At a very basic level, I have issue with the idea that newborns *need* to be injected with anything.

-Angela

 

http://www.vaclib.org/basic/vitamin-k.htm
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/vitktop.html

(I'm sorry, English is not my native language and I find it difficult to explain things longer than few sentences, especially at this hour (GMT+1)).

 

I would do some general internet research and also talk to a trusted care provider. Also I would keep in mind that the importance is different for a full term healthy baby than for one born premature or with a vaccuum/forceps delivery. I am on baby number three and still not sure I am clear on how I feel about this one....good luck with your decision

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna At a very basic level, I have issue with the idea that newborns *need* to be injected with anything. -Angela

:

 

I found this study but I dont know what to think. I like to read both sides before making a decision.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...rics;112/1/191

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna At a very basic level, I have issue with the idea that newborns *need* to be injected with anything.

My home birth midwife allows for the oral application of Vit. K (or allows me to refuse altogether). So that at least rules out the injection part of it if that's the primary concern, which for some it is.

Marieke

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marieke My home birth midwife allows for the oral application of Vit. K (or allows me to refuse altogether). So that at least rules out the injection part of it if that's the primary concern, which for some it is.

I think it's also the idea that there is something deficient in a newborn. If this were truly necessary, how did the human race survive until now? That's my question to anyone who wants to alter my or my kids' bodies. The default is to leave something alone. The burden of proof is on those who want to do something other than the default.

 

So what about babies born by c-section? No flames either please. I am having a nessecary one and am wondering to refuse it or not. My midwife recomended it last time but I can't remember if it had something to do with the surgery or not. Also, my babies don't get a whole lot of time with the placenta before cord clamping-or not as much as *I * would like. Would this affect the need for it?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quarteralien I think it's also the idea that there is something deficient in a newborn. If this were truly necessary, how did the human race survive until now? That's my question to anyone who wants to alter my or my kids' bodies. The default is to leave something alone. The burden of proof is on those who want to do something other than the default.

Oh, I know

I use similar reasoning for when people look at me askance for having a home birth or questioning the ridiculously high rates of medically unnecessary c-sections and inductions.

But I know that some people might still want to give the vitamin, but not deal with the injections, and so oral drops are an alternative. Yet another one is to take them oneself when nursing... but then leafy greens and other foods high in the vitamin naturally would also work in that instance.

Anyway, as I understand vitamin K and its uses, if you have a normal and non-traumatic birth, the risks for which the baby would need vitamin K become very low indeed. It seems to me to be that the increased use of interventions and the subsequent risks they bring with them is the primary reason why this supplement has become a standard practise. Much like the way antibiotics administered into baby's eyes is standard even though a large amount of women do not have the medical conditions that would require that treatment.

Marieke

 

Thanks for asking about this. I've been wondering for a while. I read some of the info from the given links and what I've realized is that I DON'T want the vit k for baby. And I definitely want to wait on cutting the cord.

 

I did research on this with #1. It is basically a preventative measure in case they have a disease that doesn't allow their blood to clot. The idea is that they have not had enough time to build up vit. k in their intestines (I think?)so it should be given to them. I refused and then relented when they said they wouldn't do the circ. without it (whole other story

I'm not proud of my decision). I didn't have a chance to really get into it with #2 as he was a preemie and wisked off to the NICU. I plan to refuse it with this one if I'm still able. (In 2004 it wasn't a law that hospitals in NC had to do it - not sure now.)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quarteralien I think it's also the idea that there is something deficient in a newborn. If this were truly necessary, how did the human race survive until now? That's my question to anyone who wants to alter my or my kids' bodies. The default is to leave something alone. The burden of proof is on those who want to do something other than the default.

:

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leilalu So what about babies born by c-section? No flames either please. I am having a nessecary one and am wondering to refuse it or not. My midwife recomended it last time but I can't remember if it had something to do with the surgery or not. Also, my babies don't get a whole lot of time with the placenta before cord clamping-or not as much as *I * would like. Would this affect the need for it?

As a rule c-section babies would have LESS need for vit. K. The trauma that comes with an increased risk doesn't usually happen in a section (forceps, rough delivery, etc)

-Angela

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna : Exactly. As a rule c-section babies would have LESS need for vit. K. The trauma that comes with an increased risk doesn't usually happen in a section (forceps, rough delivery, etc) -Angela

thanks

this is good to know. I will refuse that too ,then.

 

If I do it this time, it will be the oral kind.

My midwife says its for traumatic births, and a nice birth at a birth center is not traumatic. I'm unsure about c-section b/c I have never BTDT.

 

I am against vit. K injections that is given automatically to all newborns.
But the argument:

Quote:

how did the human race survive until now

is not good enough for me. Yeah, we did survive, but would we be comfortable today with mortality rates from past times?

Regarding vit. K, I'll drink more nettle tea (rich in vit. K) during the last two months of pregnancy.. it supposed to be good for mom and for a baby.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by HealingBeam is not good enough for me. Yeah, we did survive, but would we be comfortable today with mortality rates from past times?

I'm not comfortable with our current mortality rates. The US is nothing less than pathetic in this arena.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quarteralien I'm not comfortable with our current mortality rates. The US is nothing less than pathetic in this arena.

This is so sad and so true.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quarteralien I'm not comfortable with our current mortality rates.

Me neither, with Croatian neonatal mortality rates (according to WHO it's around 5).

 

As far as C/S goes, can they delay cord clamping? If the doc accidentally nicks the baby, maybe the vit K would be a good idea then.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by HealingBeam Me neither, with Croatian neonatal mortality rates (according to WHO it's around 5).

Well this is due in large to the mothers health as well I would think.

I would venture to guess that certain parts of the country with low neonatal mortality rates eat a fairly traditional diet, rich in nutrient dense foods.

I would like to know if a study has been done linking prenatal health and mothers diet to vit K issues at birth personally. Now I am very curious!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by HealingBeam Regarding vit. K, I'll drink more nettle tea (rich in vit. K) during the last two months of pregnancy.. it supposed to be good for mom and for a baby.

That's a great idea. I need to remember that (well, write it down because my pg brain will never remember it.)

 

The idea is to help prevent brain hemorrhage (which is very rare, like 5 out of 100,000 births, though it hapepns primarily in breastfed infants). Here's a fairly balanced link on it-http://www.babyreference.com/VitaminKinjectORnot.htm

 

I pretty much agree with everyone that objects to injecting stuff into my kids.

I think they insist on the Vit. K shot because most diets are so poor. Rather than encouraging pregnant women to eat healthier, they just find things to inject into the babies. I didn't realize how many foods contain Vit. K. I just spent the last 4 months living with someone on blood thinners (FIL). They didn't want him eating any foods with Vit. K. So, that pretty much meant that we couldn't eat any green leafy vegetables, no onions (white or green), and no lots of other yummy healthy stuff. Some midwives will encourage you to take alfafa supplements towards the end of pregnancy to help build up Vit. K stores in mom and baby.

Basically, the fuss is a result of poor diets. If more doctors did more nutritional counseling, there wouldn't be a need for Vit. K or lots of other interventsions. Oh wait, that would cut into their bottom line. Never mind.

 

I hope this is OK to put in a link to another forum??? Anyway, I just read this, and it's the best explanation I've ever read.
http://www.welltellme.com/discuss/in...html#msg158681

 

Thanks for the link, sweetest day! That was a great explanation.
My m/w had me on alfalfa tablets during the week before I was due to increase MY Vit K to reduce chances of MY hemmoraging, so I would assume that naturally it would help the baby too!
Neither one of us had any problems, and he definately didn't have a Vit K shot!
So I will do the same this time around and add more nettles and leafy greens to my diet as well, just to be sure!