# Why NOT the eye gunk?



## Famatigia (Jun 14, 2005)

Was just thinking about this. Why do some people elect not to get the eye gunk for their babies?


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.


----------



## buttercups.nest (Jul 2, 2009)

I would also like to know!


----------



## mommy2two babes (Feb 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.

This and also because antibiotics kill good as well as bad. Why would I kill all the good natural things that are supposed to be there colonizing thier eyes and eye lashes keeping other stuff in check. Especially for something that I don't have. I know the argurment that a woman might not know if her DH was being faithful and thats why I took a 10 second urine test rather than medicating my child unneccesarily.


----------



## Carson (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.

Yes, this. Suppose I don't have much more to add!


----------



## AfricanQueen99 (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.

This. And I like to see those beautiful eyes without being all goo'd up.


----------



## kcparker (Apr 6, 2008)

It also interferes with their vision, which is pretty fuzzy and near-sighted to begin with. Why put one more barrier between you and your baby during that sensitive bonding time? Plus, it's been shown that if the baby does get an eye infection in the first weeks of life, they can just do antibiotics at the time that there's an actual indication for it, and the outcomes are still very good.


----------



## Friendlee (Jun 22, 2008)

I prefer a very natural lifestyle and I do pre-treat possible infections/viruses by using nutritious foods and herbs. I rarely have any problems with my health. I do not vaccinate myself against the flu or agree to randomly perscribed antibiotics.

You would think I would automatically decline the eye goop.

However, because it sounds SO ridiculous to treat every single baby for possible infections even when there parents are known to be free of STD's (at our hospital they tested us both upon becoming pregnant) there had to be more to this. I researched quite a bit and heard from some nurses.

It seems that, at a home birth, the eye goop likely is not at all necessary. And I believe it was a nurse from the La Leche league who mentioned that she wouldn't give her baby the eye goop if born at home...but if born in a hospital, she would. Because of all of the bacteria that floats around that place. This theory is confirmed on the Business of Being Born when they mention that the hospitals were advertised as these sterile safe places (when people started birthing there instead of home) but that the infection rate actually was higher to infants and moms who birthed there.

A recent trip to the hospital with my Dad really inforced this. His room was filthy when we went in the this hospital (which is rated one of the top 100 hospitals) and when I helped him over to the bathroom, the toilet was overflowing and feces was floating there...from the previous patient. It took an hour to get maintenance to come fix it and even then no one came to clean or sanitize the toilet, the bathroom, the sink or anything. We had to wait hours for the cleaning crew to come. It just made me think twice about trusting the cleanliness of a hospital.

With that said, I am still undecided about the eye goop. I have turned in a copy of the birth plan to my OB and he will discuss it with me next time. I wrote in that we were undecided and would like to hear what he has to say about it. (He's uncommon as far as doctors go and will be very honest I believe. He's okay with opting out of vaccines and is very pro natural birth, so I think I'll get a good perspective from him). I'll let you know what he says!


----------



## nick&jonmom (Jan 15, 2008)

Might be a kind of silly question, but want to ask anyway...







If the baby is born in a hospital is there any other risk, besides mom having said illnesses, to not putting the gunk in their eyes? Does it prevent anything airborne, or on nurses hands etc? If not then what's the point??? Hospitals, ugh!!

So glad this came up because honestly both my boys were born in hospitals and both had eye drops, I never even thought to ask what they were for...







:


----------



## Friendlee (Jun 22, 2008)

Yeah that's exactly why I was looking into it. I couldn't figure out what the point was. But my research said that it CAN prevent lots of yucky bacteria floating around hospitals and that newborn eyes are in particular very sensitive.

I'm still undecided though...


----------



## kcparker (Apr 6, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nick&jonmom* 
Might be a kind of silly question, but want to ask anyway...







If the baby is born in a hospital is there any other risk, besides mom having said illnesses, to not putting the gunk in their eyes? Does it prevent anything airborne, or on nurses hands etc?

I had a doula client whose baby had to be taken to the NICU for breathing issues, and the baby's NP came into the labor room to ask the mom about the eye prophy., Hep B. vaccine and Vit. K shots. Mom said OK to the Vit. K and Hep. B, but declined the eye treatment. The nurse said to her, "Are you sure?" and the mom got a little sassy and asked, "Why, is there something bad floating around the NICU that puts her at greater risk for an eye infection?" The nurse allowed that, no, it wasn't more germy than anywhere else... Actually, the NICU seems like it's probably cleaner than a lot of other parts of the hospital because they have more hand-washing and mouth-covering protocols in place for visitors and staff than the regular mama-baby unit.


----------



## Friendlee (Jun 22, 2008)

Not to be argumentative - but really just asking....









What if your baby isn't in the NICU? Because, yes, I would agree that the Intensive care unit IS probably cleaner because of the situation the patients are in. But what about the regular hospital exposure. Our baby will likely be rooming in and I guess I don't know how clean the room's bathroom will be, or how clean the nurses hands will be, or the blankets.

I'm not as worried as it sounds, but just trying to develop a very clear decision for myself and so I'm being really thorough.

So out of curiosity, did they keep pushing her about the eye goop or just back down when she asked if the NICU has something nasty floating around? Good for her!


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *kcparker* 
It also interferes with their vision, which is pretty fuzzy and near-sighted to begin with. Why put one more barrier between you and your baby during that sensitive bonding time? Plus, it's been shown that if the baby does get an eye infection in the first weeks of life, they can just do antibiotics at the time that there's an actual indication for it, and the outcomes are still very good.









:


----------



## womenswisdom (Jan 5, 2008)

.


----------



## womenswisdom (Jan 5, 2008)

While I agree that hospitals are more "germy" than many places, I see it as equivelent to putting antibiotic eye ointment in my kids' eyes after a trip to the grocery store or other public place. The L&D floor is not an infectious disease ward, it has mostly very healthy pregnant women in it. The L&D nurses and staff are no more germy than anyone you would encounter in public and will likely not have much contact with a baby that is rooming-in. And why would they be touching the baby's eyes anyway?

ETA: On the off chance your baby does develop some kind of infection, it can be treated very effectively at that time. The idea behind treating for gonorrhea and chlamydia prophylatically is that these diseases can be very serious and cause blindness. Not so for your run-of-the-mill eye infection.

Also, infections became more common when birth moved to the hospital because NO ONE WAS WASHING THEIR HANDS between the morgue and the L&D area. Not because bacteria was "floating around".


----------



## ivymae (Nov 22, 2005)

It's a blanket policy, to cover the lowest common denominator. If they give everyone the gunk, then the extremely small % of babies who would face an infection can be helped, but as someone whose children do not need it, it is grating to me that it is expected that I would medicate my children.

I am also not a fan of using antibiotics widely and routinely, since we all know they lose their effectiveness, and then we are faced with an even larger problem.


----------



## sunshynbaby (Dec 10, 2008)

I will refuse it because I don't have an STD, and I want my newborn baby to see clearly.


----------



## zjande (Nov 4, 2002)

I don't have STDs, I want my baby to see without looking through a wall of grease, and I don't expect anyone to be sticking their dirty fingers in his/her eyes so I think we'll be fine without it.







(I've declined it for all but my 1st baby).


----------



## Spiralshell (Mar 16, 2009)

I live and will give birth in NY, where the eye ointment is not optional. You cannot refuse it, even based on religious objection (because it is not a vaccination).
http://nyvic.org/nyvic/law/vitamin-k.htm
Refusal of either the eye goop or the Vitamin K will result in the hospital calling Child Protective Services (CPS).
So as much as I would like to skip it... the babe will get it. (I plan to wipe as much of it out of his eyes as I can as soon as I can though!!)


----------



## kcparker (Apr 6, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Friendlee* 
Not to be argumentative - but really just asking....









What if your baby isn't in the NICU? Because, yes, I would agree that the Intensive care unit IS probably cleaner because of the situation the patients are in. But what about the regular hospital exposure. Our baby will likely be rooming in and I guess I don't know how clean the room's bathroom will be, or how clean the nurses hands will be, or the blankets.

I'm not as worried as it sounds, but just trying to develop a very clear decision for myself and so I'm being really thorough.

So out of curiosity, did they keep pushing her about the eye goop or just back down when she asked if the NICU has something nasty floating around? Good for her!

Nope. They dropped the subject, and the baby was fine. I do think that this hospital is pretty vigilant about hand hygiene, in the L&D unit, the NICU and the regular mama-baby unit. They have alcohol-based sanitizer bottles on the walls outside the rooms AND inside by the sinks, boxes of gloves that they use anytime there's a chance they might contact body fluids, lots of reminder signs posted, and I do see the staff using the hand sanitizer and washing hands frequently.

I don't know, maybe this is silly of me, but I sort of figure that the world is a dirty place and they will get exposed at some point. If you are worried about hospital cleanliness, wash YOUR hands before touching baby, avoid touching baby's eyes/face if you can, handwash before eating, after using the restroom, remind nurses to wash hands when they come to check you or baby, bring blankets/clothes from home, don't send baby to the nursery, ask your doc. now about the possibility of early discharge (they will let you go after as few as 6 hours from our hospital if you and babe are looking good).


----------



## sugarpop (Feb 12, 2009)

ok so I asked my midwife about this, and although I trust her (kind of), I still have my doubts. I may go with my instinct and refuse the drops but here was her opinion.

She said if I was planning on birthing in water then I would want the eye drops in that situation because you don't know what is in the water. UM can STD's live in water? if so what is keeping us all from getting these when we shower? or do you think she was just concerned about bacteria in general? If it is any other type of bacteria they can treat it after the fact? Is that what you mamas are saying? That "preventative" isn't necessary and with the show of a medical infection the treatment is as effective as the preventative would have been?


----------



## sugarpop (Feb 12, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spiralshell* 
I live and will give birth in NY, where the eye ointment is not optional. You cannot refuse it, even based on religious objection (because it is not a vaccination).
http://nyvic.org/nyvic/law/vitamin-k.htm
Refusal of either the eye goop or the Vitamin K will result in the hospital calling Child Protective Services (CPS).
So as much as I would like to skip it... the babe will get it. (I plan to wipe as much of it out of his eyes as I can as soon as I can though!!)

Ok so what happens when CPS get the phone call? they come storming down there and remove the baby? I am confused, what is the follow through on these threats? And what right is it of the government....oooo now I am angry!


----------



## Asiago (Jul 1, 2009)

I went on a L&D tour and the nurse urged moms to keep baby in the room with you, she encouraged the parents not to let the baby go to the nursery. We were on the subject of avoiding infections. She also noted to keep all cell phones out of the room, they're just germ magnets.
I sanitize my cell phone pretty regularly though, but I thought she made a great point.

Per the erythromycin or whatever each hospital is administering now in the eyes, I find it yet another example of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics that's led to bacterial resistance.


----------



## womenswisdom (Jan 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sugarpop* 
She said if I was planning on birthing in water then I would want the eye drops in that situation because you don't know what is in the water.

Huh? What does she THINK is in the water? And would is be safe for you? I mean, what if you get out of the birth tub and have chlamydia?









Quote:


Originally Posted by *sugarpop* 
If it is any other type of bacteria they can treat it after the fact? Is that what you mamas are saying?

Yep


----------



## kcparker (Apr 6, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spiralshell* 
I live and will give birth in NY, where the eye ointment is not optional. You cannot refuse it, even based on religious objection (because it is not a vaccination).
http://nyvic.org/nyvic/law/vitamin-k.htm
Refusal of either the eye goop or the Vitamin K will result in the hospital calling Child Protective Services (CPS).
So as much as I would like to skip it... the babe will get it. (I plan to wipe as much of it out of his eyes as I can as soon as I can though!!)

Yeah, and the people who issued the dictum in 1999 were so up on the current research that they were worried about C-H-I-A-M-Y-D-I-A (spelled that way twice). Ch-ch-ch-chia? Your child will grow green sprouts out of its eyes if you don't get this treatment.

I always found it odd that they do an STD screen at the start of the pregnancy, and if you are 'clean' at that point, they should trust you to know your own sexual history well enough to know if you have come in contact with a potential pathogen vector subsequent to that test. Geez, most people don't WANT their kids to go blind from a gonorrhea infection.

I also don't see why you couldn't try for a do a don't ask-don't tell with your HCP - it's not like eye goop police have hidden cameras and will know if baby didn't get dosed. Or, you can decline, come in with a stack of evidence-based support for not doing it, and tell them, "Go ahead and call CPS because I am sure they have nothing better to do with their time. I can show you and them good evidence for not doing this."


----------



## Asiago (Jul 1, 2009)

SugarPop, you may wish to contact Barbara Harper, the founder of the water birth organization www.waterbirth.org

She's so helpful and responsive (try email).
As I recall also, when I listened to a podcast she gave on waterbirth (free on i-tunes) she noted that viruses and bacteria have far less chance of being transferred during a water birth. Although as I recall she doesn't really consider Strept B such a concern anyway (but I may be incorrect).

You may also wish to explain to her where you are birthing in water (home right?), or if you will have a new pool/tub with disposable liners, etc. I don't know if it will make a difference, but maybe just mention anyway.

I do wonder about the permanant hospital tubs though, how they are sanitized. Heck, you figure women are warned about pedicure tubs that are running water, apparently basins/foot baths that you dump out are easier to clean efficiently.

Sorry to get off track but just making a comparison.


----------



## LianneM (May 26, 2004)

If there is a concern about the water, I can't imagine it'd be safe to birth in it - wouldn't the bacteria be able to travel into the woman's body after the baby is out and cause infection for her? If the water is that sketchy, I'd just stay out of it altogether.

Lianne (mama of 2 born at home in water, no eye gunk)


----------



## fruitfulmomma (Jun 8, 2002)

Quote:

If there is a concern about the water, I can't imagine it'd be safe to birth in it - wouldn't the bacteria be able to travel into the woman's body after the baby is out and cause infection for her? If the water is that sketchy, I'd just stay out of it altogether.
This. I haven't birthed in water but my 3rd birth was at a hospital with big tubs in the rooms and I was allowed to use the tub throughout labor _after_ AROM, no problems. And my husband was with her in NICU and told them no eye gunk and they were fine with that.


----------



## umbrella (Jul 25, 2002)

My dd2 was born overseas, and there are some different things which are standard. Some things they do automatically that Americans don't, and the reverse as well. The American advocate lady told all of of us to put in the request for the things that Americans typically do, and deny the things that Americans typically don't. That didn't make sense to me, since what if say, a usual vaccine there makes sense because the risk is much higher there, and that's where we are?

So I approached my OB to have a conversation about these things. When I got to the part about the eye gunk, she looked at me like that was a really weird question, and said that I don't have any STDs so why would I give the baby eye gunk. Then she got all serious, and asked me I felt I needed to be tested again.







No. Just asking about it because it's standard in the U.S.


----------



## S.Elise (Jul 1, 2009)

I would just add that they don't do this routinely in other rich countries. When I moved home to the US and got pregnant for the second time was the first I had ever heard about this.

If mom knows for sure she does not have the relevant diseases, I just don't see any reason this would be recommended, other than as another general "cover your a#$* even if it runs up costs and exposes people to unnecessary intervantions" doctor move.


----------



## Unicorn75 (Aug 6, 2008)

Declining eye goop here, based on above reasons of no STD's and don't want to hinder baby's sight in those first few minutes.

Will absolutely do VitK, as that is not anything to fiddle around with.

Will do rooming in and minimize contact with others. Also declining the whole stupid bath/low temperature/baby warmer thing.

As an aside, I was actually HORRIFIED one of my OB's last time around because we wanted to refuse the bath. She could not understand why I would not want the baby bathed. Silly me let her talk me out of it.







:


----------



## AFWife (Aug 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2two babes* 
This and also because antibiotics kill good as well as bad. Why would I kill all the good natural things that are supposed to be there colonizing thier eyes and eye lashes keeping other stuff in check. Especially for something that I don't have. *I know the argurment that a woman might not know if her DH was being faithful* and thats why I took a 10 second urine test rather than medicating my child unneccesarily.

My DH was with me, at work (confirmed by a paycheck lol), and military basic training during my pregnancy. I was sure he was clean.







And told everyone this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Asiago;14191760}

Per the erythromycin or whatever each hospital is administering now in the eyes, [B*
I find it yet another example of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics that's led to bacterial resistance.[/B]

Agreed

My doc had no problem with me refusing it. There was another doctor I saw at one point that looked upset and said, "But you don't want your baby to get an infection!!!" She was also the one that lectured me about refusing the Heb B vax...
It's standard because of the amount of women that have come into the ER without medical records on file. It's easier to just do a blanket thing to CYA than to try to search out medical records while the woman is in labor


----------



## HappyMommy2 (Jan 27, 2007)

My reasons:
1. I don't have those STD's
2. I think it is just plain mean, would you want a bunch of vaseline shoved in your eyes? It just doesn't jive with a gentle entrance into the world.


----------



## jtrt (Feb 25, 2009)

We have declined prophylactic eye treatment with all of our babies. I decline because I do not have any STDs. Period. The ointment is for the prevention of gonorrhea-related blindness. No gonorrhea, no eye treatment.









Amy


----------



## Norasmomma (Feb 26, 2008)

It's not necessary if the mother has no STDs and has been tested for them, they just do it as a "precautionary" treatment, in case you do.

I'm opting out for this baby, especially since I am having a c/s-there really is no reason to do it.


----------



## Beeblebrox (Apr 6, 2005)

Unless I'm going to put goop in my newborns eyes daily, it doesn't even make sense to me to do it cause there might be other germs elsewhere. They are going to be exposed to germs. End of story. It's the world we live in. I've declined eye goop with both. One was born in a hospital and one was a water birth. I honestly wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## sunnygir1 (Oct 8, 2007)

I had my dd early, so we went to the hospital. She stayed in our room. I refused the eye ointment because a) I am against excessive use of antibiotics and b) I think it is vitally important for the baby and parents to connect in those first hours including being able to see one another.

I refused once, and they didn't ask again. The next day my Strep B swab came back positive, and they didn't push for antibiotics then either when I told them I didnt' want to.


----------



## ~Christina~ (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:

I will refuse it because I don't have an STD, and I want my newborn baby to see clearly.
Pretty much sums up my reasons.


----------



## cocoanib (May 14, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *AfricanQueen99* 
This. And I like to see those beautiful eyes without being all goo'd up.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *kcparker* 
It also interferes with their vision, which is pretty fuzzy and near-sighted to begin with. Why put one more barrier between you and your baby during that sensitive bonding time? Plus, it's been shown that if the baby does get an eye infection in the first weeks of life, they can just do antibiotics at the time that there's an actual indication for it, and the outcomes are still very good.

ITA


----------



## Abraisme (Mar 8, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Spiralshell* 
I live and will give birth in NY, where the eye ointment is not optional. You cannot refuse it, even based on religious objection (because it is not a vaccination).
http://nyvic.org/nyvic/law/vitamin-k.htm
Refusal of either the eye goop or the Vitamin K will result in the hospital calling Child Protective Services (CPS).
So as much as I would like to skip it... the babe will get it. (I plan to wipe as much of it out of his eyes as I can as soon as I can though!!)

My sister had a homebirth and then was transferred due to complications.. At the hospital she refused everything.. They did call CPS, who came out and pretty much just had to witness the fact that she knew what she was declining. They do not take your babies from you, they just document what you've done. You can refuse these things..

What you can't refuse is if they want to keep your baby in the NICU and you decide to check the baby out.. CPS will actually step in and make the baby stay in the hospital..


----------



## Abraisme (Mar 8, 2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma View Post
Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanQueen99 View Post
This. And I like to see those beautiful eyes without being all goo'd up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcparker View Post
It also interferes with their vision, which is pretty fuzzy and near-sighted to begin with. Why put one more barrier between you and your baby during that sensitive bonding time? Plus, it's been shown that if the baby does get an eye infection in the first weeks of life, they can just do antibiotics at the time that there's an actual indication for it, and the outcomes are still very good.

That sums it up for me too!


----------



## Sailor (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitfulmomma* 
Because I don't have gonorrhea or chlamydia and I won't use medicine without a justification for it.

Yes, exactly.

I don't see the point in using medicine "just in case" when there is no problem. Especially since antibiotics kill good bacteria as well. I don't believe in shoving medication or antibiotics at someone (especially a newborn!!) for no justifiable reason.


----------



## MamaMonica (Sep 22, 2002)

Moved to Birth and Beyond.


----------



## Famatigia (Jun 14, 2005)

Thanks for putting this in the right place. How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

I will not get it, I just wanted to hear some other opinions.


----------



## ~Christina~ (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:

How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?
My hospital was fine. I made sure it was in my birth plan and that DS stayed in with me at all times so I could remind them. I just had to sign a paper that I declined it.


----------



## XanaduMama (May 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Friendlee* 
Yeah that's exactly why I was looking into it. I couldn't figure out what the point was. But my research said that it CAN prevent lots of yucky bacteria floating around hospitals and that newborn eyes are in particular very sensitive.

I'm still undecided though...

By this logic, you should be giving your baby a topical abx and IV abx too, because yes--anything CAN happen, and being in a hospital certainly increases your risk. The thing about eye infections, though, is that if one shows up, you treat it. There's no more reason to treat it prophylactically than any other potential infection.


----------



## smeep (May 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Asiago* 
I do wonder about the permanant hospital tubs though, how they are sanitized. Heck, you figure women are warned about pedicure tubs that are running water, apparently basins/foot baths that you dump out are easier to clean efficiently.

Sorry to get off track but just making a comparison.

I birthed at a freestanding birth center and my midwife was scrubbing that tub like crazy as we were leaving.







Though I somehow wonder if hospitals would be as strict. Even if the rules are, who's to say the person doing the cleaning cares that much.


----------



## AfricanQueen99 (Jun 7, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Famatigia* 
How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

It wasn't an issue for us - we just stuck it in the birth plan and nobody said "boo" about it.


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

As mentioned by so many posters before, I was tested for all sorts of STDs in the first trimester and didn't have any - no reason to get the eye gunk.
The nurses in the CA hospital where DS was born didn't bat an eye about our refusal of eye gunk, vitamin K shots and Hep B shots. Some of them liked our decision and felt things are overused. They were especially happy that we didn't circ DS. They were fascinated with the oral vitamin K we gave to DS - tasteless, plant derived vitamin K that works just as well.
The pediatrician on call however was mortified and thought we are dumb, dumber super idiots. He got flustered. Oral vitamin K doesn't work he said. I was like hm how come the babies in Europe don't die from hemorrhages then???? That shut him up.
My sisters live in Germany and had their babies there. Eye ointment is offered to moms with STDs. It is not routine for every child. Vitamin K is administered orally, always. No HepB shots at birth. Yet maternal and fetal outcomes are way better than in the US....


----------



## ChristSavesAll (Mar 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kcparker* 
It also interferes with their vision, which is pretty fuzzy and near-sighted to begin with. Why put one more barrier between you and your baby during that sensitive bonding time? Plus, it's been shown that if the baby does get an eye infection in the first weeks of life, they can just do antibiotics at the time that there's an actual indication for it, and the outcomes are still very good.

Actually you can skip the antibiotics and just squirt your breastmilk in their eye... colloidal silver works too!


----------



## member234098 (Aug 3, 2002)

Back in the days when silver nitrate was used, a friend of mine was given a double dose of silver nitrate in her one eye because the nurse was not sure that she got the drop in correctly. Years later in school, my friend was told that she was legally blind in the same eye - just that one eye.

The United States is the only country that does this as a matter of routine for such a long time ... decades ... there are educators that believe that one of the reasons myopia is a bigger problem in the United States is because of the silver nitrate. I do not know if this is true or not. No one knows for sure, and the studies will never be done because there are not enough persons interested in doing such studies.

My personal complaint is why give a drug or treatment for a non-disease? Doctors must simply think that all women have STDs.


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Famatigia* 
Thanks for putting this in the right place. How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

nak

no problems. didn't even sign a waiver or anything. my hospital birthed baby was born in oregon.


----------



## sunnygir1 (Oct 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristSavesAll* 
Actually you can skip the antibiotics and just squirt your breastmilk in their eye... colloidal silver works too!

Lol! I couldn't get any milk out at first! Even later when dd had goopy eyes, I could never "squirt" milk from my breast into her eye...some mamas must be really talented!

I expect that after 27 months of breastfeeding with only 5 pregnant months off that it will come out easier this time around. Well, it always came out easily (leaking) but just not when I wanted it to.


----------



## Beeblebrox (Apr 6, 2005)

Just saw this article and thought some might find it interesting:

http://www.drjaygordon.com/developme...ks/eyecare.asp


----------



## Bluegoat (Nov 30, 2008)

I'm not doing eye drops, because I think they are silly, for all the reasons mentioned above. Now, at the time they began giving them routinely, a lot more babies were affected by STDs that caused blindness, and it was likely a reasonable idea - though silver nitrate in the eyes is nasty!

I am wary of infections "floating around" in hospitals - I hear about the weird and anti-biotic resistant stuff my step-father encounters at the local hospital regularly, but I think it is better to treat infection when it presents in all but a few cases - I wouldn't wait to have a full blown case of rabies before I got treated, but eye infection is another thing.

I don't intend to get Vitamin K or a sugar test either.

I am inclined to get the baby bathed, preferably just before we leave, or do it myself at that time. I think it is a good opportunity to get rid of any unusual hospital germs before we head home, and a bath isn't an invasive procedure or medicine.


----------



## MegBoz (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Famatigia* 
How are hospitals about a patient refusing this treatment?

Hopsitals vary WIDELY. Very, very widely. Some will have no problem at all. They'll be attentive to your birth plan (my nurse even bothered to read mine when she showed up for work the day after DS was born!) Others will think you're being silly, but follow your demands. Still others will lecture & pressure you.
Worst of all, they may do it anyway. They may do it anyway because it's "habit" & they are just going about their routine.

The best way to find out what your hospital is like is to take the tour, talk to the nurses, talk to your HCP, connect with other mama's who've birthed there & the local birth community (CBEs, doulas, etc.)

It really varys amongst different hospitals in the US so you simply must find out what yours is like.


----------



## triscuitsmom (Jan 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stella.rose* 
*I would just add that they don't do this routinely in other rich countries.* When I moved home to the US and got pregnant for the second time was the first I had ever heard about this.

If mom knows for sure she does not have the relevant diseases, I just don't see any reason this would be recommended, other than as another general "cover your a#$* even if it runs up costs and exposes people to unnecessary intervantions" doctor move.

Not sure what is meant by rich countries but I'm assuming Canada would fall under that category and it is unfortunately very routine here.

So routine that it is against public health law to refuse it. In fact I've had midwives twice and their mandate from the College of Midwives specifically says they do not need consent, do it regardless, just give the information about it prenatally and try and obtain consent but get it done regardless of whether consent is obtained or not afterwords.

There really aren't words for how furious this makes me. Whether I think it's important, neutral, useless or downright harmful it really really angers me that it is not my call (with my partner) to make for OUR baby.







:


----------



## mommy2two babes (Feb 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *triscuitsmom* 
Not sure what is meant by rich countries but I'm assuming Canada would fall under that category and it is unfortunately very routine here.

So routine that it is against public health law to refuse it. In fact I've had midwives twice and their mandate from the College of Midwives specifically says they do not need consent, do it regardless, just give the information about it prenatally and try and obtain consent but get it done regardless of whether consent is obtained or not afterwords.

There really aren't words for how furious this makes me. Whether I think it's important, neutral, useless or downright harmful it really really angers me that it is not my call (with my partner) to make for OUR baby.







:

I live in the same general area and have had MWs each time.
With DD I had her in the hospital and I was never even told what it was or that they did it during prenatal appts or at the birth. I didn't even know it was done.
DS was a HB and same thing they didn't say boo about it.
This time I am refusing it. My MW ( different practice) told me that if I simply deny tham access to my baby that it won't be done.


----------



## triscuitsmom (Jan 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2two babes* 
I live in the same general area and have had MWs each time.
With DD I had her in the hospital and I was never even told what it was or that they did it during prenatal appts or at the birth. I didn't even know it was done.
DS was a HB and same thing they didn't say boo about it.
This time I am refusing it. My MW ( different practice) told me that if I simply deny tham access to my baby that it won't be done.

Yeah, that's what my midwives with my first told me too... just refuse access to the baby. The assured me they wouldn't do anything without my consent. My midwife with DS2 told me she'd do it during the newborn exam anyway because she'd have access then and she has no choice but to do it (which is what prompted me to look up the public health law and midwifery position statement).

As it turns out it was moot anyway since I had a hospital birth both times and they don't even tell you they are doing it







I'm hoping for a homebirth in the future and am still mad I have no choice since I have no other option for a midwife here (and an OB would do it without even telling me


----------



## Astraia (Jan 1, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *triscuitsmom* 
Not sure what is meant by rich countries but I'm assuming Canada would fall under that category and it is unfortunately very routine here.

So routine that it is against public health law to refuse it. In fact I've had midwives twice and their mandate from the College of Midwives specifically says they do not need consent, do it regardless, just give the information about it prenatally and try and obtain consent but get it done regardless of whether consent is obtained or not afterwords.

There really aren't words for how furious this makes me. Whether I think it's important, neutral, useless or downright harmful it really really angers me that it is not my call (with my partner) to make for OUR baby.







:


My midwife told me that by law she needed to do it as well, but she'd be willing to say that i was noncompliant (so she didn't get in trouble) and no one would ever double check it.

So I was noncompliant and they never questioned her or I about it, so no harm no foul.


----------



## caudex (Dec 7, 2007)

I'm learning a lot here! I think that in most circumstances I would now refuse, based on the information in this thread.









I am considering the exception of a water birth though. STDs aren't the only kind of bacteria that can cause infection. I thinking in particular of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a water borne bacteria that is harmless in healthy adults, but is a major cause of infection in hospitals, due to its ability to grow in just about anything, including distilled water, antibacterial soap, and plastic. It can cause burn infections, UTIs, and eye ulcers, among a lot of other things.

It exists in small amounts in drinking water, and normally doesn't hurt anyone. I'm kinda leery of the idea of having a baby in it, though. Would the drops maybe be beneficial in this case, where a little one is lacking the normal flora an adult has developed to prevent infection?

Admittedly I know a lot more about germs than babies, so if someone smart wants to come along and tell me to zip it, go for it.









ETA: to clarify, I mean that in that one case, where a newborn hasn't recieved exposure to all of the normal flora that hangs out on the eye in particular, would it be at all beneficial? I wasn't addressing any other kinds of infection, or any time after. They develop the good bacteria eventually, and you don't normally submerge a baby when you bathe them, right? Just when they're born.


----------



## Belle (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caudex* 
I'm learning a lot here! I think that in most circumstances I would now refuse, based on the information in this thread.









I am considering the exception of a water birth though. STDs aren't the only kind of bacteria that can cause infection. I thinking in particular of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a water borne bacteria that is harmless in healthy adults, but is a major cause of infection in hospitals, due to its ability to grow in just about anything, including distilled water, antibacterial soap, and plastic. It can cause burn infections, UTIs, and eye ulcers, among a lot of other things.

It exists in small amounts in drinking water, and normally doesn't hurt anyone. I'm kinda leery of the idea of having a baby in it, though. Would the drops maybe be beneficial in this case, where a little one is lacking the normal flora an adult has developed to prevent infection?

Admittedly I know a lot more about germs than babies, so if someone smart wants to come along and tell me to zip it, go for it.










Hospital bugs are creepy.

I can't imagine that eye antibiotics will prevent a UTI. Also, if its a water based bacteria, wouldn't the baby be succeptible giving just a normal bath? Why would a hospital tub be any different? It will get their water from the same source. Are you going to put gunk in a baby's eyes every time you give them a bath?


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

I haven't read any of the replies but there is no eye gunk here in the UK and we aren't a nation of the blind.

We are also a largely intact nation with no national crisis having occured so don't circumcise your boys either.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Reading along. We live in NY and were able to deny the eye ointment at our last birth (at a natural birth friendly hospital) with the reasoning that I birth via c-section. The nurse just said "I've been a nurse for 20 years and NEVER even thought about that." when my husband told her there was no need to do it and that we refused.

Now, I am going to be birthing at a much more intervention happy hospital, that is known for being a lot worse with these things. I *have* heard plenty of stories of CPS in NY taking custody of the baby just long enough to do the eye ointment, Vit K and Hep B, then returning custody, if the parents try to refuse the Vit K or eye ointment. You can deny Hep B (though they may harass you about it).

I just told dh that we would try again with denying the eye ointment, but- that if push comes to shove- I do NOT want CPS in our homeschooling, extended BFing, co-sleeping (with no crib even set up), non-vaccinating life. So- if a fight starts, we will have to let them do it and then wipe it off.







: I feel like denying the Hep B is my #1 concern, and if I have to allow the other 2, so that CPS doesn't come in and give all 3, I will reluctantly do it.


----------



## Bluegoat (Nov 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caudex* 
I'm learning a lot here! I think that in most circumstances I would now refuse, based on the information in this thread.









I am considering the exception of a water birth though. STDs aren't the only kind of bacteria that can cause infection. I thinking in particular of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a water borne bacteria that is harmless in healthy adults, but is a major cause of infection in hospitals, due to its ability to grow in just about anything, including distilled water, antibacterial soap, and plastic. It can cause burn infections, UTIs, and eye ulcers, among a lot of other things.

It exists in small amounts in drinking water, and normally doesn't hurt anyone. I'm kinda leery of the idea of having a baby in it, though. Would the drops maybe be beneficial in this case, where a little one is lacking the normal flora an adult has developed to prevent infection?

Admittedly I know a lot more about germs than babies, so if someone smart wants to come along and tell me to zip it, go for it.









ETA: to clarify, I mean that in that one case, where a newborn hasn't recieved exposure to all of the normal flora that hangs out on the eye in particular, would it be at all beneficial? I wasn't addressing any other kinds of infection, or any time after. They develop the good bacteria eventually, and you don't normally submerge a baby when you bathe them, right? Just when they're born.

Yes, so what you are saying, I think is this. There are infection causing bacteria that are known to be very common in hospitals, enough to be a problem for them, and they will grow in water or even in other places usually hostile to bacteria. So it could be present in a tub used for a water birth in a hospital, and since the baby would be submerged, get into babies eyes. Since it is known to be virulent, and baby has no protective bacteria colonies present yet, perhaps this could cause eye infection. Is that about it?

This does sound like something that could happen - I have no idea if it does. But there would, I suspect, normally be signs of the infection as per usual for eye infections. Why not treat it then?

The disadvantages of treating prophylacticly would be interfering with the colonization of good bacteria and blurry vision - but in the big picture, I think overuse of antibiotics in hospitals is really bad - virulent bactiria like the ones you mentioned will simply become impossible to treat.

So I think it is bad practice to treat that way unless the infection will not present symptoms for some reason.


----------



## Yaliina (Oct 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *womenswisdom* 
While I agree that hospitals are more "germy" than many places, I see it as equivelent to putting antibiotic eye ointment in my kids' eyes after a trip to the grocery store or other public place. The L&D floor is not an infectious disease ward, it has mostly very healthy pregnant women in it. The L&D nurses and staff are no more germy than anyone you would encounter in public and will likely not have much contact with a baby that is rooming-in. And why would they be touching the baby's eyes anyway?

ETA: On the off chance your baby does develop some kind of infection, it can be treated very effectively at that time. The idea behind treating for gonorrhea and chlamydia prophylatically is that these diseases can be very serious and cause blindness. Not so for your run-of-the-mill eye infection.

Also, infections became more common when birth moved to the hospital because NO ONE WAS WASHING THEIR HANDS between the morgue and the L&D area. Not because bacteria was "floating around".









:


----------



## Aridel (Apr 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I haven't read any of the replies but there is no eye gunk here in the UK and we aren't a nation of the blind.

We are also a largely intact nation with no national crisis having occured so don't circumcise your boys either.

It's always interesting to hear how other countries do things differently, and yet the babies are still fine!

I would only do the eye gunk if I was positive for gonorrhea or chlamydia. Other than that, eye infections present with symptoms, and I would push the doctors to treat if an infection was there. No need to start the antibiotic overuse at birth, you know?


----------

