# Vitamin K injections to newborns - are you doing it?



## mamyte

hi ladies, 

so in our pre-natal class we were told to decide if we are OK for them to inject Vitamin K to our neborn, and whether we prefer the oral way of administering it. The reason for this fairly recent development by NHS is apparently so that the babie's blood clots and they do not suffer from brain heamorrhage. 

This got us thinking, and we started doing our research. It appears that the newborn is injected with a 22000 doze of this vitamin as soon as it is born, and there has been a rise in childhood leukeamia since this injection started. My grandma has been a midwife all her life, and my grandpa was head of maternity unit (but not in UK) and they both have never heard of such thing. so obviously none of us have ever had this vitamin upon birth.

so it makes us think that this is a fairly new thing that NHS does, and, as we are going for as natural birth as will be possible, it upsets us to think that our little girl would be poked and prodded first thing when she is born. But we also do not want to inflict any danger to her life, and so I am left very confused now whether or not we should go for this injection.

anyone had any deliberations or thoughts on this issue?

any posts will be welcome :)


----------



## puppycat

When I had my daughter I wanted her to have the oral version but they didn't have it in the birth centre so the only option was an injection. I didn't really want to have a needle in her body so soon after birth but I wanted her to have the Vit K (my conscience just couldn't not let her have it, just in case).

This time around I have spoken to the MW who said they do carry it - I'm having a home birth all being well - but if baby is sick after the oral they cannot give any more. They can't be sure baby hasn't at least had some so might not end up getting it anyway.

I don't know :shrug:


----------



## solitaire89

We looked into the risks and decided against vit k in any form unless the birth was an assisted (e.g. forceps) or was considered to be a traumatic birth.

I can't remember the stats now, and I know I didn't keep them, but the risk of the heamorrhage after a normal and natural birth was about the same as falling down in the shower and killing yourself... Please don't use my ramblings as a subsitute for thorough research, but just so you are aware that if you decide not to, you won't be on your own. :)

Also be prepared for any doctor that looks at your notes to make you out to be some sort of child murderer... We had the 3rd degree from so many peadiatricians about how irresponsible we were being, and some of them were so nasty that even the MW that delivered LO came to our defence (even though she shouldn't have done as she should have been singing off the NHS song sheet too!).


----------



## gretavon

We are getting the vit K shot as well as any other recommended treatments. They have to get shots eventually and they do it so fast with so much other stuff going on they dont even notice.


----------



## solitaire89

gretavon said:


> *snip* They have to get shots eventually *snip*

Actually, they don't... LO has never had vit K administered at all, in any form. :)

ETA: I'm in the UK, so it may be different where you are, but I can't imagine that a medic would be allowed to administer something that the parents refused :shrug:


----------



## tiasmummy

im giving my baby oral vit k i havent actually asked if my hospital does oral vit k i just assumed they do....if they dont however it will be a tricky decision on wether or not to give her the shot


----------



## josephine3

solitaire89 said:


> gretavon said:
> 
> 
> *snip* They have to get shots eventually *snip*
> 
> Actually, they don't... LO has never had vit K administered at all, in any form. :)
> 
> ETA: I'm in the UK, so it may be different where you are, but I can't imagine that a medic would be allowed to administer something that the parents refused :shrug:Click to expand...

I think gretavon meant that immunisations and such... eventually our child will most likely get some kind of injection for something or other unless we refuse them all!!

After a lot of online research and asking different mw's opinions Im going for the oral version - unless there is some kind of traumatic birth with added risk of baby bleeding in which case mw recommends going for the injection...
Apparently if the mother takes supplements and breast feeds it can be done that way but supplements before birth dont help... erm, formula fed babies get more vit k but are still recommended the extra just like breast fed ones..

It is weird tho how can ALL babies be classed as having a vit k 'defecit' if they are ALL born without it? (or without a high level of it?) 
I decied on oral version as the injectable is such a large dose all in one go whearas the oral is spread out a little.. also the research about leukeamia as you say was related to the injectable (altho all mw's say this was disproved!)
its a tough one.. lots of conflicting info online too!

oh p.s. i want her to have a feed first so she's not getting chemicals on an empty tummy!


----------



## solitaire89

josephine3 said:


> I think gretavon meant that immunisations and such... eventually our child will most likely get some kind of injection for something or other unless we refuse them all!!

Ah, I see what you mean - sorry gretavon! :hugs:

TBH though, it wasn't the fact that she would be "stabbed on arrival" that bothered me about the vit K, but more what you said josephine - that ALL babies are born without it. So surely that is the normal state of being :shrug:


----------



## Housewife83

I let my LO have the injection. He barely even noticed it, it was really quick.


----------



## patooti

To the people that said they didn't think they had had the Vit K shots, years ago when I was born they administered it in Canada without question. Now they need permission to do this which is why it might feel like it is pretty new. 

The correlation isn't any sort of causation in this case with the shots. But it's still good to do your own research.

Just one thing to comment on though regarding us all being deficient. High infant and perinatal mortality is also "natural" and normal for humans as a species.


----------



## patch2006uk

I'm pretty sure the leukemia link isn't proved. As patooti said, correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## mamyte

thanks to all! so i think we are going to not have an injection, and will only go for an oral version if the labour is difficult and traumatic to the baby


----------



## solitaire89

patooti said:


> High infant and perinatal mortality is also "natural" and normal for humans as a species.

It was natural when birth first began to become industrialised - when birth first moved to the hospitals in the 1600/1700s, the infant and maternal mortality rates soared, due to a loss of the traditional birthing knowledge. This was to such an extent that they started to lose babies and mothers because doctors would not wash their hands between postmortems and delivering babies!

Writings from the same time period of people who explored lands where the industrialisation of birth hadn't arrived made comments such as "she just steps aside, delivers and wraps up the baby with the afterbirth and runs in haste after the others" and "Women are rarely sick from childbirth, suffer no inconveniences from the same, nor do any die on such occasions". (I have the references if anyone cares to look up the full text :) )

I accept that the medical knowledge has moved on and babies and mothers can now be saved that would have died, but many of the "statistics" that say that birth is much safer now than it was only take data from when birth moved into the hospitals, rather than from a much broader timescale. As you say, thorough research is needed, which is somewhat difficult when the original attitude to birth was that of something natural and normal, rather than something to be managed and controlled.

Please don't think I'm having a go at you patooti :hugs: I looked into this as part of my further studies into animal behaviour, with a slant on how social factors have changed humans from a natural state (sometimes with good results, sometimes not so good). I find it very interesting :)


----------



## tiasmummy

solitaire89 said:


> patooti said:
> 
> 
> High infant and perinatal mortality is also "natural" and normal for humans as a species.
> 
> It was natural when birth first began to become industrialised - when birth first moved to the hospitals in the 1600/1700s, the infant and maternal mortality rates soared, due to a loss of the traditional birthing knowledge. This was to such an extent that they started to lose babies and mothers because doctors would not wash their hands between postmortems and delivering babies!
> 
> Writings from the same time period of people who explored lands where the industrialisation of birth hadn't arrived made comments such as "she just steps aside, delivers and wraps up the baby with the afterbirth and runs in haste after the others" and "Women are rarely sick from childbirth, suffer no inconveniences from the same, nor do any die on such occasions". (I have the references if anyone cares to look up the full text :) )
> 
> I accept that the medical knowledge has moved on and babies and mothers can now be saved that would have died, but many of the "statistics" that say that birth is much safer now than it was only take data from when birth moved into the hospitals, rather than from a much broader timescale. As you say, thorough research is needed, which is somewhat difficult when the original attitude to birth was that of something natural and normal, rather than something to be managed and controlled.
> 
> Please don't think I'm having a go at you patooti :hugs: I looked into this as part of my further studies into animal behaviour, with a slant on how social factors have changed humans from a natural state (sometimes with good results, sometimes not so good). I find it very interesting :)Click to expand...

whoa! you are definately a lady who knows what shes talking about! :thumbup:


----------



## solitaire89

tiasmummy said:


> whoa! you are definately a lady who knows what shes talking about! :thumbup:

:) Thank you! I learnt the hard way though, that not everyone likes to hear things like that though - my dissertation was marked harshly because it flew in the face of the accepted knowledge. One lecturer, however, took it onboard and now teaches it in his class as a way of making people re-assess what they take for granted. :)

I suppose my goal from the experience is to let people know:

Don't always accept what you are told at face value. Question it and make an informed decision based on your own research - if that means going with the accepted norm, all well and good - you'll know why it's recommended! If you find something that doesn't sit well with you, then you won't regret your decision if you find out about it later :)

Like I say - make your decision on the evidence out there - not because some woman on B&B says its ok not too :) One decision does not fit all!

Oh, and my other quest in life is to let women know that birth is not something that has to be feared - but that's a WHOLE other story ;)


----------



## nov_mum

We have given it every time but owing to the timing of my inductions it is recommended for prem babies. I toyed with the idea if the oral version but I prefer to know if we are giving it, we know how much has been administered rather than spat out.


----------



## solitaire89

nov_mum said:


> We have given it every time but owing to the timing of my inductions it is recommended for prem babies. I toyed with the idea if the oral version but I prefer to know if we are giving it, we know how much has been administered rather than spat out.

See, I'd agree with you entirely :) A prem baby is a different situation to ours - and yes, if there's a need for it then dosage is an important factor :) We shoudn't get caught up so much on the "aww... but it might hurt the likkle babbie..." but to do what is right :)


----------



## Samie18

Vitamin K isn't a new thing its been about since around the 60's.
Only you can make your decision, it's your baby =o)


----------



## josephine3

Nice discussing ladies! Good to see a thread with some different views that didnt get out of hand lol
solitaire i like your points :)


----------



## amjon

My MW told me it really wasn't necessary. I was considering the oral, but none of the doctor's around here seem to know anything about it. I may go with nothing as I'm not doing the injectible.


----------



## mamyte

so i asked my grandpa (who has been gyneacologist and a head of maternity unit all his life) to advise me on this one. he personally never had vitamin k administered in his hospital, but i really confused him with my questioning so he has done some proper research. so he advised for us not to give our baby any vitamin k whatsoever, as he thinks it could be one of those things that get introduced into the medical practice, only to later discover something extremely bad long term about it and try and overturn the effects (which for our babies will then be too late).

p.s. Solitaire89 - what an interesting research and insight into the history of labour! thanks for sharing it with us :)


----------



## goddess25

I chose to give both my babies Vit K since they are not born with it at birth. I am however a transplant coordinator working with transplant patients...and look after a lot of people with Vit K absoprtion problems so I see the outcome of no Vit K first hand. That is why I chose to give it to both kids, I also chose for them to have the heel prick tests and this I found more difficult... I decided not to give the gentamycin eye drops.

Every mom has to make her own decision based on research and personal belief.


----------



## Pug2012

I won't be consenting to the vitK injection or oral. I have read that the same drug is administered for oral as in the injection. Many of the drug companies have not tested the injectable drugs to check they are safe for oral administration, yet they are being used this way. 

Do some research so you have all the facts.


----------



## ktod

But you can't really compare birth first becoming Hospitalised to hospital practice now. Overall infant morality is lower nowadays than if we had no ante/post natal care. I'm not saying vit k is responsible for this - it's just one of many factors that have improved survival rates. I don't see the vit k injection any more sinister than any of the other injections our infants will get. Yes they contain chemicals and it is unnatural but you have to weigh up the risks and benefits. The same goes for medication given to a child or even formula. Just cos it's not natural doesn't necessarily make it wrong.


----------



## Irish Eyes

I looked into the vit K a lot before giving birth. Although newborns are considered as having a low vit k level, this is in comparison to adults. Also, vit k is usually absorbed through the gut yet the injection goes into the blood stream. After months of research I decided not to allow the jab and I'm very happy with this decision. 

It's up to each person but I would suggest doing varied research first so that you're comfortable with the decision you make.


----------



## solitaire89

ktod said:


> But you can't really compare birth first becoming Hospitalised to hospital practice now.

That's the point! You can't compare birth now to when it first became industrialised - but that is what happens. How often do you hear that infant/maternal death is much less common than it was? That is based on studies that take data from the beginning of the industrialisation of birth. There is little to no research on infant/maternal mortality now compared to before the move of birth to hospitals. :)


----------



## ktod

The nhs wouldn't bother paying for care if it didn't make an improvement in infant mortality. I'd rather give birth in the uk than somewhere like the Congo where medical treatment is limited for many people.


----------



## DittyByrd

Irish Eyes said:


> I looked into the vit K a lot before giving birth. Although newborns are considered as having a low vit k level, this is in comparison to adults. Also, vit k is usually absorbed through the gut yet the injection goes into the blood stream. After months of research I decided not to allow the jab and I'm very happy with this decision.
> 
> It's up to each person but I would suggest doing varied research first so that you're comfortable with the decision you make.

FWIW, basic biology dictates that things absorbed "by the gut" go into the blood stream as well as injectables. Injectables go into muscle that has small blood vessels that absorb it. The gut has its own network of blood vessels that nutrients get absorbed into. There may be variable bioavailability, but it ALL MUST go to the blood to be effective.


----------



## PepsiChic

we did the vit k injection with our first son and will do so with this baby, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks.


----------



## TatorMom

I don't even remember being asked when my son's were born 3 and 2yrs ago. I'm sure I signed something, but I've never heard of not doing Vit. K injections in newborns. Interesting how somethings are different in different parts of the world. They did ask about there first Hep shot and I went ahead and had them give it to them. It's super quick and doesn't bother them for more than a second or two. It meant they were done with vaccines earlier, at ages when they knew what was going on. It's all very personal though, and we chose to separate some shots over longer periods of time, so their bodies weren't getting bombarded all at once. Vitamin K shots aren't really necessary unless they have risk factors for HDN, such as premature birth, low birth weight, invasive delivery, c-section, extremely fast/long labor, etc. It's purely a precaution. I just decided to err on the side of caution, even though it occurs in less than 1% of newborns.


----------



## Bats11

I am all for Immunisation for many reasons!

My elderst sister is totally against Immunisation for her many reasons!

So in the end you need to decide whats best for your little girl, all the best.


----------



## ace28

my midwife does something I haven't yet seen brought up in this thread, which is maternal supplementation of vitamin K followed by breastfeeding. I believe she uses chlorophyll water? it's given in the late prenatal and early postnatal stages and then baby gets it through breastmilk.

I feel much better about this than I do about a shot or oral medication.


----------



## NoodleSnack

solitaire89 said:


> josephine3 said:
> 
> 
> I think gretavon meant that immunisations and such... eventually our child will most likely get some kind of injection for something or other unless we refuse them all!!
> 
> Ah, I see what you mean - sorry gretavon! :hugs:
> 
> TBH though, it wasn't the fact that she would be "stabbed on arrival" that bothered me about the vit K, but more what you said josephine - that ALL babies are born without it. So surely that is the normal state of being :shrug:Click to expand...

I don't think that's the correct way to look at it. It's also "the normal state of being" for a few babies to get hemorrhage, and die or get serious complications afterward, until it was found that vitamin K could help some of these babies. Nature doesn't always give us everything we need, that's why we have medical intervention. It's one think to consider the risks from both sides and decide what risk you choose to take, it's another to think because Nature made things a certain way, it would be better to go with it because if we leave it completely to nature, pregnancy and child birth itself could be a dangerous endeavor.


----------



## NoodleSnack

mamyte said:


> thanks to all! so i think we are going to not have an injection, and will only go for an oral version if the labour is difficult and traumatic to the baby

There are some concerns that the oral may not be as effective as the injection re this website:



> https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Vitamin_K_and_newborn_babies
> 
> Informed consent
> *For more than 20 years, all newborn babies have been given vitamin K at birth, by injection. This has been found to be very safe, and HDN was not seen in Australian babies. *However, although the program was in place to give the injections, most parents did not get any information about the injection and why it was given. When some concern about its safety was published in an international journal, there was a considerable outcry - not so much about its safety (it was quickly shown to be both extremely safe and extremely effective), but about the fact that parents were not given information about the need for the injection, or given the opportunity to make an informed decision about an injection given to their baby.
> 
> Injections or drops
> For a short time, when concerns were first raised about the safety of vitamin K injections, parents were given information to make an informed decision and they were offered the opportunity to have their babies given vitamin K by drops, rather than injection. Two doses of drops were needed for all babies (one at birth and one 3 to 5 days later), and another in the fourth week, if the baby was breastfed.
> 
> *During the time that many babies were getting vitamin K by drops, several babies in Australia had severe episodes of bleeding, which were probably due to HDN. It seemed very clear that getting vitamin K by one injection is far safer and more effective than by three sets of drops.*


----------



## NoodleSnack

solitaire89 said:


> patooti said:
> 
> 
> High infant and perinatal mortality is also "natural" and normal for humans as a species.
> 
> *It was natural when birth first began to become industrialised - when birth first moved to the hospitals in the 1600/1700s, the infant and maternal mortality rates soared, due to a loss of the traditional birthing knowledge. This was to such an extent that they started to lose babies and mothers because doctors would not wash their hands between postmortems and delivering babies!
> 
> Writings from the same time period of people who explored lands where the industrialisation of birth hadn't arrived made comments such as "she just steps aside, delivers and wraps up the baby with the afterbirth and runs in haste after the others" and "Women are rarely sick from childbirth, suffer no inconveniences from the same, nor do any die on such occasions". (I have the references if anyone cares to look up the full text  )
> 
> I accept that the medical knowledge has moved on and babies and mothers can now be saved that would have died, but many of the "statistics" that say that birth is much safer now than it was only take data from when birth moved into the hospitals, rather than from a much broader timescale. As you say, thorough research is needed, which is somewhat difficult when the original attitude to birth was that of something natural and normal, rather than something to be managed and controlled.
> 
> Please don't think I'm having a go at you patooti  I looked into this as part of my further studies into animal behaviour, with a slant on how social factors have changed humans from a natural state (sometimes with good results, sometimes not so good). I find it very interesting *Click to expand...

*

Please I would like to see references for that, it sounds like nonsense to me, when we know there are plenty of complications during pregnancy and child birth that wouldn't change the risk for people back then no matter where they gave birth, and hospital births weren't common in the 1600/1700.*


----------



## NoodleSnack

Irish Eyes said:


> I looked into the vit K a lot before giving birth. Although newborns are considered as having a low vit k level, this is in comparison to adults. Also, vit k is usually absorbed through the gut yet the injection goes into the blood stream. After months of research I decided not to allow the jab and I'm very happy with this decision.
> 
> It's up to each person but I would suggest doing varied research first so that you're comfortable with the decision you make.

Vitamin K in adult is made by the bacteria in the gut, but infants don't have these yet and that's why the level can be too low for them. Not every baby will get hemorrhage as a result of lack of vitamin K, in fact most babies won't, but a small number can get it. If you choose to refuse it and fall in the majority, your baby will be fine, but if you happen to be the unlucky ones, then it would make for a harsh lesson. I would rather not take that risk, even if it's a small one.


----------



## solitaire89

Please I would like to see references for that, it sounds like nonsense to me, when we know there are plenty of complications during pregnancy and child birth that wouldn't change the risk for people back then no matter where they gave birth, and hospital births weren't common in the 1600/1700

Hi! Can't do this as a quote, stupid technology :)

The 2 most interesting in my opinion were 'labour amongst primative peoples' (GL Engleman), and 'a description of the new Netherlands' (adriaen van dee donck). You may have to get hold of them through a uni library, and I'm afraid I never thought to copy the most interesting of bits. I have to say that the first time I heard it, I too thought it stupid. As you say, risk can't have changed. But it has in so much as we no longer use traditional birthing knowledge, prefering, for example to labour and birth on our backs, even though that is known to increase the risk of shoulder distocia. It is less about where we give birth, but HOW we give birth. I suppose it was such a revelation to me that I want to share it with others.


----------



## NoodleSnack

solitaire89 said:


> Please I would like to see references for that, it sounds like nonsense to me, when we know there are plenty of complications during pregnancy and child birth that wouldn't change the risk for people back then no matter where they gave birth, and hospital births weren't common in the 1600/1700
> 
> Hi! Can't do this as a quote, stupid technology :)
> 
> The 2 most interesting in my opinion were 'labour amongst primative peoples' (GL Engleman), and 'a description of the new Netherlands' (adriaen van dee donck). You may have to get hold of them through a uni library, and I'm afraid I never thought to copy the most interesting of bits. I have to say that the first time I heard it, I too thought it stupid. As you say, risk can't have changed. But it has in so much as we no longer use traditional birthing knowledge, prefering, for example to labour and birth on our backs, even though that is known to increase the risk of shoulder distocia. It is less about where we give birth, but HOW we give birth. I suppose it was such a revelation to me that I want to share it with others.


I don't see any description of "industrialisation" of birth like you claimed in those books, nor do there seems to be any actual statistics relating to maternal mortality in the descriptions. 

First you claimed that maternal mortality may have increased "from when birth moved into the hospitals", but now you say it's the "how" not "where". Even with the how, where is the evidence that birthing on the back started in the 1600/1700? "Traditional birthing knowledge" does not include how to fix things like pre-enclampsia or placenta previa and other serious complications. It's not a coincidence that countries with modern good quality healthcare services tend to have lower maternal mortality rate: https://www.guardian.co.uk/news/dat...-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals


----------



## nov_mum

NoodleSnack said:


> solitaire89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> josephine3 said:
> 
> 
> I think gretavon meant that immunisations and such... eventually our child will most likely get some kind of injection for something or other unless we refuse them all!!
> 
> Ah, I see what you mean - sorry gretavon! :hugs:
> 
> TBH though, it wasn't the fact that she would be "stabbed on arrival" that bothered me about the vit K, but more what you said josephine - that ALL babies are born without it. So surely that is the normal state of being :shrug:Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that's the correct way to look at it. It's also "the normal state of being" for a few babies to get hemorrhage, and die or get serious complications afterward, until it was found that vitamin K could help some of these babies. Nature doesn't always give us everything we need, that's why we have medical intervention. It's one think to consider the risks from both sides and decide what risk you choose to take, it's another to think because Nature made things a certain way, it would be better to go with it because if we leave it completely to nature, pregnancy and child birth itself could be a dangerous endeavor.Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. Nature tries to work out the best system overall but if I left my pregnancies totally up to nature. I most likely would have died in my first as would have my baby. I hed preeclampsia and went on to in each and every pregnancy. Nature tries to get enough blood across the placenta to help the baby but in doing so raises the maternal BP to a level which can cause a major stroke and placental abruption. I think the art is finding the balance to complement nature and fill in the blanks where we can.


----------



## Wisp

If you are in the uk and opt for oral dosage of vitamin k they have three doses of it spread over a set number of weeks to make sure they get a decent dose to avoid there being risks of them not being properly medicated if they are sicky etc. x


----------



## Wisp

Personally I would rather my baby be stuck with a needle over and done with in 30 seconds and be safe than take the risk of them haemorrhaging. Needles aren't nice but they won't remember it...it's personal preference but the risk is just to great for me to chance. X


----------



## Irish Eyes

Wisp said:


> Personally I would rather my baby be stuck with a needle over and done with in 30 seconds and be safe than take the risk of them haemorrhaging. Needles aren't nice but they won't remember it...it's personal preference but the risk is just to great for me to chance. X

For a lot of people it's not the fact that our baby is being stuck with a needle that prevents us from allowing it, it's far more in depth than that. For me it was research done when I was living in Austria and seeing how they handle their newborns that got me thinking why all babies here are given it. I'm very happy with my choice not to allow him the vitamin K jab.


----------



## Wisp

Which is fair enough... I'm not judging anyone and not meaning to question anyone's decisions. Was just giving my opinion. Everyone does what they think is best for their own baby and what ever each individual thinks is best generally is cause if moms not happy with the decisions she makes what's the point in any of it. I was purely meaning with the needle comment that I'd rather get it over and done with in one shot than keep going back for oral three times over so many weeks not knowing if it's even gonna take effect if they r just sicking it straight back up xxx


----------



## babyjo

In my maternity notes in the UK was a very informative booklet explaining the pros and cons of this injection and all options ( including some studies on both sides of the argument).

I will be giving my baby Vit K injection.

The leaflet also explained if you chose not to get the injection what to look out for in your baby with regards to Vit K def. bleeding.

That booklet really was informative and enabled me to make an informed decision. Think it should be given to all mothers!!!


----------



## Seity

It's actually required in NY state by law as is the eye prophylaxis. Refusal can have you reported to Child Protective Services. I would definitely get it even if it was only an option though.


----------



## ClairAye

I did, I'm doing all recommended things like that :)


----------



## Fizzoid

I was hoping reading this thread would sway me one way or the other, but I'm still in 2 minds as to whether to have the injection or not.

Guess I need to do more reading :)


----------



## lhancock90

I had it with both of mine
After first researching and talking at length with my midwife.

xx


----------



## Snoopee

I may be extremely naive but I can't believe that medical professionals would make these recommendations just for the fun of it. I personally couldn't live with myself if any harm came to my baby due to a decision I had made especially if it had been entirely preventable with just one injection.


----------



## Irish Eyes

Snoopee said:


> I may be extremely naive but I can't believe that medical professionals would make these recommendations just for the fun of it. I personally couldn't live with myself if any harm came to my baby due to a decision I had made especially if it had been entirely preventable with just one injection.


Some countries in Europe only give the jab to babies that are at risk, ie C-section, forceps etc. That's what I decided, that he would only have it if there was any trauma. The baby doctor that checked LO over said that her baby hadn't had it either. she said that in the 5 cases of hemmoraging she'd seen, 4 babies had the jab at birth. I personally would hate it if my baby had issues later in life which were caused by over-running his body with huge amounts of Vit K at birth. We each make the best decision we can.


----------

