Tests and proceedures for newborns - Did you turn them down?

Cathy Weeks wrote:
Hi all,
I'm curious what others have done with regard to the antibiotics put
into babies eyes, vitamin K shots, heel stick, and any other routine
tests and proceedures done to newborns.

We turned down the antibiotics in the eyes; that's to prevent the
transmission of of STDs to the baby. I don't have any STD, and I was
tested to double check, and everything came up clean. It just seemed
unnecessary.

Don't you love how you get tested for STD's when pregnant? I mean, no,
I don't have syphilis, thankyouverymuch!

I don't think I had a choice about the eye drops though. The
antibiotic ones don't seem to hurt, just to blur newborn vision. Some
states require this.

We also turned down the vitamin K shot - I believe (it's been awhile)
that it's to help with clotting in the newborn, and that it doesn't
hurt any healthy newborn, and helps the rare baby who needs it. It
seemed unnecessary as well.

You can get oral Vit K. I can see the reasoning behind not doing it
-- it isn't really needed in most cases. I just wanted to be on the
safe side.

We DID have them give ds the hepatitus vaccine shot but that was the
only shot and it was about 2 hours out after birth. I'm glad they
have more humane ways of doing the PKU heel stick and I'll check out
what my hospital does. Julian cried briefly and had a red mark on his
heel for a little while. The PKU test is another state required one.

So we went along with most of the routine things done to newborns, but
we made them wait until we could bond a little and try some nursing
without any crying and fussing from shots and drops.

You can and should ask that any interventions required by your state
are delayed 2 hours.

--Carolyn



--
Carolyn Fairman
http://www.stanford.edu/~cfairman/

"Carolyn Jean Fairman" wrote in message
...
Don't you love how you get tested for STD's when pregnant? I mean, no,
I don't have syphilis, thankyouverymuch!

I think they have to, though. I mean, if they only tested some people, the
ones who get tested are likely to get defensive and refuse. Or maybe they'd
be in denial and not ask for the test. If they test everyone, no one would
feel too badly about it because it's routine.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:29:13 GMT, "toypup" wrote:

I think they have to, though. I mean, if they only tested some people, the
ones who get tested are likely to get defensive and refuse. Or maybe they'd
be in denial and not ask for the test. If they test everyone, no one would
feel too badly about it because it's routine.

There is also the case that your husband/boyfriend has been sleeping
around. He has picked up something, and he was generous enough to
share with you.

When I was tested for the last pregnancy, I told my DH, "If any of
those test turn out to be positive, you will have a lot of explaining
to do." However, it was all for nothing. All my tests were negative.

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:53:45 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

toypup wrote:

If they test everyone, no one would
feel too badly about it because it's routine.

While it is certainly routine in many practices, it
is *NOT* required and you can decline if you wish.

Okay, I am confused. I thought toypup was talking about STD testing
in early pregnancy. But it seems that Ericka is talking about the PKU
test at birth.

Is that right? Or am I really confused???

--
Daye
Momma to Jayan
"Boy" EDD 11 Jan 2004

toypup wrote:

"Carolyn Jean Fairman" wrote in message
...

Don't you love how you get tested for STD's when pregnant? I mean, no,
I don't have syphilis, thankyouverymuch!


I think they have to, though. I mean, if they only tested some people, the
ones who get tested are likely to get defensive and refuse. Or maybe they'd
be in denial and not ask for the test. If they test everyone, no one would
feel too badly about it because it's routine.


While it is certainly routine in many practices, it
is *NOT* required and you can decline if you wish. I don't
believe the eyedrops are required in any state either. The
requirement is that they be *offered*, not necessarily that
they be *given*.

Best wishes,
Ericka

From: Ericka Kammerer

I don't
believe the eyedrops are required in any state either. The
requirement is that they be *offered*, not necessarily that
they be *given*.

It's required in Indiana. I don't think they would have an easy time enforcing
it (especially with the negative test results from 2 STD tests -- Indiana
requires that you are tested at the early OB screening, and at delivery).

We refused it, but I think it's the type of thing that you would have to be
reported, and it wouldn't be very likely that my MW (who is the one that
suggested refusing it) would report us.
--
Amy~
Tre' (6/92)
Keelyn (6/95)
Peyton (10/00)
Halli (8/15/03)

Nina wrote:
"Carolyn Jean Fairman" wrote:
Cathy Weeks wrote:
Hi all,
I'm curious what others have done with regard to the antibiotics put
into babies eyes, vitamin K shots, heel stick, and any other routine
tests and proceedures done to newborns.

We turned down the antibiotics in the eyes; that's to prevent the
transmission of of STDs to the baby. I don't have any STD, and I was
tested to double check, and everything came up clean. It just seemed
unnecessary.

Don't you love how you get tested for STD's when pregnant? I mean, no,
I don't have syphilis, thankyouverymuch!

I have no problem with that, many women have them without realizing it.
Better safe than sorry.

I know. And I do agree. It's just that *I* knew I wasn't going to
have syphilis but you have to do it anyway.

The HIV testing I refused when we were doing workups for fertility (it
took over a year for this pregnancy) because I knew if I got pregnant
they would want to test me *again*, especially if it took more than 6
months to get pregnant. With a false positive always a possibility, I
didn't want to take any chances of increasing that risk (I normally
give blood at least once a year and that would end for the rest of my
life with a positive, even a false positive).

--Carolyn





--
Carolyn Fairman
http://www.stanford.edu/~cfairman/

"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
om...
Hi all,
I'm curious what others have done with regard to the antibiotics put
into babies eyes, vitamin K shots, heel stick, and any other routine
tests and proceedures done to newborns.

We turned down the antibiotics in the eyes; that's to prevent the
transmission of of STDs to the baby. I don't have any STD, and I was
tested to double check, and everything came up clean. It just seemed
unnecessary.

As far as I know it isn't done here in New Zealand or perhaps because my STD
screen was clear I didn't get offered it.



We also turned down the vitamin K shot - I believe (it's been awhile)
that it's to help with clotting in the newborn, and that it doesn't
hurt any healthy newborn, and helps the rare baby who needs it. It
seemed unnecessary as well.

I went with this one. Although a clotting problem is rare it can be fatal so
I didn't want to risk it. It happens to babies who are otherwise perfectly
healthy so it's not only for high risk situations. The controversy is
related to a study done a while back that indicated an increase in childhood
cancer after vitamin K injection. As far as I can find this study has now
been discredited. After this study oral vitamin K began to be offered at
birth, a few hours later and for breastfed babies (it's in formula so not
needed) a few days later. Then there seemed to be an increase in cases of
newborns bleeding so some people think it may not be as effective as the
injection. This article seems to sum it up well.

http://www.aap.org/policy/s030123.html


The final test we considered was the heel stick. My midwife promised
that the baby wouldn't even cry (but to not let a nurse do it with a
lance, because then they WILL cry). We decided to go ahead and do that
one, since what it revealed might actually change cause us to change
what was needed. And our midwife used this device that rotated a tiny
scapel sideways a pre-determined depth, and didn't rely on the nurse's
skill to do the jab (she just held it against Kivi's heel, and pressed
a button). Kivi didn't seem to feel it at all, and that was in
contrast to when my stepson was born...he was jabbed with a lancet or
whatever it's called, and he screamed.

I think the heelstick is important because it test for genetic conditions
like PKU which if left untreated can be fatal. My son had a nasty one, he
didn't bleed well so had to be stuck a few times and wasn't happy. I'd still
do it again because that's nothing compared to what he would go through with
a serious indiagnosed condition.




I'm curious to know if anyone else arrived at the same decisions, or
different ones or what?

I go by a general rule of, if the test is for something very rare but
serious then I will do it. If the test is for something not so serious but
very common I will do it.

Judy

Daye wrote in message . ..
that I flat out refused was Hep B vaccine. I will also refuse
it for this baby. The only way for a newborn to get Hep B is from the
mother. I am Hep B negative. My DH and DD have been immunized. DD
was immunized at around 12 months or so. The other 2 major risk
factors is needle drugs and sex. I don't see the baby at risk.

What's the deal with that one? No one mentioned vaccines to me at the
time of my daughter's birth. In fact, she saw a dr for the first time
at 48 hours, and then again at 2 weeks, and neither time did anyone
suggest a vaccination. The first one could have been at 4 weeks, but
my doctor said we could wait until she was a bit older (which we did)
to start the shots. I think she was 8 or 10 weeks old before she got
any vaccinations.

Why are they doing them so young?

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01

"Carolyn Jean Fairman" wrote in message
...
Nina wrote:
"Carolyn Jean Fairman" wrote:
Cathy Weeks wrote:
Hi all,
I'm curious what others have done with regard to the antibiotics put
into babies eyes, vitamin K shots, heel stick, and any other routine
tests and proceedures done to newborns.

We turned down the antibiotics in the eyes; that's to prevent the
transmission of of STDs to the baby. I don't have any STD, and I was
tested to double check, and everything came up clean. It just seemed
unnecessary.

Don't you love how you get tested for STD's when pregnant? I mean, no,
I don't have syphilis, thankyouverymuch!

I have no problem with that, many women have them without realizing it.
Better safe than sorry.

I know. And I do agree. It's just that *I* knew I wasn't going to
have syphilis but you have to do it anyway.

The HIV testing I refused when we were doing workups for fertility (it
took over a year for this pregnancy) because I knew if I got pregnant
they would want to test me *again*, especially if it took more than 6
months to get pregnant. With a false positive always a possibility, I
didn't want to take any chances of increasing that risk (I normally
give blood at least once a year and that would end for the rest of my
life with a positive, even a false positive).

Not necessarily true. I had a false positive for HIV once because I donated
when I had a cold (which was either coming on, or I thought I was over it,
I'm not sure which). I had to jump through a few dozen hoops to get cleared
for donation again (further testing showed zero of the proteins in HIV,
after the 'quick' test had come back false-positive). I mean, I had to have
a proper test done, blood draw at my doctor's office, etc., but I *was*
cleared to donate.

Considering that there are about 70 different things that can cause a false
positive for HIV, including a cold or a prior pregnancy, I'd think the blood
centers would *not* toss out donors who can prove a false positive.

--angela

--angela