[joyberryjoy]

http://www.child.com/pregnancy_baby/...est_states.jsp

Glad to see LLL was one of their advisory council or whatever they called it. Thumbs down on "being one of only 9 states that mandate all newborn screening" looked at as a good thing! The whole list of advisors, etc. (other than LLL) was a wee bit too medical for the likes of a parent like me who uses hoo-doo and witchery when her kids get sick (that's FDA-speak for alternative medicine like homeopathy, chiropractic, and herbs) and (gasp!) no medical attendants for birth.

Oh well. At least someone is interested in compiling such a list!

Joy

 

[Marg of Arabia]

Wow, my state is usually at the top of the list for this subject!

They rate us 16th

 

[BeeandOwlsMum]

I wasn't sure this was a bonus....

For Iowa
*Covers 20-plus tests in its newborn screening program*

20 tests for a newborn? Eeek.

 

[Britishmum]

Some people would view the screening as a positive. We certainly did when it revealed that one of our children had a rare disorder, which otherwise we might not have found out.

Just becuase it screens for twenty things, doesnt make it a big deal - it was one blood test, twenty screenings. Yes, it meant my baby having a pin prick in her first week of life, which none of us enjoyed, but long term, it meant that we were informed and could monitor her health and protect her properly.

And she's fine now, a bouncing healthy, lively three-year-old.

 

[joyberryjoy]

My problem with the screenings is not that they are offered--but in some states they are MANDATED. Now if I lived in a socialized health care country I might be ok with that...but we don't...and the sad fact here in the US is that sometimes these mandates are used as a weapon against parents who are more non-interventive. In partciular, those who home birth are often pressured with an abuse/neglect charge if they don't go along with all those mandated tests/screenings...I am for INFORMED CONSENT...every parent should be able to make a decision based on competent information...not by brute force.

Joy

 

[barbwire]

California #1? Ok, Northern California I can see, but it's so polluted everywhere else-how can that be good for a baby? My ped said he tells all the parents that they shouldn't raise their children in L.A. because it's too polluted.

 

[DaryLLL]

Like any article in mainstream media reporting on a "study," this one has sensationalized and made mis-leading statements when interpreting the data:

Quote:

Sick of slipping into a bathroom stall when your baby is hungry in the middle of a shopping trip? Twenty-eight states give you the green light to nurse in public.

Bfing in public is legal in all 50 states. The above states have passed additional legislation restating this fact.

: We'd be in a sad state if bfing in public was only legal in 28 states!!!

 

[Britishmum]

"Now if I lived in a socialized health care country I might be ok with that"

I don't think you'd find that people with universal health care are any more accepting of mandated tests or any such thing as those in the US. In fact, there is a national health service in Britain, but no requirement to have vaccs to enter school or anything else. Of course, doctors put pressure on parents to have vaccs, and are paid accordingly, but if you say no, your decision is far more respected than in the USA.

I think that the acceptance of mandated tests is individual to the culture and then the individual. The issue of socialized health care is irrelevant. You pay for the health care through your taxes, and it's still your body to make decisions about. It doesn't then belong to the government, and nobody there has that mindset.

Anyway, back to my previous post, I personally see the availability of such tests as a positive. But then, I've had a child with a disorder identifiied through those tests. I don't think any parent who has had that shock, and dealt with the subsequent issues, would disagree.

When you've been there, you understand.