If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Baby's first spinal manipulation | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | February 25th 04 08:43 PM |
Review: My Baby's Daddy (* 1/2) | Steve Rhodes | General | 0 | January 15th 04 05:03 AM |
Baby study links antibiotics to asthma | Ilena | Kids Health | 1 | October 4th 03 12:47 AM |
Review: Casa de los Babys (** 1/2) | Steve Rhodes | General | 0 | September 26th 03 05:56 AM |