Vitamin K injection

[bon]

A friend is concerned about the Vitamin K injection given to babies just after childbirth. She's read that they no longer do it in the states. Why? Does anyone know why it is administered in this country and if there are any known adverse affects? Thanks for your help

Don't know the situation in the States. It's given to newborns to help with clotting, I think. I think it's more a precaution than anything else, but I'm no expert! (Both my girls had the injection and are fine (dd2 only 3 weeks old)). Don't know of any adverse effects.

Do you know why your friend is concerned about the injection?

Er, I'm pretty sure Vit. K shots are still offered in the States. If anything, it seems like the oral K may not be on offer, if the American Academy of Pediatricans website is to be trusted. Sorry I can't do a direct link, but search for Vitamin K and take the second item that comes up.

There was a single study which suggested a link between childhood leukimia & the Vit. K injection; later studies have failed to confirm the link so it seems likely to be a statistical fluke.

There were other reasons why I opted for Oral Vit. K. In theory, Vit. K should only be necessary if the baby has a traumatic birth (eg, trauma to the brain, from forceps or ventouse) and doesn't breastfeed straight away (colostrum has lots of Vit. K); or if mother has a diet low in Vit. K, therefore so would her colostrum be low in it. So one could always plan on oral Vit.K, and then opt for the jab if the birth is a complete disaster. The jab is supposed to be absorbed more quickly.

I opted for oral as I felt it was less trauatic for my DSs than having a needle stuck in them when they'd just been born. I also didn't want to take even a theoretical risk of a link with childhood leukemia.

I think the clotting problem ("haemmoragic disease of the newborn" or something similarly catchy I think!) the Vit K is used to prevent is fairly rare anyway.

My oldest two didn't have Vit K as it wasn't in use then. When the leukaemia research was published I asked my GP if DD1 had received it in hosp and it turned out she had been given it without my knowledge or permission. I was so angry.

When DD2 came along I looked into it and also asked every midwife I came across whether they had ever seen haemorrhagic disease in a healthy, full-term baby. None of them had, so I decided to decline the offer. The 'heavy brigade' was sent in after dd was born, to change our minds but after I'd outlined our thoughts the paed said "Fair enough. If you decide you do want it just let your MW know and she'll administer it." and left it at that.

bon - most units offer Vitamin K by injection as the routine, but can also be given orally if requested. You should have to sign to give your consent for it to be given to your child (or, your friend should have to sign!)
Vit K is given post delivery, to combat the effects of Haemmorhagic Disease of the Newborn - which, as others have correctly pointed out, is extremely rare - more 'common' in premature babies, or those who have a more traumatic delivery (ie forceps) - but even then extremely rare. It is a clotting factor which babies lack.
A study in the early 90's by Professor Jean Golding (which I'm sure is somewhere on the web), suggested a link between Vit K given by injection and childhood leukaemia. The study was leaked before it could be completed, and thus it never could be completed, as caused a storm of controversy. Lots of units went over to giving Vit K orally, as a safeguard until further tests were carried out. Subsequent research has not proven a link, and most units have now returned to I.M administration

DD had the Vit K orally and it was very untraumatic. She liked the taste!!!

My DS had the jab ... and quite frankly a little pin prick after a 3 day labour whilst being stuck and squeezed followed by an emergency c-section hardly seemed a big worry to me or to him ... I was pleased that they were giving him something that would prevent something nasty ... but then I am pro immunisation anyway.

Ds had vitamin K orally as well. Only problem we had was that the doctor had never had anyone request for the oral solution and neither had the midwife so they had to look up on the internet what to do. Obviously 3 years ago it can't have been a very widespread thing and I would hope that they know what they're doing now.

Itoo opted for oral Vit K although I was told it was fairly unecessary. I am a non meat eater though I eat fish had a healthy diet while pregnant and an untraumatic home birth. I like Soupdragon felt it was less traumatic for a new born than an injection.

My thoughts exactly ghosty.
I asked my wonderful midwife who has 4 kids of her own what she did, and as she opted for the injection I concluded that was good enough for me.

Vitamin K was introduced because babies who developed haemorrhagic disease of the newborn (HDN) invariabbly died. I have read that in Australia, when oral vit K was introduced the no. of babies who developed bleeding problems increased so the policy was changed back to the injection. The injection is once off and is more effective than the oral vit K which needs to be given as 3 doses for breast fed babies. I give the vit K now when the babies are skin-to-skin after delivery with their mums and very few even cry. Being skin-to-skin has been shown to be less traumatic to the babies and breastfeeding is a painkiller.
Initially when I trained only babies that were preterm or were forceps/ventouse got the injection but that changed to all babies bexause some babies developed the disease after an uncomplicated delivery. I personally have not known a baby develop HDN, but nearly all babies receive vit K in some form so that is not indicative of the risk of a baby developing this often fatal problem.
Certainly in the past babies received it without parents consent. That does not happen now, consent is always asked for.

Mears and Leese, sensible words as always. Just to add that I personally agree with ghosty, but of course it's up to the individual. But I was concerned that oral administration when bf could be tricky and also if your baby is very sicky (as DD was) they may bring the Vit K back up and thus negate the good effect. Just worth thinking about.

My ds had a non-traumatic birth and he was breast fed immediately afterwards. I talked to my midwife and listened to the reasons for this vaccination and didn't think my ds was particularly at risk which is why I 'opted out'. I was happy with my decision until a Dr came to see me and demanded to know why I had not given my son vitamin D - she really made me question what I thought was a rationally thought through decision. My dd, born 4 years ago, emergency c-section was given the vitamin K as I thought she was more at risk.

I didn't feel particularly strongly about vit K after my two were born, but dh (a chemist) did not want them to have it. We were not 'allowed' home until dh had had a careful discussion with the paediatrician about it but he managed to argue his case and we were 'let off'. I was comforted to know that there is vitamin K in breast milk, so from the moment they are born babies do start getting a natural source of vit K.

It does seem like a 'nanny state' blanket reaction to deal with a tiny risk with a one-size-fits-all approach.