Why would you refuse the hearing test?

BalancingJane

I use my family doctor for my LO, and I love her. She is very supportive of low intervention approaches, BFing, etc. And she knows that I feel the same way, but she mentioned to me that she turned down a couple that was interviewing her to be the doctor for their not-yet-born baby. She said they were giving birth in the hospital but insisting on no medical treatments for the baby: no vaccinations, no eye drops, and no hearing test.

I understand not wanting the meds (though that's not the choice I made), but why wouldn't you want the hearing test? It's no-risk, right?

papagena

I don't think there is any risk medically.  I believe I've heard that sometimes they get a false positive (as in incorrectly think something is wrong) but then they just redo it at a later date to check. 

That said, I don't know exactly what they do to be honest. 

~adamwife~

I don't know.  I just looked it up and apparently there are two ways to test.  One way (ABR) is described this way:

The ABR test involves attaching electrodes to the head to record electrical activity from the auditory nerve (the hearing nerve) and other parts of the brain. Also known as brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEP).

The other one is described this way:

An otoacoustic emission test (OAE) measures an acoustic response that is produced by the inner ear (cochlea), which in essence bounces back out of the ear in response to a sound stimulus. The test is performed by placing a small probe that contains a microphone and speaker into the infant's ear. As the infant rests quietly, sounds are generated in the probe and responses that come back from the cochlea are recorded. Once the cochlea processes the sound, an electrical stimulus is sent to the brainstem. In addition, there is a second and separate sound that does not travel up the nerve, but comes back out into the infant's ear canal. This "byproduct" is the otoacoustic emission. The emission is then recorded with the microphone probe and represented pictorially on a computer screen. The audiologist can determine which sounds yielded a response/emission and the strength of those responses. If there is an emission present for those sounds that are critical to speech comprehension, then the infant has "passed" the hearing screen.

Maybe people have a problemwith hooking electrodes up to their baby's head or placing a speaker and microphone in the ear.  I can see how that would bother people.

 

AutumnBride929

~adamwife~:

Maybe people have a problemwith hooking electrodes up to their baby's head or placing a speaker and microphone in the ear.  I can see how that would bother people.

 

This and maybe they think that it's not pertinent for a hearing test to be done when they could probably figure out on their own (eventually) that their child has a hearing problem and/or do the test at a later time when their child is a little bit older.  Basically, it's not like an urgent thing to have done I guess so they just decide to refuse it.

BalancingJane

That makes sense--not wanting the electrodes. And I guess if the test is that involved they'd have to take the baby away and maybe they don't want that. It just seemed odd to me when the doc said it, but I guess I can see where it would be an informed choice.

ckolak:-)

I would absolutely not refuse it. If it comes up positive, they would just retest the baby a couple weeks later, but it's really no risk and one of those things that the sooner you can find out there's a problem, the sooner you can make necessary adjustments and such in your care routine.

randommoose

~adamwife~:

An otoacoustic emission test (OAE) measures an acoustic response that is produced by the inner ear (cochlea), which in essence bounces back out of the ear in response to a sound stimulus. The test is performed by placing a small probe that contains a microphone and speaker into the infant's ear. As the infant rests quietly, sounds are generated in the probe and responses that come back from the cochlea are recorded. Once the cochlea processes the sound, an electrical stimulus is sent to the brainstem. In addition, there is a second and separate sound that does not travel up the nerve, but comes back out into the infant's ear canal. This "byproduct" is the otoacoustic emission. The emission is then recorded with the microphone probe and represented pictorially on a computer screen. The audiologist can determine which sounds yielded a response/emission and the strength of those responses. If there is an emission present for those sounds that are critical to speech comprehension, then the infant has "passed" the hearing screen.

Maybe people have a problemwith hooking electrodes up to their baby's head or placing a speaker and microphone in the ear.  I can see how that would bother people. 

As someone with background in Audiology, the OAE is extremely standard and painless.  Nothing enters the ear farther than a Q-Tip, and it's done by professionals.  The reason this test is done at birth is because deaf babies respond VERY well to cochlear implants-you could give them a normal speaking, hearing life!

(As someone with a background in neurology, electrodes placed on the scalp just look weird and are TOTALLY harmless.)

lunatic76

I didn't let my LO get the eye drops nor the hearing test.  She is 19 months and perfectly fine.

Sagenhaft

randommoose:

~adamwife~:

An otoacoustic emission test (OAE) measures an acoustic response that is produced by the inner ear (cochlea), which in essence bounces back out of the ear in response to a sound stimulus. The test is performed by placing a small probe that contains a microphone and speaker into the infant's ear. As the infant rests quietly, sounds are generated in the probe and responses that come back from the cochlea are recorded. Once the cochlea processes the sound, an electrical stimulus is sent to the brainstem. In addition, there is a second and separate sound that does not travel up the nerve, but comes back out into the infant's ear canal. This "byproduct" is the otoacoustic emission. The emission is then recorded with the microphone probe and represented pictorially on a computer screen. The audiologist can determine which sounds yielded a response/emission and the strength of those responses. If there is an emission present for those sounds that are critical to speech comprehension, then the infant has "passed" the hearing screen.

Maybe people have a problemwith hooking electrodes up to their baby's head or placing a speaker and microphone in the ear.  I can see how that would bother people. 

As someone with background in Audiology, the OAE is extremely standard and painless.  Nothing enters the ear farther than a Q-Tip, and it's done by professionals.  The reason this test is done at birth is because deaf babies respond VERY well to cochlear implants-you could give them a normal speaking, hearing life!

(As someone with a background in neurology, electrodes placed on the scalp just look weird and are TOTALLY harmless.)

 

So, no potential for a negative outcome but a huge potential to change the baby's life for the better? Yeah, everyone should probably do it. This goes back to the "natural or bust" argument, IMO. Some people are too wrapped up in no intervention and they stop thinking about what's best for their baby.

 

christelrn

Hmmm. So odd. It is not invasive at all. It takes ~5-10min depending on if the baby is sleeping, awake, fussy,etc... If they fail they just get retested typically in a month. I work in Neonatology and have never had a family refuse a hearing screen. If there is a hearing problem it is best to catch it super early so the baby can receive appropriate care - usually get free support/evaluations by the state in this situation.

iris427

I think refusing this test is bizarre.  I really think some people just have this knee jerk reaction to refuse anything that is medical.  I see that attitude on MDC sometimes.

LindseyJW

we had it done with our son before we left the hospital.

my daughter was born at home. we planned to take her in for the screening, but we noticed that she was following our voices (turning her head), and soon enough, responding to our voices. so, clearly, she could hear us. then i looked into doing the test and learned that if there was a problem indicated, they would just retest at 1 month. by 1 month, my DD was very obviously responding to sound (even very small sounds), so i decided not to do the test. and now i wonder why they don't just wait until 1 month to test. anyone know?

makclair

iris427:

I think refusing this test is bizarre.  I really think some people just have this knee jerk reaction to refuse anything that is medical.  I see that attitude on MDC sometimes.

totally this.

pinksweetpea2

I had a homebirth, but took Lily in when she was about a month old to get her hearing tested.  She slept through the whole thing. 

mesr

i had a homebirth, and it was a huge PITA to find a place around here that would do the test.  once we found a place, we had to go twice because dd cried through the first round.  the test itself was no big deal.  the only reason i could see turning down would be the hassle and cost, but even then, that's a pretty poor reason.

SoxChamps

Maybe they didn't want it to be done after birth, but would have it done later? IDK. I think I would rather it be done at the hospital since they do it while they are asleep anyway. I need to figure out where we can do this around here after a HB.

adrenalinejnke27

I am a Teacher of the Deaf and Hard of hearing and can't understand why people would refuse this either. (Maybe the problem is that hospital Drs aren't giving new parents enough information about the procedure?) Besides what has been said about it being painless, totally non-invasive and risk free, it can save so many future problems. For the argument about the child responding to loud sounds or voices and therefore being fine, thats not always the case. Depending on the type of hearing loss, the child may still be able to hear the sounds, but not understand them, or maybe only have a hearing loss in one ear.  This is part of the reason children with hearing loss in the past had such a difficult time being successful- they weren't identified as having hearing loss until they already had a language delay or sometimes not until they went to school and failed a hearing screening there!

Moral of the story- newborn hearing screening is sooo worth it!

pinksweetpea2

mesr:

i had a homebirth, and it was a huge PITA to find a place around here that would do the test.  once we found a place, we had to go twice because dd cried through the first round.  the test itself was no big deal.  the only reason i could see turning down would be the hassle and cost, but even then, that's a pretty poor reason.

Weird.  Our pedi set it up for us.   

CaseBride

I would not refuse it, but I wanted to add that like some of the PP's, I found it a total PITA to get it done after DD's birth at a freestanding birth center. They did not offer it there, so I had to go through my pedi - and they would not let me get the "newborn" hearing test (even though she was a newborn) because they said they only did those in the hospital and they wouldn't let us go there even though I offered to. We had to go to the audiology clinic, pay an outrageous co-pay, and get the extra screening one that took over an hour.

I'm glad we had it done, for peace of mind, but man, it seriously was a pain. They need to figure out a better system for those who have out of hospital births because I understand why some of those babies could "slip through the cracks" when they make it so difficult!

~adamwife~

CaseBride:

I would not refuse it, but I wanted to add that like some of the PP's, I found it a total PITA to get it done after DD's birth at a freestanding birth center. They did not offer it there, so I had to go through my pedi - and they would not let me get the "newborn" hearing test (even though she was a newborn) because they said they only did those in the hospital and they wouldn't let us go there even though I offered to. We had to go to the audiology clinic, pay an outrageous co-pay, and get the extra screening one that took over an hour.

I'm glad we had it done, for peace of mind, but man, it seriously was a pain. They need to figure out a better system for those who have out of hospital births because I understand why some of those babies could "slip through the cracks" when they make it so difficult!

I'm really thankful for this post.  This test is one of the things I haven't thought about at all.  I haven't talked to my family doc about my homebirth at all, because I was worried about having a "conversation" with her about it.  I plan to just make an appointment after the birth.  I never thought about having to go to an audiologist to do the test.  Sigh.

honkytonk_kid

LindseyJW:

we had it done with our son before we left the hospital.

my daughter was born at home. we planned to take her in for the screening, but we noticed that she was following our voices (turning her head), and soon enough, responding to our voices. so, clearly, she could hear us. then i looked into doing the test and learned that if there was a problem indicated, they would just retest at 1 month. by 1 month, my DD was very obviously responding to sound (even very small sounds), so i decided not to do the test. and now i wonder why they don't just wait until 1 month to test. anyone know?

It's easier to do it while babies are already in the hospital than to get people to bring them back in a month.

plainjanie1

We refused because we would have had to pay $50 for it, and I knew our daughter could hear fine - she proved straight away that she could hear EVERYTHING we could hear from a pen dropping to someone yelling in the next room, to the heating vent, and even our whispers.  We didn't find it necessary at all.

mesr

pinksweetpea2:

mesr:

i had a homebirth, and it was a huge PITA to find a place around here that would do the test.  once we found a place, we had to go twice because dd cried through the first round.  the test itself was no big deal.  the only reason i could see turning down would be the hassle and cost, but even then, that's a pretty poor reason.

Weird.  Our pedi set it up for us.   

the pedi we had at the time just said that babies usually had it done in the hospital (we have since switched pedis!) and couldn't provide us with a recommendation for where to have it done.  of course the hospital would only do the test for babies born there.  so i had to learn that i needed to find an audiologist...  i ended up calling the hospital and begging them to give me the name of someone.

pinksweetpea2

mesr:

pinksweetpea2:

mesr:

i had a homebirth, and it was a huge PITA to find a place around here that would do the test.  once we found a place, we had to go twice because dd cried through the first round.  the test itself was no big deal.  the only reason i could see turning down would be the hassle and cost, but even then, that's a pretty poor reason.

Weird.  Our pedi set it up for us.   

the pedi we had at the time just said that babies usually had it done in the hospital (we have since switched pedis!) and couldn't provide us with a recommendation for where to have it done.  of course the hospital would only do the test for babies born there.  so i had to learn that i needed to find an audiologist...  i ended up calling the hospital and begging them to give me the name of someone.

That sucks.  Glad you found a new pedi.  

 

LindseyJW

honkytonk_kid:

LindseyJW:

we had it done with our son before we left the hospital.

my daughter was born at home. we planned to take her in for the screening, but we noticed that she was following our voices (turning her head), and soon enough, responding to our voices. so, clearly, she could hear us. then i looked into doing the test and learned that if there was a problem indicated, they would just retest at 1 month. by 1 month, my DD was very obviously responding to sound (even very small sounds), so i decided not to do the test. and now i wonder why they don't just wait until 1 month to test. anyone know?

It's easier to do it while babies are already in the hospital than to get people to bring them back in a month.

aha! thanks. 

AutumnBride929

BalancingJane:

That makes sense--not wanting the electrodes. And I guess if the test is that involved they'd have to take the baby away and maybe they don't want that. It just seemed odd to me when the doc said it, but I guess I can see where it would be an informed choice.

It's quite simple.  MIL was holding DS and the audiologist said she could just remain holding him... she put the little thingies (electrodes, lol) on his head and ran the test.  It didn't affect him one bit.

And I think maybe it's a state law here?  I could be wrong though... I can't remember where I heard that.  Maybe it's not a law but a routine practice done here unless otherwise requested by the parents...

blainethetrain

I'm planning to refuse it because it's just another unnecessary test/expense. You are going to figure out pretty quickly if your baby can hear, without making loud noises in his ears.

Mrs_Liberto

hckygrl909:

I'm planning to refuse it because it's just another unnecessary test/expense. You are going to figure out pretty quickly if your baby can hear, without making loud noises in his ears.

And if you had read any if the posts from the radiology specialist or Deaf/hard of hearing teacher just a few post above, the average person cannot always tell if their child has a hearing problem. It is absolutely not just another way for the hospital to make money and assuming that it is could be a very real problem for your child.

LittleEgypt

Mrs_Liberto:

hckygrl909:

I'm planning to refuse it because it's just another unnecessary test/expense. You are going to figure out pretty quickly if your baby can hear, without making loud noises in his ears.

And if you had read any if the posts from the radiology specialist or Deaf/hard of hearing teacher just a few post above, the average person cannot always tell if their child has a hearing problem. It is absolutely not just another way for the hospital to make money and assuming that it is could be a very real problem for your child.

Ours was done for free by a group afilliated with the local University audiology department, although I did not give birth in the teaching hospital.

blainethetrain

hckygrl909:

I'm planning to refuse it because it's just another unnecessary test/expense. You are going to figure out pretty quickly if your baby can hear, without making loud noises in his ears.

Also the false positive rate in low risk newborns has been calculated to be between 2.5 and 8%. Not worth it to ruin my peace of mind for a test that can be done in a month or so with better results.

MandyBrownNoser

hckygrl909:

hckygrl909:

I'm planning to refuse it because it's just another unnecessary test/expense. You are going to figure out pretty quickly if your baby can hear, without making loud noises in his ears.

Also the false positive rate in low risk newborns has been calculated to be between 2.5 and 8%. Not worth it to ruin my peace of mind for a test that can be done in a month or so with better results.

Like the others said- it isn't an unnecessary test at all.

(c&p'd because I didn't want to type it all out again) 

When I was born they didn't.  And I didn't have damage enough that made it really noticeable to my parents. I would still turn towards sounds and whatever but once it came time for me to learn to talk and all that, I was very delayed.The pediatrician just chalked it up to being premature and left it at that.It wasn't for another couple of years (in which I had obviously learned to talk but didn't talk nearly as much as other kids) that my parents noticed that I wasn't just being an obstinant  toddler, I couldn't hear them if I couldn't see their face because I was reading lips.

They finally got me into an audiologist and an ENT- couple months later and I was talking like there was no tomorrow.  

I went for years unable to hear very well because my parents and everyone around them said- well she turns towards sounds, must not have a problem.  They were all wrong.  I've got the hearing aids today as proof. 

blainethetrain

MandyBrownNoser:

hckygrl909:

hckygrl909:

I'm planning to refuse it because it's just another unnecessary test/expense. You are going to figure out pretty quickly if your baby can hear, without making loud noises in his ears.

Also the false positive rate in low risk newborns has been calculated to be between 2.5 and 8%. Not worth it to ruin my peace of mind for a test that can be done in a month or so with better results.

Like the others said- it isn't an unnecessary test at all.

(c&p'd because I didn't want to type it all out again) 

When I was born they didn't.  And I didn't have damage enough that made it really noticeable to my parents. I would still turn towards sounds and whatever but once it came time for me to learn to talk and all that, I was very delayed. The pediatrician just chalked it up to being premature and left it at that. It wasn't for another couple of years (in which I had obviously learned to talk but didn't talk nearly as much as other kids) that my parents noticed that I wasn't just being an obstinant  toddler, I couldn't hear them if I couldn't see their face because I was reading lips.

They finally got me into an audiologist and an ENT- couple months later and I was talking like there was no tomorrow.  

I went for years unable to hear very well because my parents and everyone around them said- well she turns towards sounds, must not have a problem.  They were all wrong.  I've got the hearing aids today as proof. 

Perhaps I should reword my response. I am planning to refuse the test as a newborn procedure. As I stated earlier, the rate for false positive in NEWBORN testing is too high for ME to justify causing the stress and/or expense. I will have a hearing screening done at a later time while my son is still an infant. I did read all the posts, I also read literature in several pediatric journals before forming my opinion. I am not criticizing those who opt to have the test, I am not anti-medicine. Frankly, for being a natural birth board, with many people who are have alternative viewpoints that they will rabidly defend, it sure seems like a lot of people are pretty quick to shove their opinions on others.

ToledoDeux

hckygrl909:

Perhaps I should reword my response. I am planning to refuse the test as a newborn procedure. As I stated earlier, the rate for false positive in NEWBORN testing is too high for ME to justify causing the stress and/or expense. I will have a hearing screening done at a later time while my son is still an infant. I did read all the posts, I also read literature in several pediatric journals before forming my opinion. I am not criticizing those who opt to have the test, I am not anti-medicine. Frankly, for being a natural birth board, with many people who are have alternative viewpoints that they will rabidly defend, it sure seems like a lot of people are pretty quick to shove their opinions on others.

 

Mrs_Liberto

hckygrl909:

MandyBrownNoser:

hckygrl909:

hckygrl909:

I'm planning to refuse it because it's just another unnecessary test/expense. You are going to figure out pretty quickly if your baby can hear, without making loud noises in his ears.

Also the false positive rate in low risk newborns has been calculated to be between 2.5 and 8%. Not worth it to ruin my peace of mind for a test that can be done in a month or so with better results.

Like the others said- it isn't an unnecessary test at all.

(c&p'd because I didn't want to type it all out again) 

When I was born they didn't.  And I didn't have damage enough that made it really noticeable to my parents. I would still turn towards sounds and whatever but once it came time for me to learn to talk and all that, I was very delayed. The pediatrician just chalked it up to being premature and left it at that. It wasn't for another couple of years (in which I had obviously learned to talk but didn't talk nearly as much as other kids) that my parents noticed that I wasn't just being an obstinant  toddler, I couldn't hear them if I couldn't see their face because I was reading lips.

They finally got me into an audiologist and an ENT- couple months later and I was talking like there was no tomorrow.  

I went for years unable to hear very well because my parents and everyone around them said- well she turns towards sounds, must not have a problem.  They were all wrong.  I've got the hearing aids today as proof. 

Perhaps I should reword my response. I am planning to refuse the test as a newborn procedure. As I stated earlier, the rate for false positive in NEWBORN testing is too high for ME to justify causing the stress and/or expense. I will have a hearing screening done at a later time while my son is still an infant. I did read all the posts, I also read literature in several pediatric journals before forming my opinion. I am not criticizing those who opt to have the test, I am not anti-medicine. Frankly, for being a natural birth board, with many people who are have alternative viewpoints that they will rabidly defend, it sure seems like a lot of people are pretty quick to shove their opinions on others.

That's because there's a huge difference between wanting a low/no-intervention birth and lumping all testing and maternal/newborn routine care into some vague "BIGSCARYINTERVENTION bad!" category. Do I support/encourage med-free/low intervention birth? Absolutely. But assuming that everyone who posts here in support of natural birth ALSO believes in the anti-medicine hype that's so trendy these days (anti-vax, anti-newborn testing, etc) is flat out insulting.

There are huge differences between being against routine medical procedures with proven poor outcomes (like episiotomy) and being against newborn testing because you think it's expensive or might have a rate of error. Evidenced based medicine and recent studies all support that interventions in birth can lead to a snowball effect of c-sections, NICU time, lack of bonding, breastfeeding issues, or worse.That's a fact.

Contrary to the findings re: interventions in birth, there is NO study or evidence-based medicine that supports any excuse for delaying a hearing test (or most of the other routine newborn tests) aside from the fact that it may need to be repeated. That's not a legitimate reason for skipping it entirely; that's a reason to not panic IF you happen to have a false reading.

The  main problem I have w/ delaying the hearing test for no particular reason is that finding an audiologist outside the hospital after birth can be incredibly challenging, as several people have noted. Logically, that increases the risk that not all kids will get tested (because parents will assume that they can find an audiologist, and then they can't, so they skip the test in its entirety), which then logically increases the likelihood that more kids will wind up needing EI or SpEd services in the future. And I can guarantee you that those tests and services (and the emotional/educational damage to your child) will cost much more than a hearing test. 

Also, you seem to imply that we should all just accept everyone else's opinion because this isn't as much a "mainstream thought" board. But just because you have an opinion on something does not mean your opinion is right. A lot of these "anti-intervention" opinions completely fly in the face of every medical study and fact we know. You (global you, not necessarily saying just you, specifically) are entitled to think whatever the hell you want but that doesn't mean we have to shut our mouths and accept an opinion when it's wrong. Not everything in life is gray area or up for debate. There are things that are black and white, proven facts, like vaccines saving lives, and our decrease in herd immunity due to anti-vaccination trends, or the sky being blue or car seats saving lives-- you can choose not to believe these facts but that doesn't make them less true.

lindsayll

Slow clap for Mrs_Liberto.  Well said.

MandyBrownNoser

Not to mention I wasn't throwing an opinion at you- I was throwing a first hand experience at you.

Germanwife2b

I had a homebirth and took DS into an audiology center to get his hearing tested.  He failed.  I wasn't worried because he was following our voices and other noises.  We repeated the test and he failed again.  We did the biggest test out there and he continued to fail (despite the fact that he followed our voices, etc).

At three months old, DS had tubes placed in his ears.  We retested and he PASSED!  I was so happy that we had this done before the language really set in for him.  They can tell even minor hearing losses with these tests (because clearly, DS could hear bigger sounds).  Now DS is speaking English and German pretty well. 

I'm not really sure why someone would refuse the hearing screen.  It was very valuable for us!!!

WannaBeCrunchyMama

We had it done this time. I will wait 10 days next time. (There's some law about getting done within the first 10 days or something in utah)

I want it done because I want to get treatment early IF there is a problem.

We will wait, because DS didn't pass his at 2 days and it was HELL waiting for that second appointment.

They often don't pass the first one. Fluid in there ears, excessive sleepiness and other things can make them fail. Also, we read that if the room isn't absolutely silent, or if they are awake, they don't get accurate results. 

There more likely to get accurate results after a week or so because babies are more responsive   and if there's AF in there ears it's likely gone by then. 

I'd wait if I were you. If LO fails and you have to get a second one you'll be miserable not knowing.

desmerelda317

Mrs_Liberto:

hckygrl909:

MandyBrownNoser:

hckygrl909:

hckygrl909:

I'm planning to refuse it because it's just another unnecessary test/expense. You are going to figure out pretty quickly if your baby can hear, without making loud noises in his ears.

Also the false positive rate in low risk newborns has been calculated to be between 2.5 and 8%. Not worth it to ruin my peace of mind for a test that can be done in a month or so with better results.

Like the others said- it isn't an unnecessary test at all.

(c&p'd because I didn't want to type it all out again) 

When I was born they didn't.  And I didn't have damage enough that made it really noticeable to my parents. I would still turn towards sounds and whatever but once it came time for me to learn to talk and all that, I was very delayed.The pediatrician just chalked it up to being premature and left it at that.It wasn't for another couple of years (in which I had obviously learned to talk but didn't talk nearly as much as other kids) that my parents noticed that I wasn't just being an obstinant  toddler, I couldn't hear them if I couldn't see their face because I was reading lips.

They finally got me into an audiologist and an ENT- couple months later and I was talking like there was no tomorrow.  

I went for years unable to hear very well because my parents and everyone around them said- well she turns towards sounds, must not have a problem.  They were all wrong.  I've got the hearing aids today as proof. 

Perhaps I should reword my response. I am planning to refuse the test as a newborn procedure. As I stated earlier, the rate for false positive in NEWBORN testing is too high for ME to justify causing the stress and/or expense. I will have a hearing screening done at a later time while my son is still an infant. I did read all the posts, I also read literature in several pediatric journals before forming my opinion. I am not criticizing those who opt to have the test, I am not anti-medicine. Frankly, for being a natural birth board, with many people who are have alternative viewpoints that they will rabidly defend, it sure seems like a lot of people are pretty quick to shove their opinions on others.

That's because there's a huge difference between wanting a low/no-intervention birth and lumping all testing and maternal/newborn routine care into some vague "BIGSCARYINTERVENTION bad!" category. Do I support/encourage med-free/low intervention birth? Absolutely. But assuming that everyone who posts here in support of natural birth ALSO believes in the anti-medicine hype that's so trendy these days (anti-vax, anti-newborn testing, etc) is flat out insulting.

There are huge differences between being against routine medical procedures with proven poor outcomes (like episiotomy) and being against newborn testing because you think it's expensive or might have a rate of error. Evidenced based medicine and recent studies all support that interventions in birth can lead to a snowball effect of c-sections, NICU time, lack of bonding, breastfeeding issues, or worse.That's a fact.

Contrary to the findings re: interventions in birth, there is NO study or evidence-based medicine that supports any excuse for delaying a hearing test (or most of the other routine newborn tests) aside from the fact that it may need to be repeated. That's not a legitimate reason for skipping it entirely; that's a reason to not panic IF you happen to have a false reading.

The  main problem I have w/ delaying the hearing test for no particular reason is that finding an audiologist outside the hospital after birth can be incredibly challenging, as several people have noted. Logically, that increases the risk that not all kids will get tested (because parents will assume that they can find an audiologist, and then they can't, so they skip the test in its entirety), which then logically increases the likelihood that more kids will wind up needing EI or SpEd services in the future. And I can guarantee you that those tests and services (and the emotional/educational damage to your child) will cost much more than a hearing test. 

Also, you seem to imply that we should all just accept everyone else's opinion because this isn't as much a "mainstream thought" board. But just because you have an opinion on something does not mean your opinion is right. A lot of these "anti-intervention" opinions completely fly in the face of every medical study and fact we know. You (global you, not necessarily saying just you, specifically) are entitled to think whatever the hell you want but that doesn't mean we have to shut our mouths and accept an opinion when it's wrong. Not everything in life is gray area or up for debate. There are things that are black and white, proven facts, like vaccines saving lives, and our decrease in herd immunity due to anti-vaccination trends, or the sky being blue or car seats saving lives-- you can choose not to believe these facts but that doesn't make them less true.

I'd give the thumbs up if my Mac let me do emoticons.  Stupid Safari!  And also, thank you Mandy for sharing your story.  I was never anti-hearing test but I appreciate hearing what you went through.  I'm sure it was difficult, but I think stories like yours really help to shed light on why some of these tests really are so important. 

userdeleted

lindsayll:

Slow clap for Mrs_Liberto.  Well said.

 

macchiatto

Sagenhaft:

 

So, no potential for a negative outcome but a huge potential to change the baby's life for the better? Yeah, everyone should probably do it. This goes back to the "natural or bust" argument, IMO. Some people are too wrapped up in no intervention and they stop thinking about what's best for their baby.

 

I agree. It was done the day after my boys were born and just took a few minutes, not invasive or painful, etc. I definitely don't regret having it done!

ETA: Adding to the applause for MrsLiberto! And Mandy, thank you for sharing your story!