[goddessmomma]

Originally Posted by june Thanks GM I love this thread...... 2 reasons 1. although I am not a vegetarian my DH is a semi-practising muslim (that's another thread in itself LOL!) but yesterday on my SCBU placement I found out that surfactant (given to Premmie babies to help stop their lungs sticking together) is made from pigs. There is a bovine equivalent. I asked DH if we needed to have one of our children given that would he object and he said no as the medical need would take priority but I'll bet there are parents out there who would like to make an informed choice on these things. I didnt know this about vit K and find it fascinating. Its a similar thing with anti D - I bet lots of women we see dont even consider that its a blood product!! 2. I didnt give ANY vit K to my youngest (and will probably not give this baby I'm expecting all being well). Basically there are differing opinions on this and the science behind giving Vit K is as you say based on the increasing medicalisation of labour. Sara Wickham has an interesting view on this. www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol13No2/vitk.htm I was lucky enough to have a very informed midwife who gave me informed choices. As to whether we should tell women about the nature of this drug - I say yes, in the same way they should know what's in formula and what Anti D is etc... Off soap box now....

Hiya Hun ;0) My eldest boy had to have sufactant when he was born 14 weeks early and no I didn't know about it deriving from pigs and I didn't realise about the Anti D either. I have so much to learn but this site is how it all happens isn't it. It's great...

Your husband sounds a very balanced man but as you say it is only right that the full information is given so people can make that choice for themselves.

Sending big hugs to you and your lovely family xxxxxx

[ProteinQueen]

Originally Posted by ollybolly am maybe being naive here, but so far no ill effectrs of vitamin k overdose have been found - why is this do we think? Is it indeed possible to overdose on .1mg of a vitamin, or even less when low birthweight?

I think (in my own humble opinion) that no real studies have been done on the potential side effects of vitamin k. "overdose" was my own word cos I couldn't think of another way to put it but basically what I'm trying to say is that do we really believe that mother nature got it wrong (as far as I'm aware we are thinking that newborns are deficient in Vit K compared to adults who are a hell of a lot bigger!) or is it more likely that since the rise of instrumental deliveries there has been more newborns having bleeding disorders hence the reason why we now give it to every baby as a precaution. Just my opinion but I'd quite like to know the answer to that question.

[EvieMay]

I think overdose is the right word. Since with vitamins we are talking in minute trace amounts anyway .1mg is, relatively speaking, not a small amount. Again, only IMHO, and I am certainly not an expert on hypervitaminosis but I know overdoses are possible, and the amounts in question are small.

[Normal]

It depends if they're water soluble or not - as in Vit A is not water soluble - it's easy to overdose - which is why we tell folk to go steady in pregnancy...

[EvieMay]

I think Vit K is fat soluble?

[EvieMay]

It's been years since I studied this lol.

[RainbowGoddess]

GM, what a wonderful attitude your daughter has, that she wouldn't impose her views on others and would allow her children to make their own decision and not risk their health by forcing them to comply with her choice t be a vegetarian. She sounds as special as her mother is!

[goddessmomma]

Originally Posted by RainbowGoddess GM, what a wonderful attitude your daughter has, that she wouldn't impose her views on others and would allow her children to make their own decision and not risk their health by forcing them to comply with her choice t be a vegetarian. She sounds as special as her mother is!

Aww thanks hun I've gone the colour of beetroot

She is a special lass. I am extremely proud of her and I'll mention what you've said. I'll wait until she is in the house though cos her head might not fit through the door otherwise!! xxxxxxxxxxx

[goddessmomma]

On the homebirth website when getting the link for the rebozo method of turning a breech/ posterior presentation I came across this article on there and copied and pasted it. It echos many concerns expressed on this thread. Maybe find it interesting...

The current recommendations in Australia is that every baby receive a dose of Vit K. This is even though the Joint statement of medical research council, RANZCOG, Australian college of physicians and believe it or not College of midwives clearly state that there has never been a trial to look at the effectiveness of vit k for Hemorrhagic disease and that it is very rare, but still the recommendation was that every baby should have it. The child and youth health website says the same thing.

A very simple search of the Internet will give a unclear picture of vit K and this taken from the article to inject or not to inject puts a spanner in the works for everyone,

The downside of this practice however is a possibly 80% increased risk of developing childhood leukemia. While a few studies have refuted this suggestion, several tightly controlled studies have shown this correlation to be most likely.4,5 A more recent analysis of six different studies suggests it may be a 10 or 20% increased risk. This is still a significant number of avoidable cancers.

Now even if other trials appear to disprove this fact( and we know how they can all be manipulated) more than a shadow of doubt creeps in. since only rarely babies are going to appear with this disease anyway, and they were likely to have liver issues not picked up which lead to the disease. If they get the injection there is more chance of them getting Leukemia than if they don't have it, getting haemorrhagic disease.

While breastfed infants demonstrate lower blood levels of vitamin K than the "recommended" amount, they show no signs of vitamin K deficiency (leading one to wonder where the "recommended" level for infants came from). If babies have low levels of vitamin K, who has the normal one, how did they find normal and then decide it was low. What a conundrum. It's a bit like the chicken and the egg.

This brings us to the action of the third stage in all of this. If the placenta isn't detached from the baby until after it has birthed then there is an equalisation of the blood passing to and from the placenta: this creates just the right amount of transfer of all the cells required. There is a higher haematocrit which essentially makes the blood thicker and stickier. Isn't this the natural way to prevent bleeding in the newborn until vit K can be made by the gut flora and what is in breast milk can be absorbed by the baby. This is a good reason not to interfere with the third stage. Even cutting the cord when it doesn't seem to be pulsing isn't a guarantee that the natural process has taken place, and I believe that the potential for complications due to that can cause bleeding issues for the mother if cut before placenta is out.

There are a small number of people to whom vit K may be helpful. drugs like that taken by epileptics can affect liver function in the baby and put them at a higher risk and birth full of intervention can also make the risks higher, even so they are still not to be taken lightly when making decisions surrounding what you put into your baby's body.

Posted by Lisa Barrett

[EvieMay]

Interesting but in some ways very worrying. I always wonder whether research showing a need for some drugs (maybe even some vaccines) isn't sponsored by the hugely powerful (in monetary terms) pharmaceutical companies.