, then who
has the 'normal' levels against which
this is measured? Well, believe it or not, only adults are perceived
by the medical profession to have
normal levels of vitamin K. Yet there is a big gap between noticing
that babies have relatively lower
levels than adults and deeming this a pathological condition which
needs routine treatment.

Babies also have large heads relative to adults, but this is not
perceived as pathological. This is
deemed a good thing, because the human brain needs to be large at
birth. Why is the fact that relative
vitamin K levels differ between newborn and adult perceived as
pathological?

Philosophically, the question is raised that, if all babies have
what is perceived as a 'low' level of
vitamin K, then in reality this must be the 'normal level' of
vitamin K for babies to have. Even if
proponents of vitamin K think that this is 'too low' a level for
some reason, they should say this, rather
than telling women their baby is deficient in an essential
substance. Otherwise, this just reinforces the
idea that women are relatively inefficient at making babies and need
to be supplemented by the skills
and technology of hospitals and doctors.

'Fact' 2: Babies need vitamin K to prevent late-onset haemorrhagic
disease, which can cause serious
complications.
There is no doubt that some babies suffer from late-onset
haemorrhagic disease (HDN), and there is
also no doubt that this can be dangerous for some babies. But does
this mean that all babies should be
given vitamin K? The risk of a baby who is not given vitamin K
developing HDN is between 1 in 10,000
and 1 in 25,000 (Von Kries and Hanawa 1993). We also know that the
babies most at risk from HDN are
those who have traumatic births (clinically, this might include
babies who are delivered by forceps,
ventouse or emergency caesarean section, or babies who show
bruising).

Babies who are born physiologically, or without undue trauma, are at
the very lowest risk of
developing HDN. Of course, there are never any guarantees either
way; there is still a risk that a baby
who is born physiologically will develop HDN, just as there is a
risk that a baby given vitamin K may
still develop HDN, or suffer from other side effects.

For example, the risk of healthy babies developing cancer as a
result of being given vitamin K may be
higher than the risk of developing HDN without (Parker et al 1998,
Passmore et al 199 . Anecdotal
evidence suggests that babies given vitamin K may be more at risk
from jaundice, which may lead to
the need for interventions. Unfortunately, we need much more
research evidence in order to assess
these relative risks and offer women statistics concerning every
aspect of this decision (Slattery 1994,
Wickham 2000).

Von Kries (199 points out that some of the babies who are diagnosed
as having HDN caused by
vitamin K deficiency actually have HDN caused by underlying
cholestatic disease (where there is a
stoppage or suppression of bile flow). Even if giving vitamin K to
these babies could prevent the
development of HDN, we should not be saying that they have HDN
because they were not given
vitamin K.

This just confuses and confounds the issue and is a bit like saying
that someone who was hit on the
head by a block of wood has a headache because they weren't given an
aspirin. The idea of giving
vitamin K to all babies may then be akin to the suggestion that we
should all take an aspirin before
going outside just in case we are hit on the head by a block of
wood.

'Fact' 3: There are also low levels of vitamin K in breastmilk;
Formula contains the high amounts of
vitamin K which babies need.
As with the levels in the babies' bodies, the 'low' label is only
applied to breastmilk when the levels of
vitamin K in breastmilk are measured in relation to the levels of
vitamin K in cow's milk. This
immediately begs the question of whether you believe that breastmilk
(like other aspects of women's
physiology) is a wondrous substance which provides all that your
baby needs, or whether it is a poor
alternative to cow's milk?!

To compound this, the research which first suggested that breastmilk
was relatively low in vitamin K
was carried out at a time when women were told to restrict the
number of feeds, apply limits to the time
the baby spent on each breast and, in some areas, to express
colostrum without giving this to the
baby. The net result of this was a reduction in the amounts of
fat-rich colostrum and hindmilk which
babies were receiving. Vitamin K is fat-soluble and so is found
mostly in colostrum and hindmilk, which
puts an entirely different perspective on whether breastmilk is
truly low in vitamin K or not.

Even if breastmilk is low in vitamin K (compared to cow's milk), is
this pathological? Who do you
believe knows the most about how to feed human babies? Cows, formula
manufacturers, or women?
Call me too trusting of nature if you like, but it seems to me that,
if babies are born with 'low' levels of
vitamin K relative to adults, and if breastmilk might contain
'lower' levels in relation to cows' milk, then
maybe babies don't really need that much vitamin K? Which then begs
the question of whether it is a
good idea to put it into their bodies?

Perhaps babies' level of vitamin K serves them well, possibly
preventing the development of clotting
problems during birth and in the first few weeks of life? Of course,
it may also be that medical
intervention and the poor standard of the breastfeeding research has
reduced our perception of the
levels of vitamin K and that these would be higher both in babies
and breastmilk which was not
interfered with.

Other factors may also affect this issue. The length of time the
cord is allowed to pulsate affects the
baby's blood volume and composition; women wishing to avoid vitamin
K may want to plan a
physiological third stage. Nutrition during pregnancy is important
for lots of reasons, one of them
being that a woman who eats well knows that she is giving her baby
all of the essential nutrients to
grow in the way it needs to and manufacture the substances it needs.

In general, babies are born with pretty much everything they need.
The length of their umbilical cords
almost always enables them to reach their mother's breast to suckle
while their placenta is still attached
inside her uterus. That's not a coincidence. Neither is the way the
hormones of labour help the mother
and baby to begin to fall in love with each other. For the majority
of babies, birth works very well. For
the minority of babies who are at increased risk of HDN, vitamin K
may well be a good idea. As above,
women need to weigh up the different perspectives on vitamin K and
determine the right decision for
them and their babies.

Sara Wickham

Note: Some parts of article have been adapted from an article
published by Midwifery Today. The
original reference for this is given below; it has also been
published at: www.withwoman.co.uk

Did you find this article useful?

AIMS makes information and articles freely available on its website
as a public service. We also
provide advice and support to individual parents and professionals
at no charge. If AIMS has helped
you, please help us to help others by joining or making a donation.

References
Ansell P, Roman E, Fear NT et al, Vitamin K policies and midwifery
practice; questionnaire survey,
BMJ, 2001; 322: 1148-52.

Parker L, Cole M, Craft AW et al, Neonatal vitamin k administration
and childhood cancer in the north
of England, BMJ, 1998; 316: 189-93.

Passmore SJ, Draper G Brownbill P et al, Case-control studies of
relation between childhood cancer and
neonatal vitamin K administration; retrospective case-control study,
BMJ, 1998; 316: 178-84.

Slattery, Why we need a clinical trial for vitamin K, BMJ, 1994;
308: 908-910.

Von Kries, Neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis; the Gordian knot still
awaits untying, BMJ, 1998; 316:
161-162.

Von Kries R and Hanawa Y, Neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis, Report of
scientific and standardization
subcomittee on perinatal haemostasis, Thrombosis and Haemostasis,
1993: 69: 293-95.

Wickham, S, Vitamin K - A flaw in the blueprint?, Midwifery Today,
2000; 56: 39-41."

milk donation : mother to Ryan (6), AJ (5), Nate (2), Maia (1) all born at home, I have a kid-friendly food & bento blog, : :
veganf is offline  
#27 of 29 Old 07-26-2006, 09:47 AM
 
jenmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: with lots of boys and a girl
Posts: 1,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by veganf
I don't think we would evolve to need external vitamin K for our babies after birth; it simply isn't logical.
I'm not arguing for the vit K shot . . . just wanted to point out that this idea (which I also read in one of the links 2 in August put up) may be faulty in that for most Americans (probably not as many here on Mothering.com) their diet is not likely to be rich in vit K as they are eating mainly processed foods. So perhaps many babies really are not getting as much vit K as they need because their mamas' diets are very low in it?

I've really struggled over whether to get the vit K shot. None of these things is an easy decision.

Jen, mom of R (9), T (7), C (5), and E (2) ... my stillheart.gifs

jenmk is offline  
#28 of 29 Old 07-26-2006, 09:51 AM
 
jenmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: with lots of boys and a girl
Posts: 1,002
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa
There are other treatments for GBS. Abx is not risk free. It increases the risk of other things, such as e. coli. The other problem is abx resistant strains of GBS. Countries that do not use routine abx for GBS have similar outcomes as North America. If I were GBS +, I would only have abx if I had other risk factors, such as prolonged rupture of membranes, high maternal fever.
I'm happy to have more information, but I also want to know how well these other treatments reduce the risks. There are hard numbers for antibiotics. Are there any for the other treatments?

Jen, mom of R (9), T (7), C (5), and E (2) ... my stillheart.gifs

jenmk is offline  
#29 of 29 Old 07-26-2006, 09:54 AM
 
DoulaClara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SE MI
Posts: 1,649
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm still working my way through vaccine research (and am planning very delayed, very spaced, and not all of the vax if at all. We'll see when the time comes). I'm not getting a GBS test.

Clara

Mama to a beautiful little girl, born July 18, 2007
Eager for a VBAC some time around April 10, 2010!
DoulaClara is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off