Vitamin K injection
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: Pregnant
Forum Name: Pregnancy
Forum Description: Pregnant! Wanting to chat to other mums-to-be (or dads-to-be)? Share your thoughts, experiences, and ideas... This is that place!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25228
Printed Date: 24 August 2025 at 10:55pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Vitamin K injection
Posted By: RubyG
Subject: Vitamin K injection
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 7:15pm
|
I am undecided on my baby having this....keen to get peoples thoughts on why they did or didn't or will be or wont be giving to their babies
Thanks ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 7:28pm
I've been thinking a lot about this too and have decided to give Vitamin K via the 3 oral doses. There's no side affects (aside from the risk baby might spew it up) that I or the mw know of. The injection seems to have a small link to some childhood cancers if I remember correctly?  Feel free to correct me on that but I'm pretty sure that's what the info said on the hospital handout. -------------   http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: monikah
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 7:41pm
|
i have come to the same conclusion as emmecat. the injection may have side effects (not conclusively proven yet, but still a risk nonetheless) whereas the oral seems to be ok. i have been looking into it through scientific studies and stuff (geek!) and it is one of those things that they cant prove if its necissary to be given to your baby but i figure if thats the case and there is no contraindications on the oral dose, then i might as well. ------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeSpirit
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 7:44pm
|
With my girl, I chose for her to have the injection as it gave me peace of mind - I knew she'd had the whole dose and all the protection offered by it. I'm glad I did it this way as she was on an IV line by 6hrs old, and lumbar puncture at 24hrs old. Because of assistance required for her breathing, I don't know if they would have been able to do it orally. I know I couldn't BF her initially as air was more important. If I have another child, I'll make the same choice again. The injection was the easy option (and much nicer than that heel prick test!) ------------- http://www.babysfirstsite.com"> 
|
Posted By: busymum
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 8:13pm
|
We decided to not give the Vit K to our babies. After DD1 was born by emergency c/s and things were not so perfect, we reconsidered and she had oral doses. Who knows how much actually went down but she turned out ok! Since then we have declined "unless strongly recommended". -------------  |
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 8:45pm
|
i suppose it depends on why you dont want to do it.. is it merely because of a supposed cancer risk - which as far as i was aware was the same wether it was injected or swallowed.
i would suggest looking into boosting your own vitamin K supplies if you choose not to (and i'm assuming breastfeeding here too ) both before birth and after too... ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Posted By: mum2paris
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 8:51pm
|
hehe, can i just say - the stuff given orally and injected is......wait for it...... the same stuff, literally, from the same vial just given a different way... hence i find it interesting that the injection is "linked to childhood cancers" and the oral is not.
The main difference is that with the injection, it's given in one dose as it's into a large muscle so is taken up by the body more readily, working quicker. the oral doses, as they are given orally, have a less effective uptake as they have to get thru the stomach etc/digestive tract.. hence the 3 doses to get the same effect, over a longer period of time. From what i have read, it is the first week or so where this is the most important, as those that do happen to be affected by haemhorragic (sp)disease of the newborn, have a higher chance of recovering if it sets in after 7 - 10 days. so having it orally may not mean that all of the doses are given in the right time period if it were to be needed the most. With this in mind - we went for the injection straight away with both of our girls. but as the others have said it's up to your choice. I do think though like Teresa said in the "unless highly recommended" part... that usually it will be highly recommended if baby has a lot of bruising like in ventouse or forceps delivery or something like that, if it's been a very long long labour and again baby has a mushy/bruised head, or if very early/prem where there can be the chance of bleeds, or there is a history of blood disorders in the family. keep reading and i hope you find what you're looking for to help you make the decision that's right for you and your baby. ------------- Janine and her 2 cool chicks, Paris & Ayja 
|
Posted By: skp
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 9:25pm
|
No way, my DH is a Dr and we see all the latest research in the clinic about Vit K and ultra sounds. There is no sensible reason that a healthy baby who had a normal birth needs vit K. Anyway thats our views and every parent is entitled to their own, however just make sure you do some research. The little flyer that they give you is not enough!
------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: TysMummy
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 9:25pm
|
ok well i work in pallative care (people that are dying) and most of our clients are those with cancer i handle the children............chances of baby getting cancer with the injection are rare and like someone said unproven however if you decide not to your child may still get cancer ............after reserching it for my first i decided the clotting etc weighed it out so i gave it to him........... and yes it is the same thing both oral and injection.............i also looked into menz B at the same time and too me there are way more bad side affects to this then the K injection.....and remember that it is vitiamin and you put more bad things into your body that you eat...think of all the chemicals from sprays your downing and the ready made foods your gonna feed bubs!!!!!!!!! this is what i looked at to make my decision.....best of luck ..in you decision ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 8:14am
|
Um from the literature I have read (and there's been a bit), the oral dose is NOT the same as the injection, that's like saying teh vitamin B12 I take orally is made up of the same composit as the vitamin B12 I take through injection. It is true that the oral dose of Vit K is less likely to be absorbed in time or at all if you have a posety baby HOWEVER it is one of those shots that isn't 'needed' per say and is given (like so many of the others) on the 'off chance' you have a child who falls into the 2-3% category of suffering from a bleeding disorder. In which case obviously one would be very glad their baby had it (the Vit K I mean)! ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: LadyLizard
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 8:15am
So do you know what the risks are of NOT having the injection? I guess you need to weigh these against the risks of having it and see where you;re at. I am going to do some more reading. ------------- http://www.alterna-tickers.com"> 
|
skp wrote:Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 8:19am
Also- Tysmummy- I totally agree with you about the chemicals etc on our food and the danger they pocess. It IS weird how people get worried about immunisation and Vitamin K etc if they are not prepared to also look at our evironment and what we put into our bodies, and therefore our babies, even before birth. This is why I would argue that *most* people (generalised comment here) who have these doubts probably *do* eat at least partly organic and/or follow a fairly natural/health based lifestyle to begin with.  ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: LadyLizard
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 8:20am
|
http://babyreference.com/VitaminKinjectORnot.htm - Here is an article that cites some more articles about this issue.
It seems to suggest that the oral doses may be safer, but also suggests that healthy breastfed babies shouldn't need any Vit K- I guess the problem is there may not be any way of knowing how healthy they are until its too late perhaps? I don't know what we will do. Going to get some more opinions. ------------- http://www.alterna-tickers.com">
|
Posted By: Shezamumof3
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 9:56am
|
Caden had this cos of the birth I had. They recommended it and I trust them.
Just about every damn thing these days is linked to cancer and I prefer not to worry myself silly with all that stuff to be honest. ------------- |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 10:04am
| Daniel had it because of blood disorders that are on the IL's side of the family. MIL and BIL both have bleeding disorders and DH takes forever to clot so we decided to give it.. this one will have it too |
Posted By: mum2paris
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 12:31pm
if the oral and the injection aren't from the same vial then darn it, the instructions on the inside of the packaging of the vitamin k that we are giving to babies all the time at work... must be wrong.  ------------- Janine and her 2 cool chicks, Paris & Ayja
|
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 5:17pm
|
Well, at the risk of sounding a bit hormonal (cos I am lol), it sounds like you know the ultimate truth and more than the rest of us so good for you... ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: mummyofprinces
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 6:11pm
I dont think we can really say Janine is wrong karen, she is after all giving the stuff out everyday at work She does know more than us, its part of her job!
I am interested by the comment that if you dont want to give the vit k (orally or by injection) to boost your vit k. I have been told that it is not passed from mum to bubs either via the placenta or milk so that might be something to research first. I hadnt even thought about this yet, spose we need to make a decision soon... but if we do decide it will be via injection for the reason mentioned earlier... it is most likely needed in the first week before the oral course is completed. Seems a bit redundant to me to do the oral course if it isnt really going to do the job... -------------   
|
Posted By: RubyG
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 6:28pm
|
So - I found this info on the medsafe website, apparently it is the same medicine given in two different ways.
New formulation of vitamin K Konakion®, the only form of vitamin K available in New Zealand for many years, has not been licensed for oral use (although practitioners may still prescribe it by that route). It contains phytomenadione (vitamin K1) as the active ingredient but also polyethoxylated castor oil, propylene glycol and phenol, which some practitioners consider are mucosal irritants for the infant. The new Konakion MM® is designed specifically for oral as well as intramuscular use, and contains phytomenadione and the naturally occurring products, glycocholic acid and lecithin. The advent of this form of vitamin K should allay any concerns about oral administration related to the phenol content of the former preparation. I think I will decide after the birth - depending on how it goes and how quickly i can breastfeed etc ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 7:34pm
|
For the reasons Janine has outlined, we decided to give it to Jack, and will give it to #2 as well. After his birth it was recommended he have it anyway because of the ventouse delivery so we would have gone with it even if we were a 'wait and see' case earlier on.
And yep as far as I have been aware they are the same just one goes in the mouth, the other is injected so any article that says the injection has a higher rate of cancer than the oral, I would take with a grain of salt. If it's the same thing, then how could the injection part of it have added stuff that makes kids sick and the oral not have it? As parents, yes be informed, but be careful of what you read and what others tell you. At the end of the day go with what your gut tells you, because research and available information, articles and opinions are constantly changing so you need to be OK with it in yourself. I do believe though that what you do for your baby before birth and for the rest of their lives should be a lot more worrying than a few injections. I mean sheesh a few years ago they were going on about certain fruits giving us cancer... but would you stop your child eating fruit? I would take the cancer risk with a grain of salt and think about the actual effects of injections etc. |
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 8:03pm
|
From what I have read it doesn't cross the placenta but it is in breastmilk, they also put it in formula. In formula it is at higher concentrations as it isn't as readily absorbed as it is from breastmilk, that is also the reason that the levels are so high in the injection and the oral dose (which sounds like they are the same thing).
Perhaps the link with the injection is because it goes straight into the blood supply rather the stomach etc breaking it down like with the oral dose (don't know, just speculating). We decided to take the wait and see approach, our reason being that mother nature seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to stop newborns having Vit K and some research is now showing some kind of link with brain development (I can't remember exactly what as it was a long time ago that I looked into all this), the research that has linked it to cancers is inconclusive to say the least and wasn't our deciding factor. So what happened in our situation is that Spencer did not have it as he was a straight forward elective c/s but Kyle did have it as he was a vontouse delivery and therefore higher risk and we chose to give him the jab. Also agree with Bizzy about upping your own vit K if you decide not to do it as poor diet and antibiotics can effect your levels of Vit K. Oh and also according to my mw the vit K injection these days is a much smaller dose than it use to be, so some of those studies that were done would not be relevant to the current injection. ------------- 
 
|
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 8:03pm
|
from what i understand vit K is passed to baby thru milk etc, just not in large quantities. green tea is a source of Vit K as are some leafy green veges and strawberries...among other things
emmecat i think you might find that when the literature lining vit k to some childhood cancers refers to the "shot" it is encampassing both the oral and injected methods... and yes you are right it seems we cant be sure what exactly is in anything these days... from the info rubyg posted it looks like the oral has more additives than the injection... |
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 9:52pm
|
I have a confession to make .
I don't know what the vitamin K injection is for . I know that C had it, because I was young and clueless and pretty much did what I was told (except, obviously when my parents said not to sleep with boys ) I dont think I even questioned it , but now I realise, reading this thread, that I don't know what the Vit K injection is for . ------------- 
|
Posted By: TysMummy
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 8:45am
i didnt until i was due with ty and then questioned it....its too stop the clotting in babies...(to sum it up) basically cause of the small area the baby has to come through some babies are at risk of clotting etc so this is to help ------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Mrs_B
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 10:09am
|
Other way round TysMummy, it's to prevent Baby from bleeding as Baby's are born deficient in Vit K and it plays an important role in blood clotting. Check out this link: http://www.babycenter.com.au/baby/health/vitamink/ - Vit K -------------  
|
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 12:26pm
|
Mel- just to address your comment first: I didn't say Janine or anyone was wrong, in fact I said it sounded like she knew the truth about it and more about it than I did (which wouldn't be hard),. I also don't understand if the shot is so safe, then why on earth is literature given out by your MIDWIFE of all people as well as the hospital admitting there is a link with the shot but not the oral dose (albeit a small one)? Bizzy and cuppatea- I agree with both your approach and opinions. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Peanut
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 12:34pm
|
Emmecat - I would be looking at the date of the publications and research you are reading and being given.
The medsafe website info on page 1 says that there has been a change and they are now the same thing and can be given either way - which makes me think that this is a fairly recent change. I would be checking the date that the change of VitK occured on and only reading publications and research from NZ after that date. Just my opinion though. -------------  
|
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 12:40pm
|
Peanut- thanks for that, I will check the date (I assumed because it was given out to me recently, then the research was recent but perhaps it's not? Fell into my own trap there). Now you've got me thinking though...if there has been a recent change in ho much Vit K is administered, why is that? Could it be because the orginal dose was NOT safe??? I mean, why fix what ain't broke? ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: TysMummy
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 1:25pm
sorry i actually thought that was wat i said ------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: TysMummy
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 1:27pm
|
emmmecat.....i never got any info from hospital or MW regarding this neither has anyone else i know i did my own research ------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 1:36pm
|
Yes I find it quite shocking the lack of knowledge some parents have about the injections they give their children. NZ is suppose to have a system of informed consent but a lot of parents either just do them without any thought about it or they only read the info handed out by the government which IMO is only hell bent on scare mongering about the consequences of not having the injections.
I find it quite amusing that most of us would read the ingredients of a product we intend to feed our child but how many people have asked to see the ingredient list of the jabs? And I'm not getting at anyone who has been informed and decided to give the jabs I'm just stating that a lot of parents do it without being informed and I think that is wrong. -------------
|
Posted By: LadyLizard
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 3:46pm
|
ON the other hand though, alot of people in this country don't question doctors etc because they have alot of faith in their health professionals, which can be quite a positive thing- its says alot about the standard of care we get in NZ.
I don't think thats necessarily a bad thing- after all, its the health professionals jobs to act in our best interests at the end of the day, and if every single patient questioned every single thing they did, it would make their jobs quite..... trying to say the least. I also think that there is alot of misguided mistrust in pharmaceutical companies thats fuelled by the media. They aren't allowed by LAW to lie about the ingredients in their products, and I find it odd that people believe that they would just put any old thing in preparations and lie about it. There are regulations to be upheld and stringent (independent, non biased) tests done on every new drug before it gets anywhere near humans. I am all for being educated and making educated choices about their health and the health of their children, however some people simply don't have the level of education or intelligence to want to do that for themselves, and there will always be people like that who rely on what their health professional is telling them. Those people still get sick and still have babies, and thats just how the world works. ------------- http://www.alterna-tickers.com">
|
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 3:51pm
|
Wow that's weird cos I got some at ante-natel class AND from my mw! ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 3:56pm
guilty as charged. Oh well, least with this one I can research it and make an informed decision . *shrugs * -------------
|
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 4:02pm
|
Lady Lizard- you make a good point and are absolutely right about not everyone having the education or intelligence to make an informed decision themselves, and because of that we *hope* that we can rely on our health professionals to advise best. However, for a litany of reasons that would take ages to argue out here lol, to fully trust our health professionals, we have to assume that they themselves are up to date with absolutely all the new product available and how it works and it's contraindictaions etc...and that is a HUGE ask. That I guess is why we have speciaists in various fields (which he average GP is not....by his/her own admission). I also don't think for a second that as a general rule, health professionals set out to deliberately mislead the public, not at all. They do a terrific job in often stressful situations. I guess my concern is that those of us who *are* educated and intelligent STILL often don't take the time to investigate things a little further.... and that, to me, is concerning. BTW- I *totally* disagree with you about pharmaceutical companies lol. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 7:13pm
|
to the main reason i started looking into Vit K was because i didnt like the idea of giving my baby a deep tissue injection at birth.. i figured birth would be traumatic enough... and then of course i found out why they give it and how often HDN occurs and what natural sources of vit k there are and decided after all that not to give it to my children...
i think too when deciding not to innoculate or give things like vit k you have to be more vigilant and aware of the signs to look for "just in case". ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: TysMummy
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 7:42pm
|
Potential Risks of Vitamin K
There are now 10 studies investigating whether there is an association between vitamin K and childhood cancer. There is no proven risk of cancer or leukaemia. A risk of solid tumours can almost definitely be ruled out but a small risk of leukaemia cannot be excluded. 1-10 Six studies showed no link with cancer. In the studies that show an increased risk of cancer or leukaemia, the vitamin K policies were to administer IM vitamin K or any vitamin K to selected babies only. Some of the findings may be explained by there being other risk factors associated with these selected babies. 6, 7, 13 There is no established risk of childhood cancer with IM vitamin K. Any small and unproven risk has to be balanced against the known risk of developing classic and late HDN with potentially fatal or debilitating outcomes if either no vitamin K is administered or even if the oral route is chosen. An additional advantage of the IM route is now a long established time of usage with this with no proven safety issues. The oral empirical route had not been in place for many years and there is still a chance of some as yet unknown risk that may become apparent with time. This must be balanced against the proven risk of serious bleeding in a small but not easily identifiable group of babies with either no vitamin K or the oral regimes. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: LadyLizard
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 8:14pm
They have to comply! Thats why its the law! Anyway, agree to disagree on that one.
Personally, I am very pro- informed choice, and as a health professional myself, I try to give my patients as much information as possible for them to make their decisions. (Because if you don't, then you can be taken to task for it later) I also make sure I keep up to date- however most HPs do have to keep up to date as a condition of their registration, but my dads old GP definitely didn't. (read later gripe) There are some people who just don't want to know and tell you to make the decision for them. My parents are like this with my Dads cancer treatment and it is driving me absolutely NUTS with the way they are so passive and accept everything the doctor says without question, and don't push for results from tests (that were done over a week ago) or anything. they don't want to "bother" the doctor. WTF? Thats their JOB! So I have a personal grievance with this topic. People being somewhere in the middle- interested enough to do their own research and question the professional, but still ready to take on board their opinions, but not too passive or too pushy, are the ideal patients, and most of the ladies on this thread fall into that category i think. I will be researching as much as I can for our baby, and I am not convinced about this Vit K business from what I have read so far. ------------- http://www.alterna-tickers.com">
|
Posted By: Emmecat
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 9:52pm
|
Lady Lizard- sorry to hear about your Dad's cancer Gotta say though, TOTALLY agree wih what you've written here.....I would put myself in the middle-interested category. I question lots of stuff and as a result am usually more than happy to agree with those 'in the know'...and occasionally happy to agree to disagree lol. Nice debating everyone! ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 11:27am
|
I have a mw appointment tomorrow, so I will discuss it with her then .
Will be a bit more questioning this time around ...not just believing what drs etc tell me . -------------
|
Posted By: skp
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 10:22pm
Did you know that vaccines are tested on only 100 HEALTHY people before they are declared safe in NZ. There are no long term tests and no tests on not so healthy people. How many people do you know have perfect health? but yet these vaccines are available and promoted to everyone (healthy or not). So sorry but I do not agree with independent, stringent testing in NZ at all. Also, the pharm companies are very picky with who is used in a trial as they don't want sick people etc, this is not only to protect the people in the trial as much as to make the stats look good for our ministry of health. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: LadyLizard
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 8:21am
|
Most drugs and vaccines that are used in NZ are developed overseas and trialled there first, we simply do not have the population to support adequate drug trial research. So no, perhaps we don't have extensive testing HERE, but they have been tested somewhere else before they get here.
I just think the pharmaceutical company conspiracy theories are getting waaaay out of hand. Soon nobody will trust anyone with any degree of professional knowledge and we will all self medicate with stuff from the health food shop that ISN'T regulated or tested at all. If the general public think they know more than the ministry of health and the medical professions on the whole, and more than extensive global research, then they don't have to subject themselves to the evil pharmacy products, do they? Look what happened the last time they did that- people stopped getting the MMR vaccine, and we end up with a much higher incidence of measles, AND the link between MMR and autism was never confirmed. IN fact, the doctor that first commented that there might be a link admitted that they there wasn't as much basis for their comment as they first thought and I think they ended up getting struck off the medical register in the UK. You can always try homeopathy. Now there is something thats been proven time and time again by extensive scientific research to be effective. (Not!!)  ------------- http://www.alterna-tickers.com">
|