Printable View
so whats the go with this? the hospital gave me a brochur on it but its pretty unhelpful really i mean it says if i dnt give it my baby may end up with vkdb but it dosn't really explain what this is or what will happen if my baby gets it??? they say what to watch out for eg bruising or bleeding but they don't say whats going to happen to the baby can anyone help me out here?
Hi *noni*e*, vitamin K is an important part of the clotting cascade, without it our blood won't clot properly and therefore we are prone to excess bleeding which can be potentially life threatening. Babies are not born with enough vitamin k and don't get enough from breast milk so there fore they are at higher risk of bleeding as they can't clot their blood as easily. If this happens the bleeding can be potentially life threatening as they can bleed internally and you not know. It is strongly recommended post labours with intervention such as suction or forceps due to the trauma inflicted on the baby which can cause bleeding, but it is recommended that all babies are given it just in case. Hope this has been of some help.
huge help it said no where in the thing whether or not i really needed to get it iykwim so it was like why do i need it?
Noni, if you don't like the idea of a little baby getting an injection, the Vitamin K can be given as an oral dose too.
yeah i know the only reason i didn't like the idea was because the pamphlet they gave me that was supposed to convince me really didn't explain anything or tell me what would happen if i didn't get it iykwim?
It's worth doing your research into it though, there are pro's and cons. It does make me ponder why every single baby is born that way - did mother nature intend for us to invent an injection to combat this? You can supplement your diet with vitamin K prior to birth though and like I say, pros for both :) Yet another decision ;)
This time I am asking for the oral dose of Vit K and I am going to use my diet to up the Vit K before birth.
I am also not sure if ALL babies are born with the deficiency, I was told that it is given to all babies only because they used to give it when our diets were poor and often babies would be born deficient - and now it has just become accepted.
I will try and go find some more info on this as I am have not been convinced it is necessary if you have a good diet and don't have a traumatic delivery.
I don't want the first thing that happens to my baby to be an injection that is not absolutely necessary.
is the injection straight after they are born or when ur leaving the hospital? is it the same with the hep b one? straight after birth?
DD had hers about 3 hours after she was born, same time she had her Hep B shot.
DS had his whilst Iwas in recovery after DH had left - maybe 3-4 hours old. DH and I agreed during pregnancy that we weren't going to introduce artificial things to DS unless needed, and as we ended up with a ventouse it was needed, so I let him have an injection. If we had a less traumatic birth then we wouldn't have had it - you can make up your mind on the day.
Does the oral dose and the injection have the same desired effect? A couple in our class were really concerned about the vitamin K as there are links to childhood leukemia. They couldn't find any research that ruled out the risk to childhood leukemia and were tossing up the risks with the bleeding. Our teacher wasn't of much assistance. It is all so confusing.
They do have the same desired effect but you require multiple doses of the oral form (can't recall how many) whereas you only need one injection. If baby gets sick or vomits immediately after oral dose then the dose doesn't work. Just something to think about, I know we don't like to inflict pain on our children but do you remember the injections you received as a baby? I don't. Just food for thought.
We were the same as Ryn. We were leaning towards not having it done unless necessary which we believe was once he had to be vacuum assisted. It was highly recommended due to bruising incurred. I say speak some more to either OB or midwife and you don't have to make your final decision until the time anyway cos as we know sometimes things do change therefore our final decision may also change.
Here's a couple of discussions I have found online.
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/vitktop.html
http://www.radmid.demon.co.uk/vitk.htm
Only you can make the choice, and know you did the best thing with the situation and information you had. Can't ask for more than that.
Milo had both vit K and hep b shots. He had one on day 2 and the other on day 3 (at my request)
We got injection, about 2 or 3 hours after she was born, also done at the same tme was the Hep B shot. I had the injection because with the oral dose, they told me I had to do the third oral dose myself at home and for some wierd reason I thought I wouldnt be able to do that. No idea why, so I got the injection instead. She also had a massive bruise on her head so I am glad she got the injection
I chose not to have it with Tehya. She had a totally normal and gentle birth. She had no bruising at all and did not feel that it was necessary. If she had of had a more traumatic birth eg forceps then I would have given it to her.
Vitamin K is formed in the stomach when we eat, thats why babies dont have any as they dont really eat, It only takes a couple of days to be made once any form of feeding has been started. also there has been a huge increase in childhood cancers since it has been introduced as a regular drug.(all this info came from my mum who is a midwife of 30+ years and has seen it come in and out)
We didnt give Makon this as 1 we didn't have truamatic birth so no bruising, 2 i had been leaking colostorum since 17 weeks so knew that there was no issue with feeding him
of course if we had a vontuse or forcep delivery he would have been given it.
Kaitlyn had the injection straight away.
It is so hard isnt ..we are so taught to trust Drs they they are always right...and so I know I just did what they told me was best for Kaitlyn. Never even thought to supplement my eating before her birth. Although she did have a sunction cap birth unfortunately.
But I will remember htis for next time...ahhh what would we do with BB
I'll just add to this discussion something I wrote somewhere else, but lost it...
There have been conflicting studies on vitamin K.
One study came out and showed an increased risk of childhood leukemia.
Another study came out and dismissed it.
Another study came out and said yes there is a link, but not as bad as we thought.
It's all very confusing. So I asked my teacher and she basically said that if you are going to breastfeed and have had a normal healthy birth, then you might like to choose not to have it. But if baby is bruised or you have had a traumatic birth, forceps etc, you would probably choose to have it.
I'm doing doing up my birth preferences to give to my ob/midwives at the moment and was going to go with the vitamin K injection. DD had it almost immediately after birth and I just never thought not to do it. Anything to protect my baby, no matter how small the chances of complications.
Having now read this thread, I might change my mind about it if we have another 'normal' birth. The link to childhood cancer is alarming to say the least.
Will have to give this some thought and maybe get DH to read this.
****ETA: Just reading some info from my ob about this. He says the condition affects 1:100 babies and he recommends the injection as the effectiveness of the oral dose is a bit uncertain.
I think I'm going to look into this vitamin k thing. I have a hard time believing we were born with something wrong and need an injection straight away. And if we aren't born with enough why would breastmilk not be good enough to top it up.:
Babies are not born with enough vitamin k and don't get enough from breast milk so there fore they are at higher risk of bleeding as they can't clot their blood as easily.
We haven't always had this injection...
Confused, lol.
Yeah only the needle is associated with the cancer though not oral... and as you say, they believe the oral dose is less effective. If I was to have a normal home waterbirth, I would not have it.
I guess way back when, when we didnt have the injections, there was less intervention too. It's skyrocketing as the years go on.
Here's some more info I found:
:
The forces of nature are so focused on a successful birth that it just seems unlikely that all babies are deficient in vitamin K. Instead of simply accepting that nature goofed about clotting factors in newborns, I thought about all the ways that interventions at birth interfere with the normal physiological birth process regarding clotting. The most obvious intervention is premature cutting of the umbilical cord; this deprives a newborn of 25% to 40% of the physiological blood volume, and thus 25% to 40% of the physiological clotting factors that nature intended to be present in the newborn's blood. As someone who does Newborn Screening heelsticks on newborns whose umbilical cords were not cut prematurely (and some of whom did not receive supplemental vitamin K), I can tell you that they have no trouble clotting normally. This solves the problem of early-onset or classical HDN.
Although vitamin K doesn't pass easily from the mother's bloodstream to the newborn through the placenta, it DOES pass easily through breastmilk. (Doesn't this seem like a strong clue that nature is actually protecting the baby somehow by managing the clotting factors in a very specific way?) Women who eat lots of fresh, leafy green vegetables will pass the vitamin K through to their babies, and this will protect them from late-onset HDN.
So, maybe nature got it right, after all, and all we have to do is support physiological health by waiting at least 5 minutes after the birth to cut the cord and by encouraging nursing mothers to eat lots of fresh, leafy green vegetables (or take a vitamin K supplement).
Some exceptions are:
Some maternal medications interfere with vitamin K, such as anticonvulsants, anticoagulants, and antibiotics. [Maternal vitamin K supplementation that is administered prenatally may prevent this form of HDN.
Vitamin K generation is also inhibited in babies who have received antibiotics.
A very few babies will have a liver disorder that prevents the normal production of vitamin K in the newborn's gut; symptoms tend to appear slowly.
Other risk factors include diarrhea, hepatitis, cystic fibrosis (CF), celiac disease, and alpha1-antitrypin deficiency.
i will definately be getting the injection.. he isn't going to remember it and i would rather be safe than sorry later on iykwim
That sounds similar to one paper that I read during my Midi and Paeds section at uni... I will not be allowing the injection unless I have to have (another) forceps delivery... which are alarmingly common at the hospital I have to do to. Oh the joys of being a high risk delivery. I much prefer the little country hospitals, but they just will not cater for people with all my medical issues. I don't understand (or like) it, pregnancy, labour and breastfeeding are three things our body is trained to do... so why all the medical intervention???
I'm soooo undecided about this still..... :help:
Thinking it's going to be something I decide on the day :doh:
I was undecided as well... Although strongly against giving bubs needles at birth (I also delayed the Hep B shot), I also didn't want to take a risk and regret not having it done. So I opted for Eva to have the oral doses, which although deemed to not be as effective, would be more effective than none, and not as harsh as an injection.
I had been wondering since AB will be administered to me during labour for GBS what effect that may have with the Vit K... we are considering oral doses unless traumatic birth.:
Vitamin K generation is also inhibited in babies who have received antibiotics.
We were undecided about this till the very end as far as the oral was concerned - we were never going to give the needle (unless it was a traumatic birth)....Our midwife had the first dose in her kit - and if it was needed we would give it to her orally and would have gotten the script for the rest.
As it turned out it just seemed unnecessary so we went without.
Can I ask how long it is until the bub is in the "safe" stage. ie if we chose oral I know there is follow up doses, but at what age is it considered babies are getting enough vit K? I will be breastfeeding, and if my birth is like the others, there was no forceps etc. Although DD2 was VERY fast would that be enough cause for concern, being pushed out in minutes?
I will go and do some research now.
We are not getting Hep B as I believe a newborn baby doesn't need pain or stress. I feel it's too much to give them that kind of stress on day one. Babies can feel pain so accutely as they feel it with all their being and are unable to determine where or what it is. THey also don't have fight and flight at that age and it worries me as to what happens with the pain they are feeling. I will however have to get the vax from 2 months as bub will have two older siblings who have both been recently exposed to Whooping cough....
I have heard that it takes 6 weeks of breastfeeding for bub to have the same amount of Vit K in their body as an adult.
We're getting the script for the oral dose but will only give it if it's a traumatic birth. If all is fine then we won't give it.
Gosh, I am confused. Just googled some info. First one was against the injection, and Im thinking YEP, definitely NO injection for us. Then the next few were for and I started to doubt my choice. I have extreme anxiety so for me being told to watch out for signs, I know I would start making them up and panic.
Also DD2 had jaundice until 5 months. I've just read that this is a prob for babies who haven't had the vit K (and even for some who have)> I think I will panic if I don't get it. On the other hand, I want baby to arrive peacefully and at least have 2 months before being jabbed by a needle. It did say babies can be sore for about 24 hours, surely this isn't a way to come into the world....
Can you say no to Vit K....then say day 2 (going home day) ask for it then? Or is it to late or no point then?
I was talking to my OB about this last week, and she said that the Vitamin K injection is offered mostly to males because the risk of developing HDN is higher in male newborns. I'm not sure why this is, though I found it interesting and something I'd not heard before.
We've decided that unless the birth involves interventions that may lead to internal trauma (forceps, etc), we will not be taking the injection. This was certainly cemented in my mind a few days ago when I happened to come across an article that listed the ingredients in the injection - creepy preservatives, ingredients derived from carbolic acid, ingredients derived from petroleum...it's a bit disturbing!
Babies will generally begin to make Vit K about day 8, I will never have it administered unless I have a very traumatic birth.
It's a catch 22 really! Either way, if we don't give them the injection/oral dose of Vit K we are putting them at risk of possible VKDB and if we do, we are putting them at risk of possible other things esp after reading what goes into the stuff..... :doh: soooo confused about this still.....
We probably won't give it unless its traumatic birth - that seems to be the way to go.
Since this has been linked in another thread, just wondering what you all chose to do now that your bubs are here?
I refused it. Went with the research, birthed "down to the bed", allowing her to receive all her blood from the placenta. We had no problems. The docs are going to use it as part of another study.
Just as background information, I was induced due to pelvic dysplasia. This meant that I was significantly more likely to tear, and have an instrumental delivery. It also rqeuires Synto to deliver the placenta, otherwise the cervix clamps shut and traps it. I was lucky enough not to tear,and not to need any assistance.
K is recommended in any birth, more strongly inductions and instrumental deliveries. However, there is little if any evidence to show that it is effective, necessary, or even safe.
I just have to correct this. Vit K is formed by BACTERIA that are found in the stomach, not by eating. It takes approx. 8-10 days for the bacteria to populate the stomach in significant quantities to produce enough vit K for baby to utilise. As the amniotic Sac is (unless ruptured) a sterile environment, they do not have this bacteria when they are born. They get it from the Vagina and from the breasts (NO, NIPPLES ARE NOT STERILE!).:
However this lack of K is only a concern when baby has a low blood count and/or has had a traumatic birth. This is why it has been proven that when you allow the placenta to stop pulsating on its own and utilise gravity to get as much bubba blood as possible out of the placenta and into the baby, that the supplement is not really needed. And FYI, the childhood cancer increase only happened in the UK, because there was a carcinogenic contaminant in their stores of VitK.
To this day, it has not been proven "safe or necessary", just "not always necessary, and not unsafe". The mods have placed some great articles earlier in the thread.
We ended up going with the oral dose after a c/s :)