Vitamin K injection for newborn?(72 Posts)
I assume this is recommended by the NHS for a reason. Anyone doing it or not doing it and what are your reasons?
We declined it cos we felt the risks negated the benefits. We did plenty of research. If you do decline though prepare to be quizze
I went for the oral drops. They still get the vitamin K (on the very slim chance that they actually need it) but without being stabbed by a needle.
D on it (bloody phone) and treated like an idiot! We will decline for dc2 also
We're choosing the oral drops as opposed to injection- and we're getting hassle from midwives about it already (due next week). There's a lot of info on NHS website. Borderline decision to go for it- generally because if anything happened to tiddles is never forgive myself, that said I'm planning a hypnobirth and if I succeed to do not want he having a needle stuck in her if she is relatively calm and relaxed, hence the decision for oral drops. There is a question mark over absorption of these in comparison to knowing she's get the full dose all at once in an injection. May change my mind at the time, especially if she's not so calm and serene as I'd like, but we'll see when the time comes :-)
We went for the drops too. It felt like the compromise for us. Baby is still protected but without having to have an injection.
I went for oral vit K with both babies, just because I didn't want their first experience in the world to be being jabbed with a needle! I don't think it matters too much though.
I never had any hassle about the decision though.
My 2 both had the injection. I don't even remember when in the post-birth process it was given exactly so I don't think it was too distressing. Heel prick, which they then squeeze to get the blood out, was certainly far more distressing for both babies. Expecting DC3 and will opt for the injection again.
The first had an injection and second will have it as well. from memory my daughter didn't even cry when she had the injection so it doesn't seem too distressing for them. Heel prick was definitely worse.
What are the risks of having this? I know it's to prevent internal bleeding but can't find any actual evidence based research that states it is bad to give. Any signposting would be great
There was some worry a few years ago about a possible link with leukemia, but I think it was subsequently disproven.
All 3 of my dc had vitamin k drops instead of the injection. When dc1 was due a major hospital near us refused to give the injections so we felt it was best to follow their example.
The leukemia link was never actually followed up afaik so if there's a teeny risk, balanced against not massive benefits, there's no point taking the risk imo! Besides the risk was only with injection, not drops
My daughter had it by injection and I'm glad she did, as whilst being resuscitated it was the injection that startled her to cry properly and really inflate her lungs. Another bonus to vitamin K!
"The leukemia link was never actually followed up afaik"
I do hate it when ill-informed nonsense is repeated as fact.
There is no link between IM Vitamin K and childhood leukaemia. There is plenty of evidence to show this.
There is however a small but real risk of Haemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn.
This affects 1 in 10,000 babies with babies born before 37 weeks, babies born with an instrumental delivery or section, babies who have breathing problems on delivery or shortly afterwards, or babies whose mothers are taking certain medications at increased risk.
More than half of all babies who bleed have a haemorrhage into their brain (intracranial bleeding). This is likely to cause brain damage, and often the baby will die.
All of my children were given or will be given (currently pregnant with DC4) IM Vitamin K. There are no risks of giving it but the risk of not giving it could be devastating.
'small effects cannot be entirely ruled out', 'not convincing', '95% confidence'. Considering there's a minute risk of hemorrhage anyway, why take the risk that goes against nature? It makes zero sense to me. If I had time to scour the internet (like I didwhen iI was pregnant with ds, I would find plenty of reputable websites to dispute this.
When I say 'as far as I know', that's hardly stated as fact, is it? People should do their own research and draw their own conclusions anyway!
Besides, ds was mot in any of the risk categories you mentioned and we knew this before they offered the shot so, again, why risk?
You can't prove a negative, helenhen! You are just showing that you don't understand it! There are no reputable websites that dispute this!
In scientific research, we make a hypothesis, such as "Vitamin K causes childhood leukaemia."
You work out your sample size (how many people are needed) to prove this statement to, say, 95% confidence. www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
You then look at your different groups, say, children given Vit K and children not given Vit K. Is there any increased risk of childhood cancer in the vitamin K group?
You show no increased risk of leukaemia and report as,
"there is no convincing evidence that neonatal vitamin K administration, irrespective of the route by which it is given, influences the risk of children developing leukaemia or any other cancer."
"The observation of an increased risk of childhood leukaemia and cancer associated with intramuscular vitamin K is not confirmed by this independent population based study."
"The alleged association between intramuscular vitamin K prophylaxis to newborn infants and childhood cancer could not be verified"
"We found no association between exposure to vitamin K and an increased risk of any childhood cancer or of all childhood cancers combined, although a slightly increased risk could not be ruled out. " [because the sample sizes were not sufficient to demonstrate a tiny increase given the very low incidence of childhood cancer with 48 cases in a group of 54,795 children)
"We conclude that whilst the broad nature of the diagnostic groups and the poor quality of some of the vitamin K data mean that small effects cannot be entirely ruled out, our analysis provides no convincing evidence that intramuscular vitamin K is associated with childhood leukaemia."
"Earlier concern regarding a possible causal association between parenteral vitamin K and childhood cancer has not been substantiated. "
"This population based study adds substantial evidence that there is no association between parenteral vitamin K and childhood cancer."
No sensible person would read this as anything other as what is means - there is no evidence of any risk of childhood leukaemia with Vitamin K.
Really? So because I take it at face value, I'm not sensible? Try and prove your point without being patronising please! I'm still unconvinced and will still decline for dc2. Where there's doubt, there's doubt. The benefits are also miniscule so I just can't see the point!
Yes, Helen, you are not being sensible.
Excellent post Dino.
Why take the risk against nature
Best decline antibiotics, doctors, therapeutic drugs, the lot then.
Nature will let a large number of children die before their fifth birthday if allowed.
Yes the risk of HDN is low but the risk of the vit k injection is so low as to be undetctable!
Lol ok thanks penny! There's a reason we have a choice! Do not patronise those who disagree with you please! It's just ignorant!
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.