Vitamin K for Newborns

[Gizboss]

So am looking at my birth plan - the midwife said I have to at least attempt it - and it is asking me whether I want the baby to have vitamin K at birth. As far as I can tell there is controversy with one study in the 70s linking vit K to leukemia. However, there also seems to be options as regards oral (less potent) or injection of the vitamin. I understand that the reason for giving it is to prevent the baby bleeding after birth. The midwife seemed to think it was a no-brainer and that the baby should receive the injection as this was the safest thing in her opinion. It seems like one of those parenting decisions that you just can't be sure about to me - what do others think and what have others done?

Both mine had the injection, neither had any problems, MW did say something about non-injection version with 2nd, but don't they then need more doses?

I asked a similar question in the childbirth thread last week. Here is a link which has some good info.

redirectingat.com/?id=470X756&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womens-health.co.uk%2Fvitk.asp

Thanks again Supercherry

I gave DC2 oral vitamin K. I think that they would rather you had the injection as they worry that the rest of the oral doses (there are 3 in total) won't get given.

When I was being discharged though I asked the MW what I should do if one of the doses got vomited up, or wasted, should I come and get some more and she said to do nothing which really make me wonder about giving it in the first place.

The oral stuff smells like chip fat. I didn't see the need to give her a jab just after she was born.

Mine had it orally and only because DH insisted

I did injection after birth whilst baby was skin to skin with me. Was a no brainer when the risks of not having it were explained to me.
Oral is more of a pain IMO - you have to give a dose once home and if your bub is sick after giving dose, no way of knowing whether it has been absorbed.

All 3 had oral because I didn't want anyone sticking a needle into my newborn baby.

given that I had no risk factors I opted to only have this if we had a difficult birth which feell within the parameters of those likely to again increase risk.
As we had a straightforward birth DD simply didn't have it.

I never had the injection when I was born in the 70's and many countries still dont give it - such as Singapore, Australia and France. Its only really necessary if there has been alot of intervention during the birth and there is a higher risk of internal bleeding. Apart from that the jab could actually make your baby anemic which then means they need to recover from that. After all a high dose of any vitamin will mean your babies liver having to work harder when its only just started being used. Personally Im only going let my baby have it if there has been an intervention during the birth that might increase their risk of bleeding.

We gave oral dose, no problem in remembering to give follow up doses. Am very wary of giving tiny babies jabs for any reason - I was in floods when they did the heelprick tests as it was.

When I had my first two children (15 and 12 years ago) I don't even know if it was given and certainly my permission was not sought.

As I now understand it, vit K would only really advisable if the baby had experienced a particularly traumatic birth (ie, forceps) as then there is increased risk of bleeding.

Another thing to bear in mind is that there is vit K in both formula and breastmilk which is sufficent for 'normal' needs and supplement by injection could always be given at a later date if 'need arises'. It's not something that if you choose to not give at birth, is a 'now or never situation.

Unless a traumatic birth means vit k would be a good precaution to bleeding, this baby I'm expecting won't be receiving it.