Antibiotics in baby's eyes?

To me it's just not that big of a deal, and I'd agree to have it done.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03
Addison Grace, 9/30/04

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1, Password:
Guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

OSPAM wrote:

I think that's routine in most hospitals anyway. By all means ask about it,
but I think it's usually done during the thorough exam AFTER parents and baby
have had some time together and baby is sleepy/sleeping. That's certainly
how
it was done 12 1/2 years ago when Shaina born, and it wasn't viewed as
revolutionary even then.

I don't think my hospital would have *minded* doing it that way, but it wasn't
the routine. In fact by the time Peter was born I think we had all totally
forgotten about asking for the antibiotic to be put in later, and he got it
right away, I am pretty sure.

--Helen

Thanks everyone. In the end I declined the treatment. My reason is
two-fold: 1- I was tested negative; 2- If there are any symptoms of
conjonctivitis (??) they will apply the antibiotics to treat it, and it will
be fine.
Since the midwife will be coming to see me the day after birth, 3 days after
and again 5 days after, I feel safe.

I just didn't like the fact of giving an unncessary treatment.


"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

Unfortunately, I've been tested GBS positive... Darn. Even though I don't
like the idea, especially after reading more on the subject (thanks to your
post), I will go ahead with the preventive treatment. The consequences of
an exposure are much more severe, albeit not more likely, than with C&G...

I don't like the idea of having a needle stuck in my arm, but at least they
will not leave the IV all the time on, and I can ask for the needle to be
removed after administration... until the next (goal: get in that huge tub
in the birth centre!).

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Zaz wrote:

Thanks Ericka, that's what I was really wondering about.

I don't like the idea of treatments "just in case". I have accepted the
Vitamin K, as vitamins are not the same as antibiotics, and I have
accepted to the the Strep-B screening (results should be in tomorrow),
because the treatment would be applied to me, not to the baby, which is
different.

I don't have any heartburn at all about your doing
GBS testing, and I'm not meaning to challenge that decision,
but just wanted to point out that even though you'd be the
one getting the antibiotics if you were GBS+, your baby
will get them too. In fact, that's the whole *point* of
giving them to you--so that they get to the baby prior to
birth. They are specifically trying to treat the baby
with antibiotics by giving them to you so that the baby
can fight off GBS infection if exposed during the birth.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:34:24 -0500, Zaz wrote:

Unfortunately, I've been tested GBS positive... Darn.

Bummer!! Luckily this is one of these things where IMO the prevention is
worth it. Although the chance is small, I'd ten times rather be stuck with
a needle than take a risk. And I'm NO fan of antibiotics, they give me
fungal infections all over...

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to four tiny angels
(28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04, 20 May'04 & 28 Oct'04)
guardian of DH (33)

Thanks. That's what I think too, even though Ericka there had me thinking a
lot.
Now, all I hope is that I'll have time to get to the birth centre before
giving birth (they're announcing a snow storm - yep, it' Nov. 5 here too!)
;-)


"Ilse Witch" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 16:34:24 -0500, Zaz wrote:

Unfortunately, I've been tested GBS positive... Darn.

Bummer!! Luckily this is one of these things where IMO the prevention is
worth it. Although the chance is small, I'd ten times rather be stuck with
a needle than take a risk. And I'm NO fan of antibiotics, they give me
fungal infections all over...

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to four tiny angels
(28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04, 20 May'04 & 28 Oct'04)
guardian of DH (33)

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:30:10 -0500, Zaz wrote:

Thanks. That's what I think too, even though Ericka there had me thinking a
lot.

It's always good to think these things through. This is not a common thing
to test for in the Netherlands, but with my first pregnancy here I did
think about this for a long time before I made up my mind. I'm not at all
a fan of interventions, but once the midwife told me that a GBS positive
did not automatically imply hospitalization, and I did not need to deliver
within 24h after water breaking, I agreed to the testing.

Now I've learned that I'm destined for hospital birhts anyway, since my
thyroid WILL play up again with each pregnancy. Ah well *shrug*

Now, all I hope is that I'll have time to get to the birth centre before
giving birth (they're announcing a snow storm - yep, it' Nov. 5 here too!)
;-)

O joy! I hope you'll be OK. Fingers crossed.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to four tiny angels
(28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04, 20 May'04 & 28 Oct'04)
guardian of DH (33)

Ilse Witch wrote in message ...
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:30:10 -0500, Zaz wrote:

Thanks. That's what I think too, even though Ericka there had me thinking a
lot.

It's always good to think these things through. This is not a common thing
to test for in the Netherlands, but with my first pregnancy here I did
think about this for a long time before I made up my mind. I'm not at all
a fan of interventions, but once the midwife told me that a GBS positive
did not automatically imply hospitalization, and I did not need to deliver
within 24h after water breaking, I agreed to the testing.

I was/am GBS+ and I had a homebirth - here in the US, which is not
nearly so homebirth friendly as the Netherlands. They just brought
an IV to my house. At the time, they gave two doses of antibiotics 6
hours apart, but I gave birth before the second dose. (I think they
do it every 4 hours now).

Cathy Weeks
Mommy to Kivi Alexis 12/01