I'm in the 11th hour here!! My OB tried to tell me that the erythromycin is a state law...yet I know it's not. I NEED some direction...I've been seraching the CA state law website, and have found nothing. The only thing I've found that IS state law, is in regard to the PKU test (which we won't decline). Please help!
erythromycin...ca state law?
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
We're not in Cali, but I think Jay Gordon is. Here's a link to his website with some info for you (and your OB):<br><br><a href="http://www.drjaygordon.com/development/pediatricks/eyecare.asp" target="_blank">http://www.drjaygordon.com/developme...ks/eyecare.asp</a><br><br>
It's a state law in IL too, but we declined it no problem -- they just have you sign an AMA ("against medical advice") waiver. Don't let your OB bully you in to anything you don't want. GL!
It's a state law in IL too, but we declined it no problem -- they just have you sign an AMA ("against medical advice") waiver. Don't let your OB bully you in to anything you don't want. GL!
I am looking but haven't found the treatment mandate-- it may be it has been over turned by this law-- note the bottom line that gives parent's a right to refuse.<br><br>
" AB 2185, Gallegos. Eye pathology screening: newborns.<br>
Existing law provides for the newborn and infant hearing<br>
screening, tracking, and intervention program.<br>
This bill would require the State Department of Health Services,<br>
on or before June 30, 2002, to adopt the protocol developed by the<br>
American Academy of Pediatrics to optimally detect the presence of<br>
treatable causes of blindness in infants by 2 months of age. If a<br>
protocol is not developed on or before June 30, 2002, the department,<br>
in consultation with representatives of the 11-member Newborn Eye<br>
Pathology Task Force created by the bill, would establish a protocol<br>
to optimally detect the presence of treatable causes of blindness in<br>
infants by 2 months of age on or before January 1, 2003. The bill<br>
would also provide that if the American Academy of Pediatrics<br>
develops a protocol to optimally detect the presence of treatable<br>
causes of blindness by 2 months of age after the adoption of the<br>
protocol developed by the department, the department would conform<br>
its protocol to the protocol adopted by the American Academy of<br>
Pediatrics. The bill would specify that any recommended screening<br>
examination would not be conducted on a newborn if a parent or<br>
guardian of the newborn objects to the examination on the grounds<br>
that the examination conflicts with the religious beliefs or<br>
practices of the parent or guardian."
" AB 2185, Gallegos. Eye pathology screening: newborns.<br>
Existing law provides for the newborn and infant hearing<br>
screening, tracking, and intervention program.<br>
This bill would require the State Department of Health Services,<br>
on or before June 30, 2002, to adopt the protocol developed by the<br>
American Academy of Pediatrics to optimally detect the presence of<br>
treatable causes of blindness in infants by 2 months of age. If a<br>
protocol is not developed on or before June 30, 2002, the department,<br>
in consultation with representatives of the 11-member Newborn Eye<br>
Pathology Task Force created by the bill, would establish a protocol<br>
to optimally detect the presence of treatable causes of blindness in<br>
infants by 2 months of age on or before January 1, 2003. The bill<br>
would also provide that if the American Academy of Pediatrics<br>
develops a protocol to optimally detect the presence of treatable<br>
causes of blindness by 2 months of age after the adoption of the<br>
protocol developed by the department, the department would conform<br>
its protocol to the protocol adopted by the American Academy of<br>
Pediatrics. The bill would specify that any recommended screening<br>
examination would not be conducted on a newborn if a parent or<br>
guardian of the newborn objects to the examination on the grounds<br>
that the examination conflicts with the religious beliefs or<br>
practices of the parent or guardian."
Joined
·
5,396 Posts
I could decline so you can, too.<br><br><a href="http:" target="_blank">www.ucsfhealth.org/childrens/health_professionals/manuals/24_WellBabyNursery.pdf</a><br><br><br>
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Joined
·
602 Posts
It is mandated here in CA, but like all PP's said, you can opt against it- you'll just have to sign a simple waiver. Your doctor must know this- it sounds to me like he is trying to bully you. You DO NOT have to have any newborn procedure done that you do not want. Just be vocal about your consent or lack of consent.<br><br>
Congratulations on your upcoming birth- I hope you have a gentle and relaxing experience!
Congratulations on your upcoming birth- I hope you have a gentle and relaxing experience!
Joined
·
3,252 Posts
put the burden of proof on the doctor, tell him to get you a copy of the rule or statute, or at the very least provide you with a statute/rule number. That way you can look it up.
It is required by law, to be OFFERED. We have had plenty of clients decline it. I have doula'ed in hospitals and have seen clients decline. My own daughter declined it in the hospital. You most certainly can decline it in CA.<br><br>
You can also decline the PKU in CA as well. In our office, we have refusal forms from the state that clients sign and we send those in instead of the test card.<br><br>
Again, it is required that it be offered, but you as the parent decide what is given and what isn't.
You can also decline the PKU in CA as well. In our office, we have refusal forms from the state that clients sign and we send those in instead of the test card.<br><br>
Again, it is required that it be offered, but you as the parent decide what is given and what isn't.
Well...thanks for all the responses ladies! Of course I'm just getting them now, but all went well. I did find that it's state law that it's available/offered to ALL moms, but it's not state law tht it be administered. I didn't have to sign any waiver. The nurse just said "ok", and that was it. She actually agreed with me on the reson for refusal!<br>
We had asked to delay the VitK, pending the PKU. That was no problem at all either. The nurse actually advised me to decline it all together at that point. She said that by the time they get the results from the PKU, there will be no need to get the VitK. She said by then the baby will have consumed enough breastmilk that she'll have recieved her natrual dose of VitK from the colostrum and milk.<br>
At any rate....thank you again for your responses. My OB wasn't being a bully about it, he actually advised me to look it up, or talk to the nurses....but he WAS adamant that it's required by state law. He was partially correct.
We had asked to delay the VitK, pending the PKU. That was no problem at all either. The nurse actually advised me to decline it all together at that point. She said that by the time they get the results from the PKU, there will be no need to get the VitK. She said by then the baby will have consumed enough breastmilk that she'll have recieved her natrual dose of VitK from the colostrum and milk.<br>
At any rate....thank you again for your responses. My OB wasn't being a bully about it, he actually advised me to look it up, or talk to the nurses....but he WAS adamant that it's required by state law. He was partially correct.
Joined
·
317 Posts
I birthed in CA and declined, gosh everything I think. There is always a waiver form!
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!