- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Natural Birth
hailey1312
member
declining newborn procedures..
hailey1312
member
I wanted to decline the antibiotic ointment for the baby's eyes and the vitamin K injection. My midwife said by state law they are required. It doesn't seem like too big a deal regarding the ointment, she said we have them delay it, and it wipes out of their eyes pretty easy. I am more concerned about the Vit K injection as I have heard that it is 20,000 times the needed dose.
So I was looking on my state's website and can't find ANYTHING regarding them being required. I can't actually find any info on what really is required except for the PKU blood testing and hearing test (which I don't have a problem with).
Does anyone know how I can find the state laws (Indiana) on newborn routine procedures, namely the eye ointment and vitamin k injections?
Thanks!
This discussion has been closed.
Re: declining newborn procedures..
They are required in our state too (Idaho) but I signed papers saying that I knew what they where and what they where for and what could happen with out them and then could say I was declining or accepting.
I would think that you would be able to do that in any state.
https://www.in.gov/isdh/20215.htm
this seems to be the website, I didn't see anything about vit K and the eye ointment. I'm sure you could call them and verify though.
Where are you "hearing" this information?
Newborn babies who are exclusively breast-fed are at increased risk of vitamin K deficiency, because human milk is relatively low in vitamin K compared to formula. Newborn infants, in general, have low vitamin K status for the following reasons: 1) vitamin K is not easily transported across the placental barrier; 2) the newborn's intestines are not yet colonized with bacteria that synthesize menaquinones; and 3) the vitamin K cycle may not be fully functional in newborns, especially premature infants (6). Infants whose mothers are on anticonvulsant medication to prevent seizures are also at risk of vitamin K deficiency. Vitamin K deficiency in newborns may result in a bleeding disorder called vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) of the newborn. Because VKDB is life-threatening and easily prevented, the American Academy of Pediatrics and a number of similar international organizations recommend that an injection of phylloquinone (vitamin K1) be administered to all newborns (15).
If that's not enough, here's some more:
Vitamin K and childhood leukemia: In the early 1990s, two retrospective studies were published suggesting a possible association between vitamin K injections in newborns and the development of childhood leukemia and other forms of childhood cancer. However, two large retrospective studies in the U.S. and Sweden that reviewed the medical records of 54,000 and 1.3 million children, respectively, found no evidence of a relationship between childhood cancers and vitamin K injections at birth (16, 17). Moreover, a pooled analysis of six case-control studies, including 2,431 children diagnosed with childhood cancer and 6,338 cancer-free children, found no evidence that vitamin K injections for newborns increased the risk of childhood leukemia (18). In a policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that routine vitamin K prophylaxis for newborns be continued because VKDB is life-threatening and the risks of cancer are unproven and unlikely (19). See the full text of the AAP policy statement on vitamin K and the newborn.
I'm not sure about your state laws, but ours in Canada state that the OB/midwife must administer the ointment, but the Vit K shot is optional. It seems that some practitioners will turn a blind eye to the law if there is no one else in the room.
We are declining the Vit K shot too - I got the ingredients of the one they administer at our hospital - it includes synthetic Vitamin K, proplene glycol and polyethylene glycol - both the latter ingredients are used in products like antifreeze, paint thinners, etc. I'm not putting that junk into my newborn. I've done a lot of research on this and have read numerous studies linking this shot to all sorts of diseases (and I'm sure the companies who make them have put together studies that refute that evidence - we're talking big Pharma here). In the end, the risk of disease from the shot is much much higher than any rare risk of hemmoraging. I've also done a lot of reading about alternative ways to provide Vitamin K through breast milk, so have been eating a high VK diet in preparation.
I find it odd that naturally babies would be born without Vitamin K if indeed it was so vital. I trust mother nature's design. Don't let the pharmaceutical companies scare you...
In my section of Canada both are optional. When I asked my OB about declining the Vita K he assumed I would want the eye goop declined as well. And while I don't have any STD's and have basically zero risk for them because I have only had 1 partner and never had blood tranfusions or tatoo's or even had my ears pierced, I was actually ok with the eye goop. All I had to do was tell the nursing staff during delivery that I didn't want the shot unless it was a tramatic birth, which I needed vacuum assitance, so we got the shot anyway.
Daughter #1 - February 12, 2010
natural m/c March 11, 2011 at 8 1/2 weeks
Daughter #2 - January 11, 2012
Ectopic pregnancy discovered November 6, 2012 at 6 weeks
Daughter #3 - January 19, 2014
Started our exploration into the world of international adoption June 2012. We have no idea what this is going to look like but we are excited to find out!
Where do you get this garbage? Seriously.
I'd talk to where you are delivering. DH and I had to go in for a contraction check up and we gave the hospital our birth plan. We are not wanting to do anything we don't have to to our LO. We have our reasons but anyway... Even though the 'law' says the vitamin k shot is required we can opt out in our birth plan and sign a simple wavier at the hospital. The eye drops they let me see the tube and read the ingredients. It's straight erythromycin and the nurse showed me how extremely little they use. Because not getting that one requires a notarized statement and a whole bunch of other forms. But now that I know exactly what's happening I'm okay with it.
If you are delivering at home you can still call the local hospital I'm sure they'll know exactly what you'll need.
Eye ointment law in IN: https://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title16/ar41/ch15.html
(see IC 16-41-15-6)
I would think that info on the Vit K shot would be in that section of law as well, but saw nothing.
My MW said a good number of her clients decline both the ointment and the Vit K, and where I live you can do so by signing a form that says you were provided with informed consent and declined them.
I signed them in advance, but asked my MW to bring the Vit K to the birth just in case something happened and I changed my mind. I know it's usually necessary mostly for traumatic births and most homebirths are not at all traumatic...no vaccuum or forceps or pitocin...
My son was born with a nuchal hand, and he was pretty large. I pushed for about 45 minutes. While the labor and delivery were not at all 'traumatic' in the sense that they were natural, peaceful, and empowering we changed our minds (with some information from her given at the time of birth) and had her administer the Vit K, and I am so glad we did. When she came back the next day to check on us, she noticed he was developing a cephalohematoma on his head (blood pooling between the scalp and skull) because his head had been malpresented due to the nuchal hand. If we'd not administered Vit K, we'd have had a lot of worries due to that. I was SO glad we were flexible and did what we all thought was best for HIM in HIS situation.
My point is just this: while you may be able to decline the Vit K (perhaps talk about the oral dose?) you may want to have it there and available just in case. I had ABSOLUTELY NO interventions at my son's birth and still he looked just like my friend's son who was removed via episiotomy and vaccuum. You just never know.
I am declining the eye goop and Hep B shot (doing this one later), but I am going to do the Vit. K, just FYI....
I was asking my husband about this a couple of months ago because he's an attorney and Hep B is mandatory. He said that you can do pretty much whatever you want as long as your willing to sign a form that states that you went against medical advice. If something does turn up wrong with your baby and you'd like to sue at some later date, it may be difficult to do so because you went against medical advice, but I think that's probably pretty rare...
GL!
Morgan's Birth Story: http://www.fullcirclemidwifery.com/2009/06/morgans-birth/
Chloe's Birth Story: http://www.fullcirclemidwifery.com/2012/04/chloes-birth/
IC 16-41-15-6
Infant eye examinations; treatment
Sec. 6. A person in professional attendance at a birth shall carefully examine the eyes of the infant and if there is reason for suspecting infection in one (1) or both eyes, the person in professional attendance at the birth shall apply such prophylactic treatment as may be prescribed by the state department.
As added by P.L.2-1993, SEC.24.
This doesn't state that it is required at all!! All it says is that they must examine the baby's eyes and IF there is reason to believe the baby HAS an infection THEN and only then do they need to use antibiotic ointment. No where have I read where it is mandatory for every baby born. And I can't find anything on the Vitamin K being required or even suggested by that matter. The more i have read about it, I feel ok letting them do the eye ointment to prevent any conjunctivitis , even though I know I don't have an STD of any kind, I have read that it can help so the baby doesn't get any infection from your vaginal bacteria, or from any possible meconium, etc.
The vitamin K is what I am questioning the most at this point. I don't want to withhold something from my baby that could prevent something that could be serious, but it seems there is just so much questionable info on what side affects it can cause and whether it's necessary/safe etc.
I also don't like the fact that the doctor and hospital say that these are required, when in fact I can find no laws stating that they really are. I want to do what is best for my baby but don't tell me I HAVE to do something and it's required when it isn't . That would be like saying it is required for them to do a circumcision and that it is standard routine, when it fact, just because so many people do get it done, does not make it required at all. ...
Sigh. WHERE are you finding this "questionable information"?
The eye ointment is supposed to prevent blindness if the baby passes through the vagina and the mother has gonorrhea or chlamydia. If you don't have either of these then you should be fine in declining. Discuss it with your care provider. I have also heard (on a different natural parenting forum) of women being able to express breast milk into the baby's eyes and that seems to satisfy the doctors. I haven't been able to research any studies on that yet, but there were plenty of women saying they weren't given any hassles.
As for the vitamin K, I found a few article say there are bad side affects (childhood cancer etc), but they are very outdated. I have read what another person wrote about a recent article dismissing the older research, but this person never sited the article. If anyone has sources about vitamin k (there were some posted above) please share.
Make a pregnancy ticker
You can decline anything, you might have to sign some stuff.
If you have a particularly hard labor, or if you intend to circumcise a baby boy (my opinion - don't), the hospital staff will strongly recommend vitamin K - but you can ask for it in a liquid form rather than a shot if you arrange it beforehand.