# Group B Strep, did anyone refuse antibiotics during delivery?



## G's mama (Jun 28, 2005)

I am 35 weeks prego & tested positive for GBS. I am planning a VBAC and my Dr wants me to have the antibiotics via IV in my hand. I didn't have this issue with my daughter born almost 4 yrs ago and who is completely healthy.
My doula doesn't agree that the antibiotics are necessary. anyone out there have any advise?


----------



## MyBoysBlue (Apr 27, 2007)

I dropped my back up doc at 38 weeks because he insisted I find another doc if I refused the antibiotics. So I found another doc. I didn't see her until after DS was born at home. Planned UC.

Here are some resources I found helpful.

Mothering Article

Holistic Approach


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I refuse GBS testing specifically because I would not get the antibiotics if positive.

-Angela


----------



## UrbanCrunchyMama (Aug 7, 2007)

I was disappointed to find that I was GBS positive and resigned myself to getting the antibiotics. *BUT* my labor with dd went much faster than anyone expected, and I was ready to push at home. By the time we got to the hospital, it was too late to drug me.







And dd was just fine.


----------



## desertpenguin (Apr 15, 2005)

i wouldn't use antibiotics in labor if testing positive for GBS either. getting those antibiotics in labor, you're not going to be giving your baby the good bacteria present in your birth canal because antibiotics kill everything indiscriminately. the good bacteria are really important for the baby to get. i would try a holistic approach instead, like garlic and tons of probiotics. homemade kefir, sauerkraut, and kimchi would be excellent sources of cheap and plentiful probiotics.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

I was going to refuse, if I tested positive... but then, surprise of surprises, I tested negative this time. So I don't have to refuse.

I've made many very long posts about my analysis of the stats (taken straight from the CDC data that the antibiotic protocol is based on) and why I was going to refuse them, so you may want to just try searching under my username for all that. ;-)


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

I wouldn't take them, but I didn't take the test either.


----------



## Rosemarino (Jan 15, 2008)

I didn't know you could refuse them. It was really annoying to have to put my arm out of the tub for my injection as I was beginning pushing. On top of that, I'm possibly allergic to pennicillin so they gave me ampycillyn which they told me was basically useless in fighting the infection if it were to occur anyway. So why do they even bother?







:


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Well I SHOULD have...it was so dumb because they wanted me on an IV for 4 hours before delivery (now how THAT was going to be determined on when I would exactly deliver was never explained). I came in at 9 cm already and I consented to them trying to give me an IV....it was worthless..at that point I should have just said no. Ds was perfectly healthy.

Quote:

It was really annoying to have to put my arm out of the tub for my injection as I was beginning pushing.
This was me exactly!

Now I have to go back to the same place......I'm not sure I want to consent to GBS testing and if I do, if I want treatments. They are backed by docs and have to have certain protocols because of it....I'm not sure what will happen if I refuse. Because of what happened last time, they may let it slide if I do the testing and turn up positive. I'm not close to there yet so I guess I'll do more research for the answer when the time comes.


----------



## JamieCatheryn (Dec 31, 2005)

I refused but they stayed in the room threatening to take the baby away for 2 days for monitoring (which I knew we could refuse AMA) and kept asking until I said fine just leave me alone. I would have stayed firm but this nurse who massaged my back so nicely convinced me to give in.


----------



## luckymamato2 (Jun 3, 2006)

I should have refused testing in the first place, or just refused the antibiotics... the m/w bruised both of my arms trying to get the heplock in while I was in pretty active labor (5-7cm). She didn't get a vein and we didn't try again. She broke the water about 50 min before my dd was born, so there was no real danger for my dd.


----------



## mamatosaskia (Sep 20, 2005)

I might be a rare case here, but I refused and unfortunately my dd did contract meningitis. She had a two week stay in the NICU but is totally fine today. I think it really depends on what your numbers are when you are tested and whether or not you are willing to do the homeopathic remedies to help your body get rid of the GBS.

With me, I was tested the day I went into labor and had previously (within the four weeks prior to that) tested negative. I assumed that I was still negative and I didn't see the need for the abx. When the results came in the next day (after I had already birthed dd and she was already sick) my midwife said the numbers were the highest she had seen in a long time. FWIW, my bags of water didn't rupture until I was dilated to 10 and ready to push, so it wasn't an issue of time.

So, I didn't have the chance to educate myself on alternative GBS treatments before going into labor.

Hope this all makes sense. Feel free to pm me if you have any other questions...not meaning to freak anyone out!!

With this baby I am going to do a lot of self-care but I am also consenting to the abx. I just don't ever want to go down the NICU route again! In the end my dd got waaaayyy more abx than she would have been exposed to during labor.

Jacqueline


----------



## ~patty (May 8, 2006)

I just found out yesterday that I am GBS positive. As much as I don't want to have that damn IV or heplock in my arm, I am going to consent to the antibiotics. However, I do want to make sure that I regain the flora in my gut and the baby's gut as quickly as possible, because I don't want to risk us getting thrush.


----------



## kltroy (Sep 30, 2006)

If you are GBS positive then there is a 1 in 100 chance that your baby will end up with a serious infection (meningitis or similar) - and this can be very bad and put your babe in the NICU. A good friend of mine is an OB/Gyn and she's seen some really sick babies because of it.

If you receive antibiotics (they say an IV dose every 4 hours) then that risk drops to about 1 in 10,000. From a medical care standpoint, it is much better to give every GBS positive woman antibiotics because of this, despite the fact that most of them wouldn't have complications anyway. If you're on the fence, you can always ask exactly what the protocol is, whether you need an IV in place, could just get a shot, could have a heplock, etc etc. Figure out whether the hassle of getting the antibiotics outweighs the possible benefits of it. It's easy to be reactionary about this sort of thing, but you want to make the best informed decision you can.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kltroy* 
If you are GBS positive then there is a 1 in 100 chance that your baby will end up with a serious infection (meningitis or similar) - and this can be very bad and put your babe in the NICU. A good friend of mine is an OB/Gyn and she's seen some really sick babies because of it.

Do you have a link? Those are nowhere near the numbers I've seen, especially for full term babies.

-Angela


----------



## christinespurlock (Oct 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Do you have a link? Those are nowhere near the numbers I've seen, especially for full term babies.

-Angela

it's actually 1 in 200. Go to the resource guide in this forum. There is a great article on it. It also goes over the negatives of using the antibiotics.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *christinespurlock* 
it's actually 1 in 200. Go to the resource guide in this forum. There is a great article on it. It also goes over the negatives of using the antibiotics.

Yeah, 1 in 200 is more what I've heard. BUT that stat includes preemies. Which totally skews the numbers for term babies.

-Angela


----------



## sarah_bella1050 (Feb 19, 2005)

I would take mass doses of probiotic, echinechea, garlic, and citamin C for 2-3 weeks and retake the test. I would also use hebicleanse right before the test. You will probably end up testing negative, if you don't then I would take the antibiotics b/c that would REALLY be some aggressive bacteria to withstand all of that









If you test negative and are still worried you can use the hebicleanse during labor every 7 hours (it's a vaginal wash that can kill the Group B strep bacteria). Which is what would do if I was worried I may actually have it, since it can be some really dangerous stuff IF by the off change your baby swallows it during labor.

This is not medical advise, just some silly hb mommas opinion


----------



## suprgrl (Sep 27, 2005)

I was GBS+ with DS1 and had the ABX during labor, but the IV was not left in my heplock after I recieved the dose. So I was free to move around during labor.

With DS2 I decided to not even get tested and just take some prophylactic measures. I did the garlic thing, and had planned on the hibiclens, but baby decided to come too quickly for that! We had no problems with his birth. I believe in the garlic tx.


----------



## kltroy (Sep 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Do you have a link? Those are nowhere near the numbers I've seen, especially for full term babies.

-Angela

Those are the numbers I just read in "The Birth Partner" by Penny Simkin (great book, btw). She didn't specify whether they included all babies or just term babies, so yes, it's entirely possible it's skewed. She probably cites a reference but I don't have it off the top of my head.

The American Pregnancy Association cites a number of 1 in every 100-200 babies born to GBS positive moms without antibiotics, and 1 in every 4000 with antibiotics, that will have complications.

All of the CDC literature indicates that if you test GBS negative within 5 weeks of your delivery you don't need antibiotics, so if the original poster can re-test after doing the pro-biotics etc. trick and get a negative result, she's home free.

Either way, my main point was that it is up to each of us as individuals to inform ourselves and decide what odds we're comfortable with.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kltroy* 

Either way, my main point was that it is up to each of us as individuals to inform ourselves and decide what odds we're comfortable with.

Right, but you have to have good stats to work from.

-Angela


----------



## G's mama (Jun 28, 2005)

Thank you all so much for the great advice. (It's my first time posting a thread and since I didn't see it right away I assumed I did it wrong)
I was so happy to see all your responses this morning.

I will try the home remedies as well as asking to be re-tested and go from there.

thank you, thank you, thank you.
I feel so lucky to be a part of this wonderful cyber-group of caring mothers.

peace & love,
Michelle (G's Mama)


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kltroy* 
Those are the numbers I just read in "The Birth Partner" by Penny Simkin (great book, btw). She didn't specify whether they included all babies or just term babies, so yes, it's entirely possible it's skewed. She probably cites a reference but I don't have it off the top of my head.

The American Pregnancy Association cites a number of 1 in every 100-200 babies born to GBS positive moms without antibiotics, and 1 in every 4000 with antibiotics, that will have complications.

I've seen numbers similar to those cited by Simkin reported by the March of Dimes, but I don't know where they got them. The CDC's 1993 surveillance data, upon which they based the original risk-based protocol (which was then revised to the screening-based protocol) gives 1 in 200 chance of infection without treatment, and 1 in 4000 chance of infection with treatment.

The overall death rate of babies that develop early-onset GBS infection is 6.5%. However, as Angela pointed out, preemies skew these numbers quite a bit. While the CDC's surveillance data does not break out the infection rates for preemies vs. term babies, they do break out the death rates, and it turns out that while preemies have a 22.9% death rate from early-onset GBS, term babies have a 1.48% death rate.

So, if your baby is born after 37 weeks, and you ARE GBS positive, there is a 1 in 13,615 chance of death from the infection. Any given time a person receives penicillin, even if they've received it before without adverse reaction, there's approximately a 1 in 10,000 chance of anaphylaxis. This is a risk to BOTH mom and baby, and once you've had an allergic reaction to penicillin, you should never ever get it again... which limits your treatment options for future infections. There is little to no data on the other adverse affects of the antibiotic protocol, such as how it interferes with normal labor, increased incidence of thrush in the newborn and mother, or autoimmune issues due to abnormal gut flora colonization for the baby.

The antibiotic protocol has absolutely no effect on late-onset GBS infection (onset after the first week of life).

Ultimately, the antibiotic protocol calls for one MILLION women to receive IV antibiotics to save the lives of 309 babies each year. Meanwhile, the CDC is engaged in aggressive surveillance efforts to watch for a penicillin-resistant strain of GBS (currently, there is no such thing, which is why penicillin is the drug of choice for treating GBS-positive moms). If one wanted to design a protocol for breeding a drug-resistant strain of this bug, I can't think of a better way to do it than to identify a million carriers of the bacteria and pump them all full of the drug. :-/ When it finally does happen, I imagine it will be a public health disaster, and I don't even want to think about how many babies will die from it.

All of the data I'm citing here is available on www.cdc.gov (except that the approximate number of women per year who would be treated for being GBS positive is based on US live birth statistics from census.gov).


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Great info.

Also to add to that, antibiotics for mom in labor for GBS INCREASE the chance of e. coli infection in the newborn which can ALSO be very serious and cause death. So those stats should be weighed as well.

-Angela


----------



## IdahoMom (Nov 8, 2005)

An hour after birth my first baby was septic because I was StrepB positive and the doctor took too long approving antibiotics (she was in the building but "busy", and wouldn't even give the okay over the phone until she made it to my room, hours after my water broke). She was very, very sick her first week and could have died. That's all the stats I've needed. With every other birth I have been very diligent about getting to the hospital ASAP to get the antibiotics going.

No baby or mother should have to go through what we went through. It wasn't just the strep, either. Because she was so sick, she was too weak and felt so awful that our nursing relationship had a very bad start. I believe it affected other things, too, but I'll end my post with saying I feel very strongly that antibiotics are not only advisable, but the responsible choice.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdahoMom* 
An hour after birth my first baby was septic because I was StrepB positive and the doctor took too long approving antibiotics (she was in the building but "busy", and wouldn't even give the okay over the phone until she made it to my room, hours after my water broke). She was very, very sick her first week and could have died. That's all the stats I've needed.

A single case is not a statistic. I understand your emotional reasons for wanting prophylactic antibiotics... but the CDC's policy is based on statistical data that, IMO, is being used poorly, and their actions will result in many more sick and dead babies in the future. I wouldn't want to be the mom of the first baby with penicillin-resistant GBS sepsis... would you like to tell her your story? Do you think it will make her feel better? That baby will probably die.

My son has several food allergies, probably at least partly as a result of our repeated treatment with antibiotics. So far none of them are life-threatening, but that could change with any given exposure. I know several people whose children can be KILLED by someone else eating an ice cream cone, and there is a definite relationship between gut dysbiosis (inadequate colonies of "good bacteria" in the intestines) and food allergies, as well as other potentially lethal autoimmune disorders such as asthma. I do not see prophylactic antibiotic use as benign, and in this case, I do not see it as particularly responsible on the part of the medical community.

Especially when it comes to birth, it's very common for people to make decisions from a place of fear. How many women get an epidural the second they are allowed to, because they fear the pain of labor? How many women have surgical births because they're afraid that baby is too big, or taking too long? How many women could not possibly consider having an out-of-hospital birth, because they're too scared of the possibility that "something" would go wrong? Is it appropriate, here or anywhere else, for these women to tell us that pain relief, c-sections, and hospital births are THE "responsible choice" when they've made that choice from a place of fear, rather than information?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
Especially when it comes to birth, it's very common for people to make decisions from a place of fear. How many women get an epidural the second they are allowed to, because they fear the pain of labor? How many women have surgical births because they're afraid that baby is too big, or taking too long? How many women could not possibly consider having an out-of-hospital birth, because they're too scared of the possibility that "something" would go wrong? Is it appropriate, here or anywhere else, for these women to tell us that pain relief, c-sections, and hospital births are THE "responsible choice" when they've made that choice from a place of fear, rather than information?











I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Fear is never a good decision-making tool.

-Angela


----------



## IdahoMom (Nov 8, 2005)

If you'd been through it, I'm not sure you'd feel the same. But I thought the OP deserved to hear another side of it. Intervention does not automatically equal evil. Infant mortality is higher than it used to be for a reason.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdahoMom* 
Intervention does not automatically equal evil. Infant mortality is higher than it used to be for a reason.

You're right- intervention does NOT = evil.

Not sure what you mean about infant mortality being higher for a reason... the biggest reason I see is intervention...









AND, last I really researched it, antibiotics for GBS did NOT reduce overall newborn mortality because as much as they reduced it for GBS, they increased it for other infections.

-Angela


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdahoMom* 
If you'd been through it, I'm not sure you'd feel the same.

I might not FEEL the same about prophylactic antibiotic use. But I would still THINK the same about the actual risks involved. That's an important distinction.

Fear is a feeling. A legitimate, important feeling. It's a feeling that can save our very lives if we listen to it appropriately. But, just because *I've* had a scary experience in a particular situation, it does not translate into a general rule that *you* should follow... and vice versa.

Were my gut instinct to tell me that I and my baby should have antibiotics, I'd definitely get them. And, knowing what I know about the numbers, if I'd gone into labor before my culture came back and before term, I would have gotten antibiotics (since GBS is far more virulent for preemies in general). But no one's feeling, fear or otherwise, changes the actual statistics, and the statistics show that as a society we're taking an *enormous* risk for very little reward.


----------



## abreakfromlife (Feb 23, 2007)

Where on the CDC website would I look for those numbers? I just read a CDC article (that is a few years old) group b article saying that in the '90's,

Quote:

Before the widespread use of intrapartum antibiotics, the incidence of invasive neonatal GBS disease ranged from 2 to 3 cases per 1,000 live births. Active, population-based surveillance in selected states in 1990, when GBS prevention was still rarely implemented, projected an incidence of 1.8 cases per 1,000 live births in the United States (early-onset disease: 1.5/1,000; late-onset: 0.35/1,000)
So why would it have changed from 1.5/1000 now to 1 in 200??? Or am I misreading this article? (highly likely







)

nm. I must be a numbers moron







I read some other older posts about this and saw where you were talking about this and it was linked to the same article.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
I might not FEEL the same about prophylactic antibiotic use. But I would still THINK the same about the actual risks involved. That's an important distinction.

Fear is a feeling. A legitimate, important feeling. It's a feeling that can save our very lives if we listen to it appropriately. But, just because *I've* had a scary experience in a particular situation, it does not translate into a general rule that *you* should follow... and vice versa.

Were my gut instinct to tell me that I and my baby should have antibiotics, I'd definitely get them. And, knowing what I know about the numbers, if I'd gone into labor before my culture came back and before term, I would have gotten antibiotics (since GBS is far more virulent for preemies in general). But no one's feeling, fear or otherwise, changes the actual statistics, and the statistics show that as a society we're taking an *enormous* risk for very little reward.









:


----------



## anna_2 (Jun 12, 2005)

has anyone heard of taking colloidal silver to get rid of GBS?


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abreakfromlife* 
Where on the CDC website would I look for those numbers? I just read a CDC article (that is a few years old) group b article saying that in the '90's,

So why would it have changed from 1.5/1000 now to 1 in 200??? Or am I misreading this article? (highly likely







)

nm. I must be a numbers moron







I read some other older posts about this and saw where you were talking about this and it was linked to the same article.

The numbers you cited above are for the WHOLE population. the 1 in 200 number is the chance of transmission for a woman who has tested postive for Group B Strep via culture around the 36th week of pregnancy. Only 20-40% of the female population carries around GBS at any given time, though.

There, does that help? ;-)


----------



## MyBoysBlue (Apr 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *anna_2* 
has anyone heard of taking colloidal silver to get rid of GBS?

In my original post to this thread there was a link to holistic approaches to GBS it mentions using colloidal silver. Here. I did use it along with most of the other recommendations.


----------



## abreakfromlife (Feb 23, 2007)

Quote:

does that help? ;-)
yeah, that makes sense







I printed out the whole thing and read it last night - much better than just picking out paragraphs online. I am just floored by it. I kept reading parts out loud to dh and thankfully he is 100% in agreement with me. I couldn't believe the part in talking about preterm labor that said 'giving antibiotics in labor may be associated with adverse neonatal outcomes' - so only give antibiotics where there is a significant risk for preterm delivery..................and yet a page or two before it says that giving antibiotics increases penicillin-resistant e. coli in preterm babies.























It is just so frustrating that this kind of stuff is so hidden and unknown unless you really go digging for it. I've been fairly natural for a few years now, and have really gotten a lot more serious about it over the past year, and I still don't know much when it comes to naturally giving birth. This is my 5th pregnancy and I am so irritated at how the previous ones have been handled. I've been reading a bunch of back posts on here the past couple of days, gearing up for labor, and I had NO IDEA you could refuse to have your water broken, or that it is unnecessary!! Or that you don't need fifty million vag. exams, or that you could refuse abx..........I just assumed having a midwife guaranteed a 'normal' labor....And it's so irritating that this stuff isn't mainstream knowledge and it should be. It's annoying having people look at you like you're crazy for not getting an epi, or not getting abx or thinking the only bad thing about Pit is the pain......


----------



## fireweed (Nov 27, 2007)

I tested GBS+, so I'm planning on using the antibacterial rinse chlorhexidine gluconate (0.05%), called 'hibidil' here in Canada. So, how do I go about using it? I assume I have to dilute it? And do a rinse every 7 hours when I'm in labour? Even after my waters break? Should I do any rinses before I go into labour?
Thanks!!!


----------



## Mamabeakley (Jul 9, 2004)

I did some herbal/supplemental things to try to reduce my risk of testing +.

I tested +.

After looking at all the research I could find, I declined ABX.

I would have taken the ABX if I had had prolonged rupture of membranes, or a fever.

As it was, I was only in labor for 6 hours total and there would not have been time to initiate the protocol even had I rushed somewhere or had my MW rush to me as soon as my water broke (which started labor).

Babe was healthy and fine.

I'm glad I did the herbal/supplemental stuff even though it didn't kill the germs, because I felt it did some other nice things (for my iron levels, general feeling of wellbeing, etc.)


----------



## MyBoysBlue (Apr 27, 2007)

I can't say my doing the herbals really helped with the GBS cause DS was born 3 weeks after being originally tested. I could have been - by then and my water was broken for only 25 minutes. But it did boost my immune system so that can't hurt.


----------



## DragonflyBlue (Oct 21, 2003)

I tested postitive with my twins. I had the antibiotics. The only trouble we had was that I am allergic to penicillan so they gave me a different med to prevent any allergic reactions. I found another abx that I am allergic to.









I looked at the data, researched and made a decision that I was comfortable with and that I believed was in the best interest of myself and my babes.

There is no such thing as a risk free pregnancy, labor and birth. All you can do is educate yourself and decide which set of risks you feel most comfortable taking. It's very individual.


----------



## G's mama (Jun 28, 2005)

I asked my Dr to test me again at week 38 1/2 and am happy to report that I tested negative! I am very happy b/c I really didn't want to have the antibiotics nor did I want my son to be born with them in his system.
I ate tons of garlic!!! raw & roasted. I also ate 2 grapefruits a day as well as about 3-5 oranges a day. I usually eat a few servings a day of yogurt so I kept that the same and added Kefir drink ( probiotics). I am currently 40 + 4 days so I have been keeping the same diet until the birth, so it doesn't come back.

anyway,
thanks for all your help.
love,
Michelle


----------



## Lizzardbits (Jan 21, 2006)

Congrats for testing negative!

I am snuggling my nearly 4 month old son who was born healthy and remained healthy despite me being GBS+ during my pregnancy. I refused IV abx and used a Hibiclens (chlorhexidine) solution in a vaginal wash. I did a wash (basically a douche) 3x during the 3 days that I was in slow labor and with the 3rd about 7 hours before my son was born. The mix I did was about 5-10 tablespoons to 2 pints water, with a stronger solution externally. I would take baths to help with the ctrx and when I was ready to get out, I did the washes. Easy, even when I was in labor.

I like the fact that not only does the chlorhexidine kill off the GBS, but E. coli as well, while still leaving the natural vaginal flora in place, the chance for thrush/yeast infection is decreased compared to IV abx, and that we wouldn't be risking an allergic reaction to penicillan/other abx.


----------



## boigrrrlwonder (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I refuse GBS testing specifically because I would not get the antibiotics if positive.

-Angela


Same here.


----------



## Twwly (Jan 30, 2007)

I declined testing with DS and will do it again, and would not take the ABX if positive.

Glad to hear you had a negative test.


----------



## TinaM (Oct 5, 2006)

I spent hours and hours reading and worrying about GBS. I tested positive early in my pregnancy and planned to have a homebirth. In the end I decided to treat only if I needed to. I would have went to the hospital to get the ABX had any of the risk factors been present:
1. Labor before 37 weeks.
2. Prolonged rupture of membranes (>12 hours).
3. Fever during labor.
My previous labors were 4-5 hours, so I felt relatively confident I would have another quick labor which would reduce her risk of exposure. My water did break prematurely but luckily contractions started a half hour later and [email protected] was born 5 hours later.
It was a difficult decision to make. I realized that I could potentially hold my child's fate in my hands and it's a scary feeling. But it surely won't be the last time I'll have to make a decision that may lead to serious consequences.


----------



## jengacnm (Oct 26, 2006)

From the persepective of a health care provider, it's ok to not do the test, but it's legally indefensible to deliberately not treat a positive. I have chosen to not treat based on a mom pushing when I got to her house, but otherwise, I tell my clients that we can't not treat a positive.

On the other hand, a negative result is a very good thing, because then we don't have to start antibiotics EVEN IF her water is broken for 18 hours-just if there are clinical signs of infection.

I'm saying to not revile the HCPs that threaten to fire patients for refusing gbs treatment. Asking us to comply with not treating a positive result is professionally irresponsible of us.


----------



## nashvillemidwife (Dec 2, 2007)

The CDC recommendations are to *offer* intrapartum IV antibiotics to GBS positive moms. I would consider it 100% legally defensible if they're offered and refused. We still have rights in this country.

In Tennessee, the law says every HCP must follow the CDC guidelines regarding GBS, which call for universal screening. In this case, it would be against the law to not test. But in keeping with those very guidelines, antibiotics are offered, not forced.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengacnm* 
From the persepective of a health care provider, it's ok to not do the test, but it's legally indefensible to deliberately not treat a positive. I have chosen to not treat based on a mom pushing when I got to her house, but otherwise, I tell my clients that we can't not treat a positive.

On the other hand, a negative result is a very good thing, because then we don't have to start antibiotics EVEN IF her water is broken for 18 hours-just if there are clinical signs of infection.

I'm saying to not revile the HCPs that threaten to fire patients for refusing gbs treatment. Asking us to comply with not treating a positive result is professionally irresponsible of us.


Wow- no informed consent or anything? I would NEVER hire a care provider who thought it was okay to force anything. There ARE actual risks to be considered.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nashvillemidwife* 
The CDC recommendations are to *offer* intrapartum IV antibiotics to GBS positive moms. I would consider it 100% legally defensible if they're offered and refused. *We still have rights in this country.*

In Tennessee, the law says every HCP must follow the CDC guidelines regarding GBS, which call for universal screening. In this case, it would be against the law to not test. But in keeping with those very guidelines, antibiotics are offered, not forced.

Bolding mine. Clearly not all care providers agree









Thank you.









-Angela


----------



## TinaM (Oct 5, 2006)

Getting a GBS- at 37 weeks is no guarantee that the GBS will not be present at the time of labor. I would consider myself as permanently GBS+ if I had gotten a positive.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TinaM* 
Getting a GBS- at 37 weeks is no guarantee that the GBS will not be present at the time of labor. I would consider myself as permanently GBS+ if I had gotten a positive.

Getting a GBS- at ANY time is no guarantee that GBS will not be present at the time of labor, which is one of oh-so-many reasons I consider across the board testing absurd.

-Angela


----------

