Has anyone declined vitamin k at birth for their baby?

[lou4791]

Hi Ladies,
I wonder if anyone can help me.
After lots of research myself and DH declined vitamin K for our baby at birth back in September. Our little one was born at home with no complications and neither of us have any medical problems. But sadly, 6 weeks later our baby suffered a brain haemorrage due to vitamin K deficiency disease. To cut a long, difficult and guilt- ridden story short, he has recovered, and although still under consultant care, seems to be developing normally. However, finding information about babies who have not been given vitamin K is very difficult.I have questioned consultants about the possibility of there being a link between my little one's problem and my previous recurrent miscarriages, or symptoms of obstetric cholestasis (blood tests showed no problem)in pregnancy, but even they have no clue as they have never come across another case in their careers.
Has anyone else declined vitamin k for their baby? If so, what was the outcome for you?

Lou x

Very sorry to hear about your ds, and I hope he will make a full recovery. I know someone who's ds may have had the same condition (I know it was a brain haemorrhage at a few weeks old, and that he had not had the VitK), the child is now about 10, and is completely with his peers in all aspects.

We declined to give all 3 of ours the VitK. Our umderstanding at the time, from the research we did, was that the haemorrhage illness it prevented was associated with premature birth or maternal health issues in pregnancy, particularly those that could lead to low birthweight. As all of ours were born at term, big and healthy, and I had had no significant health problems, we didn't consider it necessary. Particularly as the incidence of bleeding outside the higher-risk groups was so rare.

Ds1 had to have his cord cut before he was even fully born, as it was wrapped around his neck to tightly to be released, but with the others we waited until the cord had stopped pulsating. No health differences for either.

I have read - and I cannot remember where - that there is new theory that exposure to the mother's poo can give the same protection that the VitK treatment does. Apparently the maternal poo of animals is very high in VitK, and there is some research going on to find out whether it is the same in humans.

You could maybe try writing to various obstetric/neonatal consultants round the country (try big teaching hospitals) to see if there are any studies ongoing or planned into this anywhere? Not of immediate use but at least you could look out for the results.
Best wishes to you and your little one.

Sorry it's taken a while to reply on this thread.

We have had an update on our little one's condition which although not good news, does explain why he has had the problems that he has had.
He has been diagnosed with Alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency, a genetic condition, which can lead to liver and lung problems. As the liver has an important role in absorption of fat soluble vitamins ( including vitamin k) This is the reason why he had blood clotting problems in his early weeks. It's unlikely that having vitamin K at birth would have made any difference.

I always knew there was something underlying, but didn't know if we would ever find out what it was.

Thanks for everyones' comments and kind wishes.

Lou x

OP-I´m not a medical person but was just about to post that I wondered if no vit K at birth would affect something 6wks later iyswim.

Especially as I was thinking any benefit from it would have gone by 6weeks anyway.

Well you can stop feeling guilty now!
All the best for you and your baby.