[gab72]

For both my DS's, I requested that the Vit K be given orally. They both lapped it up


This post has been edited by gab72: 05/08/2012, 07:19 PM

[soontobegran]

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publi...amin_k_2010.pdf
It is just a Vitamin but one which can help prevent a disease that can kill. It seems an absolute no brainer to me.
What the baby doesn't need will be excreted in their urine and if it's the injection that is a problem there is always oral.

[Sinister Bonnet]

I refused it with one child as it was a smooth birth and it was around the time that the research linking it to cancer had come out.

Second child had a rougher birth and he was given vit K as we felt his risks were higher without it.

Now I would not think twice about it as the cancer research is debunked.

[claireabell]

The hearing check lady's gobsmacked response to my refusal still amuses me though. Apparently she'd never had anyone say no before.

Paradox why did you refuse the hearing test?

I almost didn't get it done for DD2. It was a Sunday, there was noone around and I was keen to get home to my other kids. Thank god she had it though as it showed a hearing loss. She's now 11 months old with a moderate hearing loss and I STILL wouldn't have any idea if it wasn't for her newborn screen.

TBH I can understand why the screener was gobsmacked. it is a simple, non-invasive test. Babies with hearing loss who get hearing aids/cochlear implants and/or early intervention before they are six months generally learn to speak at the same time, and and well as, their hearing peers.

This post has been edited by claireabell: 05/08/2012, 07:59 PM

[Oma Desala]

We declined when DS was born. TBH the fact that we insisted on the Hep B at birth raised more eyebrows than declining vit K. But given our lines of work ( and no we are not sex workers nor drug addicts) the risk of hepatitis was just too great for us to take.

OP, there are always going to be people who are for and against any course of action you could suggest. Your best bet would be to research, ask friends, family and your care providers, then decide from there what you are comfortable with for your child.

[WaitForIt]

I opted in for everything. I'm a firm believer in early detection and prevention. There have been a few instances with family and friends where therapy/treatment hasn't been as effective as it could due to late detection.

I did wonder if I made the right decision with choosing the K injection, but as it turned out she needed several blood tests so avoiding injections due to pain would've been pointless.

Speaking of which, they gave her sucrose before taking blood as it helps with pain, anyone know how this works and why its not offered with injections?

[Bluenomi]

I actually don't know if DD got her vit K. They never asked about it. She did get her hep b but it was a few days later.

[Babushka Doll]

Both my babies had the Vit K & hearing test. No brainer if you ask me.

[opethmum]

I would get the Vit K and all the newborn screening tests the benefits far outweigh the risks in my opinion. For heavens sake just get it done and out of the way. There has been a lot of research in these tests and they would not recommend it to newborns if they thought the risks were too high.

[kay11]

I suspect the main reason that anyone would not get the tests done is that they just don't believe that it could happen to them or their baby. A shot of vitamin K or a heel prick test to check for some rare and devastating and painful diseases is such a small price to pay. My daughter has a rare disease and I'm quite passionate about identifying and treating the type of diseases that these tests and treatments are for.