Antibiotics in baby's eyes?

I have to make that decision, and frankly, I am not certain what to do.
While our healthcare minister recommends lowering down the administration of
antibiotics, it is still law to rub every newborn's eyes with an antibiotic
cream. I am given the option to refuse, if I sign an official renunciation.
The thing is, I'm really *not sure* what to do.

On the one hand, I feel that this is silly: I was tested for gonnorhea and
chlamedya and the tests showed negative. So, officially, there's no reason
for me to have that treatment administered to my baby. Then why is it still
a norm to do so? I find it very strange to start my baby's life with
antibiotics, as we are all aware of the dangers of over-using antibiotics
without cause.

And then, if, by some sort of wicked destiny, I had either of those
diseases, would we be able to see the symptoms and treat the baby early
enough to avoid any problems?

What are your thoughts on that? I'm certain there have been posts about it
before, but I can't seem to be able to find them...

Isabelle

And then, if, by some sort of wicked destiny, I had either of those
diseases, would we be able to see the symptoms and treat the baby early
enough to avoid any problems?

My feeling is that, given that topical antibiotics are NOT absorbed into the
body, this is a pretty minor procedure all told. And given that women with
STD's are commonly NOT symptomatic, I'd probably feel more secure getting the
ointment and being done with it. It doesn't seem to bother the baby, has
minimal risks, and could prevent serious illness.

Naomi

My feeling is that, given that topical antibiotics are NOT absorbed into the
body, this is a pretty minor procedure all told. And given that women with
STD's are commonly NOT symptomatic, I'd probably feel more secure getting the
ointment and being done with it. It doesn't seem to bother the baby, has
minimal risks, and could prevent serious illness.

Naomi

One thing you could do to make it less invasive is to delay the administration
of the eyedrops until after the usual alert stage that most newborns have just
after the birth. (They get an adrenaline surge during the pushing stage and are
usually wide awake for a bit after the birth, then go to sleep.) Then the baby
absorbs the drops during sleep and is not goopy-eyed when next awake. That was
what my midwife suggested, anyway.

--Helen

Naomi Pardue wrote:
And then, if, by some sort of wicked destiny, I had either of those
diseases, would we be able to see the symptoms and treat the baby
early enough to avoid any problems?

My feeling is that, given that topical antibiotics are NOT absorbed
into the body, this is a pretty minor procedure all told. And given
that women with STD's are commonly NOT symptomatic, I'd probably feel
more secure getting the ointment and being done with it. It doesn't
seem to bother the baby, has minimal risks, and could prevent serious
illness.


That was my feeling. I always try to way up the risk of doing it versus the
risk of not. Everyone comes out differently but I chose to not worry about
the ointment, both my boys had it.

--
Nikki

"H Schinske" wrote in message
...

One thing you could do to make it less invasive is to delay the
administration
of the eyedrops until after the usual alert stage that most newborns have
just
after the birth. (They get an adrenaline surge during the pushing stage
and are
usually wide awake for a bit after the birth, then go to sleep.) Then the
baby
absorbs the drops during sleep and is not goopy-eyed when next awake. That
was
what my midwife suggested, anyway.

--Helen


That's what my midwife said they would do. They would give the drops about
two hours after the baby is born, so we have time to make eye contact, get
the first feed and cuddles...

Zaz wrote:

I have to make that decision, and frankly, I am not certain what to do.
While our healthcare minister recommends lowering down the administration of
antibiotics, it is still law to rub every newborn's eyes with an antibiotic
cream. I am given the option to refuse, if I sign an official renunciation.
The thing is, I'm really *not sure* what to do.

On the one hand, I feel that this is silly: I was tested for gonnorhea and
chlamedya and the tests showed negative. So, officially, there's no reason
for me to have that treatment administered to my baby. Then why is it still
a norm to do so? I find it very strange to start my baby's life with
antibiotics, as we are all aware of the dangers of over-using antibiotics
without cause.

And then, if, by some sort of wicked destiny, I had either of those
diseases, would we be able to see the symptoms and treat the baby early
enough to avoid any problems?

What are your thoughts on that? I'm certain there have been posts about it
before, but I can't seem to be able to find them...

I don't think it's a huge deal in terms of creating antibiotic
resistant germs, nor do I think it's a huge deal in terms of bonding
if you wait. On the other hand, it's not as necessary as it used to
be in that the serious complications (including blindness) that used
to be possible are now possible to diagnose and treat early without
long term complications. From a public health standpoint, it can still
make sense to always use the antibiotics because you never know whether
that baby will be back in the health care system again, but *you* know
whether you'd follow up if there were any complications. Personally,
we chose not to do the drops knowing that I wasn't positive for any
STDs and knowing that the odds of there being a complication that
wouldn't be detected and treated was excruciatingly small. I'm
comfortable with that decision, but I don't think it's a terrible
thing to have the antibiotics either.

Best wishes,
Ericka

H Schinske wrote:

One thing you could do to make it less invasive is to delay the
administration of the eyedrops until after the usual alert stage that
most newborns have just after the birth.

I delivered in two different hospitals and this is how it was handled each
time so it isn't out of line to ask for this even if you are planning to
deliver in a hospital with an OB.

--
Nikki

here in the UK it's not standard to give antibiotic eye drops and there
certainly doesn't seem to be any problems as a result

It isn't the norm here in NZ, but then we are pretty non-interventionist. I
knew I did not have any STD's, so it wasn't done. Even the STD testing
appears to be by request, as I didn't have that either. I wouldn't want goop
in my baby's eyes unnecessarily.

--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/


"Zaz" wrote in message
...
I have to make that decision, and frankly, I am not certain what to do.
While our healthcare minister recommends lowering down the administration
of
antibiotics, it is still law to rub every newborn's eyes with an
antibiotic
cream. I am given the option to refuse, if I sign an official
renunciation.
The thing is, I'm really *not sure* what to do.

On the one hand, I feel that this is silly: I was tested for gonnorhea and
chlamedya and the tests showed negative. So, officially, there's no reason
for me to have that treatment administered to my baby. Then why is it
still
a norm to do so? I find it very strange to start my baby's life with
antibiotics, as we are all aware of the dangers of over-using antibiotics
without cause.

And then, if, by some sort of wicked destiny, I had either of those
diseases, would we be able to see the symptoms and treat the baby early
enough to avoid any problems?

What are your thoughts on that? I'm certain there have been posts about it
before, but I can't seem to be able to find them...

Isabelle

"Zaz" wrote in message . ..
I have to make that decision, and frankly, I am not certain what to do.
While our healthcare minister recommends lowering down the administration of
antibiotics, it is still law to rub every newborn's eyes with an antibiotic
cream. I am given the option to refuse, if I sign an official renunciation.
The thing is, I'm really *not sure* what to do.

On the one hand, I feel that this is silly: I was tested for gonnorhea and
chlamedya and the tests showed negative. So, officially, there's no reason
for me to have that treatment administered to my baby. Then why is it still
a norm to do so? I find it very strange to start my baby's life with
antibiotics, as we are all aware of the dangers of over-using antibiotics
without cause.

We declined the antibiotic eye ointment for our first baby and will
decline it for the one due in February as well. My reasoning was the
same as yours -- I allowed them to test me for those diseases when
they did the GBS swab at 36 weeks, and since it was negative (as I
expected), we signed the official waiver, declining the ointment. I'm
in the US, and I believe that it's law that you must be offered the
ointment, but they can't make you put it in. I had no problem signing
the waiver to protect my midwives, because my signature on the waiver
proves that they did indeed fulfill the law and offer the ointment. I
think this time (different state, different midwives) the midwives
require that I purchase the ointment and have it on hand but then I
can do or not do with it as I choose.

Here's the link to google where I was asking this same question almost
exactly 3 years ago: http://tinyurl.com/3nmn3.

And then, if, by some sort of wicked destiny, I had either of those
diseases, would we be able to see the symptoms and treat the baby early
enough to avoid any problems?

Not sure.

Just a PS to that whole discussion for which I posted the link -- I am
really glad we declined the eye ointment the first time. Our newborn
was an *extremely* alert newborn, and she spent her first several days
staring intently at our faces, watching the lights, focusing on the
curtains, etc. I'm not sure how much she could see very clearly, but
I'm glad there wasn't goop in her eyes even for a few minutes to get
in her way.

-Sara
Mommy to a beautiful DD with beautiful and healthy eyes, and a new
baby due in February