- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Natural Birth
mamabird19
member
Vitamin K and Group B
mamabird19
member
Forgive me if this has already been discussed, I looked through and didn't see anything. I saw the article someone posted which was helpful, i am just looking to see if anyone has other opinions.
My widwife gave me information on Vitamin K shots and on Group B Strep- I am having a hard time making decisions about these two topics. Obviously I just want what is best for my baby so i am trying to gather information on both sides of the coin. It is easy to find a lot of information about why you should do the vitamin K shot, does anyone have any big arguments against it? How about for group b strep testing and treatment? I am not a fan of antibiotics but if its really necessary I will do it.
Please no bashing or insults, I am just looking for other opinions as I try to figure out what is best for my little one. Thank you for your help!
My widwife gave me information on Vitamin K shots and on Group B Strep- I am having a hard time making decisions about these two topics. Obviously I just want what is best for my baby so i am trying to gather information on both sides of the coin. It is easy to find a lot of information about why you should do the vitamin K shot, does anyone have any big arguments against it? How about for group b strep testing and treatment? I am not a fan of antibiotics but if its really necessary I will do it.
Please no bashing or insults, I am just looking for other opinions as I try to figure out what is best for my little one. Thank you for your help!
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Vitamin K and Group B
I will also do the Vit K. There's no reason I can find not to.
Just to be clear, I completely respect all of your choices and opinions on the matter!
We did a lot of research and talking to my MW before making that decision. We know that antibiotics are way overprescribed which is leading to antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. Therefore, it seems crazy that all pregnant women who test positive are treated with them when GBS status can change. You can test positive at 36 weeks and not be positive at birth (and vice versa). In addition, the risk is very, very small anyway.
Something I also recently learned is that it takes a long time for your gut to redevelop their natural balance of bacteria after antibiotics. If you need 2 rounds of antibiotics to deal with something it can take up to 6 months for that to happen. And if you have 3 rounds, it isn't known how long it will take (presumably longer than the 6 months though). Disclaimer: I heard this recently on NPR and haven't had a chance to research it myself.
Anyway, that's something I don't want to do to myself or LO unless absolutely necessary. So yeah, no pretreating with antibiotics here.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
As far as vitamin k goes, my doc has me on drops now to supplement rather than giving the shot to LO. About 95% of her patients (home birth) go this route, but she also offers the shot or drops for baby on request.
Good luck in your decision making!!
BFP #1 May 20, 2013 MC June 27, 2013 BFP #2 August 2, 2013 Baby Boy born 4/25/14 (3 weeks overdue!)
April 14 August Siggy Challenge- "This time last year.."
My LO got the vit K shot and the next one will get it as well.
@barnwife it does take a long time for your gut to redevelop the balance of beneficial bacteria but that is also why they have started pushing probiotics. Many probiotics have Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria which are two of the major components of the gut microbiota. Taking the probiotics helps restore your gut microbiota (bacteria) faster. Infants get much of their microbiota, gut included, from the moms skin/nipple when nursing, by coming through the vaginal tract, and even in breast milk.
@LovelyRitaMeterMaid
To state that I don't want what is best for my LOs and myself because we choose not to use vitamin K at birth is ridiculous. Sorry, but after that I read the rest of your post with...less respect let's say.
I didn't click the link. You are using it as a scare tactic. I think we can all agree that birth involves risk. Problems can still develop even if you choose to give vit. K. Or even if you take antibiotics. Or even if you vaccinate. Or (fill in whatever you want here).
Well, no, not really. The Vitamin K shot is extremely effective at preventing hemorrhagic disease of the newborn or Vitamin K Deficient Bleeding, which in its most dangerous form can cause severe and permanent brain damage or kill an otherwise healthy infant. The late form of HDN is most common in exclusively breastfed infants. The oral dosage doesn't protect well against the late form of HDN. The shot does. Vitamin K isn't transferred well via breastmilk so maternal supplementation won't prevent the risks of not having the prophylactic treatment.
So, on the one hand, you have an injection which has been widely used for more than half a century on probably 99.9% of babies born in this county, leading to the almost total elimination of HDN/VKDB, an injection that is done so quickly and matter of factly that I can't remember my child even receiving it (maybe he was nursing at the time)...and on the other hand, you have the decision to avoid a vitamin, a decision that is probably based on ill-founded and unsupported "evidence" of its "risks." Worse, it's a decision which could expose one's child to life-threatening complications that are completely and absolutely preventable.
Married Bio * BFP Charts
Research has shown that the gut flora of an infant born via c/s is entirely different than that of an infant born via vaginal birth, and that those bacteria present in the vagina cannot be made up for elsewhere. Taking the antibiotics during labor and killing off your vaginal flora means your baby can never get that bacteria again.
Our jobs as parents are to minimize the risks our children will face. We can't wrap them in bubble wrap and lock them in a tower until their 18th birthday to keep the safe, but we can make educated, well-reasoned decisions regarding their safety. It's why I vaccinate, it's why my child continues to ride rear-facing in his car seat, it's why he slept on his back as an infant, and so on and so forth. And it's why he got the Vitamin K shot at birth - because a 4.4 to 7.2 in 100,000 chance of late VKDB and accompanying serious intracranial or gastrointestinal hemorrhage paled in comparison to the momentary discomfort of an injection.
Avoiding Vitamin K is neither educated or well-reasoned, no matter how much you might believe it to be so. If your research is from Mercola.com or blogs written by the Healthy Home Economist instead of physicians and public health researchers with more than five decades of research on the safety and efficacy of this injection, well, you have in fact chosen to listen to random internet strangers, and worse, you've staked your child's health and safety on their ignorance.
Married Bio * BFP Charts
As for testing, what is the point when a person's status can change in the few weeks before the delivery? Even moms who test negative can still develop it, especially if they are getting dilation checks in the weeks prior to the birth. It just doesn't make sense to me. Anyone have any convincing arguments why you should, when it isn't even certain that you will stay that way? (Other than the hospital may make your baby stay extra days if you don't?)
Can I ask why you chose not to do the vitamin k shots? I am so skeptical and i know that is rare for babies to have the bleeding disorder but it is also so extreme when it does happen that I am torn. I would love to hear your opinions and reasoning for choosing not to do it if you don't mind sharing.
For those of you who did not do the vitamin K shots, was there a specific reason you chose not to? I of course would rather not give my sweet baby any shots just for the pain factor but I am wondering if you came across any other research or anything that played a part in your decision.
Thank you all again for chiming in, its a tough decision and I am grateful to be able to hear from other moms who have had to weigh the costs and benefits as well.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
People can poo-poo the worry about gut bacteria and antibiotics all they want, but I assume they aren't living with Crohn's Disease as I am. Every time I take antibiotics I end up in a flare that could land me in the hospital, unable to care for my children. There is so much new research being done on the role of gut flora in autoimmune disease. And since a lot of this research is just beginning, as someone whose automimmune disease is very hereditary, I'm taking many precautions to ensure that my children have the widest variety of gut flora possible. Sure, there may be some risk in my choices, as there are with any medical decision you make, but there is also a risk that my child could die from the complications of CD, too. We all weight the pros and cons of our medical decisions and make the best ones for ourselves, given the information that we feel is most important to us as individuals. You can continue to beat this dead horse and try to knock down others for their medical decisions, but I'd be wary of throwing around the idea that others are trying to act superior...
Thanks for assuming you know all my reasons for declining it. The infection risk from an injection isn't one (and frankly, if that's someone's only reason, I'd be inwardly side-eyeing them).
As for GBS, we all weigh the risk of GBS versus the risk of antibiotics. It is known that they destroy gut flora. That's fact. And it takes a long time to recover. I personally choose to avoid that unless absolutely necessary (i.e. GBS is a problem...and the fact is that mom being GBS+ at 36 weeks does not mean there will be a problem).
That's the best decision for me and my LOs.
Sticking it to pharma companies is the least of my worries. Actually, as I know quite a few people employed by them, I should want to keep them in business.
Also re: looking superior to others, pot meet kettle.
If giving 25% of pregnant women antibiotics regardless of risk factors isn't a recipe for disaster, I don't know what is. We know who we'll have to thank decades from now when mothers and babies are dying from simple infections that were once treatable with antibiotics because of this. I truly wish that we could at least move to the UK model of treatment in which only those with risk factors present receive the antibiotics. But no, scare tactics FTW!!!1!!!
ETA - I hope your recent bout of of diarrhea that landed you in the hospital has cleared up. As I mentioned, I have CD, so I know how terrible that is. Every time I take antibiotics I end up in the hospital just like you were. It's probably selfish and negligent of me to refuse those antibiotics though.
Antibiotics do not cause Crohn's Disease. Antibiotics do, however, kill off gut flora. Imbalances of gut flora cause flares of Crohn's Disease in many people. As someone who says they have Irritable Bowel Disease, I'd expect you to understand this. They do not cause Crohn's Disease, but if the genetics are there, they can be the trigger for the onset of symptoms, which has always been my case.
I never said that I'm worried about my infant getting CD because of antibiotics. What I am worried about is my infant getting an imbalance of gut flora because of the antibiotics. Research has proven that a baby that does not receive its mother's vaginal flora has deficient gut flora. My taking antibiotics will affect my baby's gut flora. I feel like giving my child's digestive tract and immune system the very best start in life, through vaginal birth and breastfeeding, both for probiotic benefits, is the opposite of selfish and negligent (as you would say). Since we know that there is a family history of autoimmune disease, avoiding antibiotics unless absolutely necessary is prudent.
So are you saying that doctors in the UK who only treat based on risk factors are negligent? Interesting.
And yes, antibiotic overuse and misuse (not finishing entire prescriptions) is a real and serious danger. The way you casually dismiss that is concerning. People need to wake up (I'll be nice here and not call them dense, as you would).
I wasn't saying antibiotics caused your issues that led you to the ER. Iwas saying that when I take them, I end up in the ER like you were in the ER. I was just assuming that your experience would bring you some empathy for someone who has ended up hospitalized for days because she has been curled up in the fetal position on the bathroom floor having diarrhea upwards of 35 times a day, is severely dehydrated, and losing weight rapidly.....and what started the flare was a round of antibiotics. I thought maybe your experience would allow you to be more understanding, but I now see that I was wrong.
Also, for me, all of this is a moot point, as my last labor was only 2 hours long and my water didn't break until pushing (as has been the case with all of my babies). Even if I hadn't birthed at home, I never would have made it to the hospital in time to receive the antibiotics and my child would have been treated the same way - monitored and treated as needed. No point to even test, as labors are fast and I refuse internals during labor, have waterbirths (which is proven to decrease transmission - I can pull up studies if you want), and don't allow AROM.
From the article:
The environment in which the baby is born also influences their initial colonisation. A study by Penders et al. (2013) found that term infants born vaginally at home and then breastfed exclusively had the most ‘beneficial’ gut microbiota.
The chance of colonisation and infection with group B streptococcus (GBS) is reduced with waterbirth (Cohain 2010; Neugeborene et al. 2007).
In 2006 a medical expert review (Ledger 2006) raised concerns about prophylactic antibiotics in labour.
And here's your proof that the antibiotics can be detrimental to a baby's health:
A study in 2011 found that antibiotics given in labour increased the incidence of late-onset serious bacterial infections in infants (Ashkenazi-Hoffnung et al. 2011).
As you can see, these are not from Mercola.
Well, I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. I offered legit medical studies to back up my claims. You're saying I'm basing my opinions on a hunch and I'm saying I'm not. I'm not sure what else I can say if you're not willing to read the links I provided.
On the last point, I only provided one study from years ago, however, there are many out there and many more currently being done. I didn't realize you wanted a full dissertation. Also, the studies that routine treatment of GBS with antibiotics are based on are WAY older than that. This is how science works. New studies emerge and change the ways we look at treatment.
I'm done. Eat your antibiotics all you want. I'll respectfully decline and I sleep well at night with my decision. Speaking of sleep. It's that time.
It doesn't matter that a narrow spectrum antibiotic is used to treat GBS, the effect on the gut flora is still the same. I'm not really sure why you think that makes a difference in the context of the discussion we just had. Penicillin kills gut flora. Period. And as you can see from the medical journal you're ignoring from above, even penicillin is linked to causing an increase in health problems in infants that are exposed.
I'm sorry that I have to explain this to you like you're five. GBS isn't going to be the only bacteria present in the body during delivery. When you take an antibiotic, the bacteria in your body respond to it. Sure, penicillin isn't a broad spectrum, but that doesn't mean that it is only killing off the GBS in the body.
Furthermore, 12% of the population is allergic to penicillin. The alternatives are becoming increasingly antibiotic-resistant (up to 40% with some options). This is a serious problem and proves that we need to look into alternatives. This is why I suggest the UK's model of treating only based on risk factors and not just giving antibiotics to every woman just because and out of fear. Babies aren't dying en masse in the UK because they take a different approach, are they?
As for me thinking I'm a "cool girl" - I'm not a girl, I'm actually a grown woman, but I'm having troubles believing you are one based on your contribution to this dialogue...
And I am completely laughing at the inconsistencies in your logic here. You're the one crying "OH! The risk is terrible. Babiez could DIEEEEEEEEE!", yet you're saying that it's not a big deal that 12% of the population's babies are potentially at risk for complications of that same bacteria you're on a soapbox about because treatments are becoming resistant. Either GBS is a big deal and we should be concerned about those 12% or it isn't. You're not making sense.
And puhlease with the google search BS. As if you're not doing the same thing. Oh wait, you're not doing the same thing.....you're not supplying any useful information to this debate other than your immature "'I know you are, but what am I' comebacks". lol
I'm going to respectfully disagree. And I'm not going to have my tubes tied, thank you very much. Lord willing, I'll have many more children to balance out the lack of empathy and the ignorance of the people like you that exist in this world. Your anger at me for a decision that in no way affects you is what is psycho, not my loving decision to do what I think is best for my family. I'm simply trying to have a dialogue about this and you can do nothing but come back with immature claims about what a terrible mother I am. At least I'm backing my claims up with statistical information, even if from google searches (searches that bring up valid medical journals, BTW) instead of just resorting to personal attacks (an obvious sign of a childish inability to respectfully debate something). Have a great day and enjoy having the last word here