New guidelines regarding Eye Drops and Vitamin K

amother

Lavender

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 3:05 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

https://www.health.ny.gov/prof.....DHbLQ

Quote:

Previous guidance circulated in 1999 advised providers to report a family’s refusal to Child Protective Services. This is no longer correct. The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) has taken the position that the refusal of preventative medical procedures such as eye prophylaxis and vitamin K does not meet the definition of a maltreatment of a child and a report to the Statewide Central Registry (SCR) will not be accepted in these circumstances. The SCR will, however, accept a report when a parent 3 who has a relevant pre-existing condition (e.g., vitamin K deficiency, gonorrhea, chlamydia) and refuses to allow medical treatment (e.g., eye prophylaxis, or vitamin K injection) for the newborn which harms the newborn or places the newborn at imminent risk of harm.

A step in the right direction for parents' choice!

And here I thought there were new guidelines, as in new scientific information or new medical guidelines.

Well, as long as it's not an infectious disease, it doesn't bother me if parents want to skip this stuff for their babies.

https://evidencebasedbirth.com.....orns/
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/vitamink/faqs.html
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr.....s.pdf

If 100 anti-science parents take this risk, 2 of their babies will develop bleeding issues and 1 out of every 5 of those will die. Meaning, for every 250 parents who refuse the injection, there will be one less child spreading disease later on because their parents refused to vax.

Sounds good to me.

amother

Sienna

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 3:18 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

If 100 anti-science parents take this risk, 2 of their babies will die. Meaning, there will be 2% less children spreading disease later on because their parents refused to vax.

Sounds good to me.

Are you for real? Surprised

It takes a very special person to wish death on babies of parents with differing views.

amother

Lavender

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 3:29 am

amother [ Sienna ] wrote:

Are you for real? Surprised

It takes a very special person to wish death on babies of parents with differing views.

Half-sarcastic.

I wish all parents would be responsible and not purposely decide that their own personal opinions are worth risking their child dying.

That said, if they are going to risk killing children, better that they kill their child at birth than infect - and possibly maim or kill - my child with measles, mumps, or pertussis (or anything similar).

I do tend to be partial to my own children and prefer their lives, safety, and health to those of others' children, especially if the other children's parents have no problem risking their kids' lives anyways. I mean, if you don't really care to protect your children's lives, why should I value the lives of your children over the lives of mine? So I don't.

Like I said, I would definitely prefer for all parents to act responsibly instead of needlessly risking their children's health, safety, and lives. But if I can't have that - and it looks like I can't - then at least let them risk their own children's lives and not my children's lives. It's not as good as risking no children's lives, but it'll have to do.

amother

Lavender

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 4:35 am

amother [ Sienna ] wrote:

Are you for real? Surprised

It takes a very special person to wish death on babies of parents with differing views.

Also, I didn't "wish" anything.

The stats say that 2 out of every 100 who don't receive the vitamin K injection will have internal bleeding, and one in five of those will die. You can like it, or you can not like it. You can wish for it to happen, or wish for it not to happen.

The only way to prevent it is by giving the vitamin K shot.

These are the facts. Wishing them away won't make a difference. But maybe stating them clearly will make parents realize how ignorant they are.

So telling me that I'm "wishing" for babies to die is just plain wrong (not to mention misleading).

amother

Lavender

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 8:32 am

Frenchfry wrote:

I always refuse the eye drops, but why would someone refuse the k shot? It's just a vitamine. Doesn't every baby need clotting factors? Especially a boy who will be having a bris.

Exactly. The sheer brilliance of refusing the vitamin K shot is beyond me.

The eye drops you can debate. The vitamin K? Not up for debate.

amother

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 8:46 am

Frenchfry wrote:

I always refuse the eye drops, but why would someone refuse the k shot? It's just a vitamine. Doesn't every baby need clotting factors? Especially a boy who will be having a bris.

It's not JUST a vitamin. It's a medication like any other which comes with a black box warning. I'm not weighing in on whether to give it or not, but know thy risks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24059412

amother

Lavender

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 9:17 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Well, with it, 0-0.4 babies out of every 100,000 develop vitamin K deficiency bleeding.
Without it, those numbers jump to 4.4-7.2 infants out of every 100,000.

But, like I said, I have no stake in your decision to deny your child the vitamin K shot. Unlike the MMR, DTaP, and polio shots (and the flu shot), whether or not you give your child the vitamin K shot has absolutely no effect on my family.

So, do what you want, sheyivusam lach.

amother

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 9:25 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

I am not arguing numbers with you. There are risks to not giving Vitamin K, and there are risks to yes giving it. You don't know what decisions I make for my kids.

This is about choice. I am glad parents are being allowed to make these decisions and not being forced to make the decision that YOU or someone else thinks is right for them.

miami85

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 9:29 am

amother [ Violet ] wrote:

No - but I believe things in thr body to be cumulative and I dont like unnecessary interventions
I have my own health issues that are genetic for my kids. I have reason to be wary.

I understand your concern however I think both treatments seem to have a lot more benefit than any potential risk that's why they are given without consent. I myself decline the Hep B shot right after birth because in my research the main risks were in infants with breathing issues/congenital issues that can't be known when you sign the consent form (ive always been offered it before birth/upon admission to hospital), however since even a GBS result can change which can possibly affect a newborn's eyes, they give the eye ointment. It just so happens that I had pink eye days before I delivered and my pcp prescribed the erythromycin oinment--the same one they give to infants with the logic of, "if its safe for them, why not a pregnant woman?" It was a very safe and gentle antibiotic, no "side effects" other than affecting my vision (it rests on the opening of the eye making it difficult to see). Vitamin K helps with clotting, infants do not have enough of that (which is why Hashem made the bris on the 8th day when the clotting factor drastically improves). True its less needed a)for females/Jews who don't do circumcision in the hospital b)with genetic testing hemophaelia is drastically reduced now. I used to hate taking even a Tylenol when I'm sick, but then I learned that the body can fight infection better if not also fighting a fever and I have noticed a difference in healing time if I take the Tylenol when I have a fever.

Odelyah

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 9:51 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

Nope not only are we fond of carseats (even booster seats for older kids Surprised

) and OK with K, we even give all required vaccines and always have. And even get flu shots!! I also coslept, breastfed toddlers, did yoga, had natural births with good midwives in good hospitals (who agreed it was reasonable for us to skip the eye ointment), and avoided white sugar, white flour, margarine Smile

and used herbal remedies successfully for years. I respect peer-reviewed scientific studies and my motherly intuition. I always make sure to treat strep with the full course of antibiotics. I ask my pediatrician lots of questions and respect his judgement.

Sometimes (most of the time?) people don't fit into neat boxes. BH! Life is so much more interesting than it would be if that were the case Wink

amother

Lavender

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 10:10 am

Odelyah wrote:

Nope not only are we fond of carseats (even booster seats for older kids Surprised

Are you the OP? Because if not, then I have no idea why you even responded to my post.

My post did not even discuss the eye ointment - only the vitamin K injection.

amother

Lavender

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 10:13 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

I think you made your decision pretty clear. If you do by any chance give the vitamin K injection, please say so directly and I will apologize for wrongly assuming.

Meanwhile, I'm glad you're happy with the new guidelines and I'm glad you're not my neighbor.

By the way, are you also pro-choice when it comes to texting and driving?

Odelyah

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 10:23 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

Are you the OP? Because if not, then I have no idea why you even responded to my post.

My post did not even discuss the eye ointment - only the vitamin K injection.

sorry I got you mixed up with the poster (dancingqueen) who I had previously responded to when she suggested the same people who avoid the eyedrops don't use carseats. I thought you were continuing that point that people who opt out of that don't use carseats, don't vaccinate, etc.

you were only saying that people who opt out of vitamin k don't vaccinate. sorry.

my general point, which I thought might be relevant, was that these assumptions about these correlations in parenting practices aren't always accurate.

amother

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 10:33 am

amother [ Lavender ] wrote:

Your assumptions are just that, and I don't need to confirm or deny them for my content to be valid.

Does not texting and driving involve any risk?

Ema of 5

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 10:45 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Your assumptions are just that, and I don't need to confirm or deny them for my content to be valid.

Does not texting and driving involve any risk?

I don’t understand your question. Texting and driving poses a risk, and driving in and of itself causes a risk, but what does NOT texting have to do with the risk?

amother

Lavender

Wed, Feb 26 2020, 11:00 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Your assumptions are just that, and I don't need to confirm or deny them for my content to be valid.

Does not texting and driving involve any risk?

If you are truly here just to inform others of their ability to choose, that puts it in an entirely different light than if you are underhandedly promoting not giving the vitamin K injection under the guise of being "pro-choice."

And, if my assumptions were wrong, you would not be half as defensive as you are right now.

The risks you cite are infinitesimally small compared to the risk of not giving the vitamin K. And being that the injection is given in a hospital, it stands to reason that the even should something happen ch"v - a one in a million chance, maybe even smaller - there would be quick and adequate medical attention, and permanent harm and death would be prevented.

Which is not the case if a parent turns down the vitamin K injection.

So, advocate for what you wish, but please don't mislead anyone, either about your intentions or about the risks themselves.