Kit that's rubbish, feel free to rant it out here, it's what we're for!
I don't know anything about GBS, but reading JKS's link, for a woman testing positive for GBS there's a 50% chance of the baby picking it up, and then only a 0.5% chance of the baby becoming sick because of it. (Their higher quoted likelihood of 1 in 400 chance, is therefore a 0.0025% chance).
In their list of contributing risk factors, you'd only fall into the category of developing a fever during birth, and/or prolonged rupture of membranes. Both of which can be managed in the event that they happen.
And, (and I haven't read the whole article, maybe they go on to mention this) doesn't this go hugely against the whole overuse of antibiotics (& development of resistant strains) philosophy?
I think you're absolutely right to decline the IV antibiotics and insist the baby is monitored for fever after birth. And you can (and probably will) continue to monitor the baby's temperature when you go home.
I would have thought that with a risk this small, there's an equal risk of the antibiotics causing problems to the baby if it's given an automatic course shortly after birth.
I haven't been tested for GBS (and I presume very few of us here have) so we could potentially all be in the same boat, but are being allowed home and MLU births without all the guilt and hoo-har.
I think I'd take the same approach as I did to the downs syndrome tests - it's testing for one disorder when there are hundreds/thousands of other things that we can't test for that still 'might' happen. And if we tried to control all of those - we'd be in america strapped to our backs on continuous monitoring with medics in full face shields and sterile gowns! And that's NOT conducive to healthy birth, if you ask me (and I know you didn't!).
Very
on your behalf.
I feel another march of the April ladies coming to stand behind you and shout at your consultant!
When are you seeing him next (yep - I presume it's a him!)? Good luck with this one. xx