For those weighing eye ointment...

A37licia

mobile users: For those weighing eye ointment...

I read an article from Evidence Based Birth regarding the eye ointment, and it discusses the history of it and reasons for it today including options that parents have in *most* states (not all).  Have a look if it's something you wondered about. 

https://evidencebasedbirth.com/is-erythromycin-eye-ointment-always-necessary-for-newborns/

I fit the category of being negative for the relevant STDs and being in a faithful monogamous relationship, and don't agree with the recent belief of it being a "catch all" for general infections from the birth canal, so we are quite comfortable opting out for our children and are glad to have lived in states where it's no big deal to refuse it.

merc5411

It's an interesting article, but it states that the only way a baby can get ON is from gonorrhea or chlamydia.  That is untrue.  A baby can get ON from skin or GI bacteria as well, and everyone has the potential for that.  I am choosing to delay giving the ointment for the first hour, but I am absolutely going to get it.  IMO it's a simple thing to prevent potential problems.

thegoodpotato

It has no adverse side effects... Why would you not?

I have no STDs, and have been with my H for 7 years, but I'm still doing it.  I just don't see why I wouldn't. 

A37licia

thegoodpotato:

It has no adverse side effects... Why would you not?

I have no STDs, and have been with my H for 7 years, but I'm still doing it.  I just don't see why I wouldn't. 

It actually does have risks, if you read the article.  There are few medical procedures that carry no risk, and there's no reason a parent can't assess the situation for themselves and decide to avoid a medical intervention when research indicates that makes sense to decline it, as per the article: "If a mother is not infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea and is in a mutually faithful relationship with an uninfected partner, then newborn eye ointment may be reasonably declined."  ::shrugs::

And to the other pp, you might have skimmed the part where she explains her classification of ON: 

"The two main causes of ON are chlamydia or gonorrhea, both of which are sexually transmitted infections (Ali, Khadije et al. 2007). For the rest of this article, whenever I say ?ON,? I am referring to chlamydial or gonorrheal ON."

She goes on to say "The only way for a newborn to contract ON is if the mother is infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea," and the reader should know she's talking about chlamydial or gonorrheal ON.

merc5411

A37licia:

thegoodpotato:

It has no adverse side effects... Why would you not?

I have no STDs, and have been with my H for 7 years, but I'm still doing it.  I just don't see why I wouldn't. 

It actually does have risks, if you read the article.  There are few medical procedures that carry no risk, and there's no reason a parent can't assess the situation for themselves and decide to avoid a medical intervention when research indicates that makes sense to decline it, as per the article: "If a mother is not infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea and is in a mutually faithful relationship with an uninfected partner, then newborn eye ointment may be reasonably declined."  ::shrugs::

And to the other pp, you might have skimmed the part where she explains her classification of ON: 

"The two main causes of ON are chlamydia or gonorrhea, both of which are sexually transmitted infections (Ali, Khadije et al. 2007). For the rest of this article, whenever I say ?ON,? I am referring to chlamydial or gonorrheal ON."

She goes on to say "The only way for a newborn to contract ON is if the mother is infected with chlamydia or gonorrhea," and the reader should know she's talking about chlamydial or gonorrheal ON.

 

I was pointing out that there are other ways to get ON.  If you choose to ignore those possibilities, then that's on you, but other people might be interested to know that there are other ways to get ON.  Just because you don't have an STD doesn't mean your baby won't get ON.

A37licia

merc5411:

I was pointing out that there are other ways to get ON.  If you choose to ignore those possibilities, then that's on you, but other people might be interested to know that there are other ways to get ON.  Just because you don't have an STD doesn't mean your baby won't get ON.

Nobody said it was the only way to get ON. 

A37licia

maryannespier:

As much as no one likes to think about this, you can never been 100% positive that you are in a completely monogamous relationship.

Do you get tested in each pregnancy for a range of STDs and HIV, and take other measures in your household on a day to day basis to avoid possible transmission because you can't be 100%? Do you avoid intercourse during pregnancy to avoid possible passing of STDs? It's a logical outworking of approaching about your marriage/relationship that way. Just sayin'.  

Soleil3

A37licia:

maryannespier:

As much as no one likes to think about this, you can never been 100% positive that you are in a completely monogamous relationship.

Do you get tested in each pregnancy for a range of STDs and HIV, and take other measures in your household on a day to day basis to avoid possible transmission because you can't be 100%? Do you avoid intercourse during pregnancy to avoid possible passing of STDs? It's a logical outworking of approaching about your marriage/relationship that way. Just sayin'.