Vit K?

[liquoriceandtomatoes]

I was wondering where people stand on the vit K injection?

I'm reading Ina May who doesn't think it's needed. I'm guessing most people go for it but has anyone said no to the mw?

I declined. I'm not completely opposed to it but I couldn't see that there was sufficiently strong evidence of benefit for me to take it up. My MW didn't seem to feel strongly either way.

DD had the heel prick test and all her later vaccinations and development checks etc... There's very little else that I've turned down for her.

Vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKBD) is a rare (1:10,000) but catastrophic form of haemorrhage. It can be prevented in virtually all babies by vitamin k supplementation.

Studies in the early 1990s suggested there may be an association with a small increased risk of leukaemia. Subsequent studies could not however replicate these findings and by 2003 vitamin k was unambiguously recommended god all infants.

Further info can be found on GOSH website (sorry can't do link, but if you search on that page for "vitamin k" it'll come up.

Injection is the usual means if administration, but an oral form is also available - but if you opt for that it is important you remember all three doses.

I had oral for DC1 and no Vit K for DC 2 & 3. I don't remember it being a big issue, like togarama I had all subsequent vaccinations so not anti medical intervention. All some time ago now though, so do some research and make your own decision.

I live in Belgium and my month old DS was given oral vitamin K at birth - I now have to give him an oral dose once a week for 3 months. This is standard here. I'm interested int his conversation as I'm not sure if it is really necessary?

I'm very interested in it as my ds2 subsequently had Leukaemia.

Alouiseg: you might like to look at the Great Ormond St Hospital site's explanation: here.

It was the UK Children's Cancer Study Group in 2003 who ruled out the link, they found "no evidence that neonatal vitamin K administration, irrespective of route, influences the risk of children getting leukaemia or any other cancer".

Thanks onimolap. Very interesting.

DD had the injection, I couldn't find any reason not to have it done at the time. She didn't even blink, nor did she when she had her heel prick test. She obviously has a higher pain threshold than her mother!

There is a mumsnetter whose child had problems caused by not having Vit K - I remember reading about it on an old thread.

I can't remember the outcome for the child, but I do remember the sense of guilt and regret from the mother.

Both DSs had oral Vit K (I had to request it).

I was quite good for the first week and then well.........

I can't think of any reason not to have it, particularly as the (admittedly rare) consequence is so serious.

Found the threadhere

Although it turns out it was a different condition that caused the problems, not the lack of Vit K after all.

I refused it for both dd's. When dd1 was born we were told that there may be an increased risk of leukaemia so we refused it.
When dd2 was born nearly 7 years later we refused again and the dr who checked her over was a bit more pushy and really seemed to want us to give her the vit K but we still said no.

Neither of them have had any ill effects from not receiving it.