Group B Strep

[newtocloth2]

Well, as someone who intended to decline the antibiotics with my second (there was no time to get them, anyway, had I wanted them), the hospital protocol was to keep us 48 hours and monitor baby for signs of infection. No NICU stay, no staying 10 days, no spinal tap, no invasive procedure.

[BeccaSueCongdon]

Originally Posted by newtocloth2 Well, as someone who intended to decline the antibiotics with my second (there was no time to get them, anyway, had I wanted them), the hospital protocol was to keep us 48 hours and monitor baby for signs of infection. No NICU stay, no staying 10 days, no spinal tap, no invasive procedure.

That's good! I had always heard it was an automatic spinal tap. It must vary by provider?

[ulawolf]

Originally Posted by iwiamandaiwi I can't understand why anyone would take the risk of declining. Is your discomfort or unease about it worth risking your child's life? Because that is exactly what a person that knows they tested positive and declined treatment would be doing. I am not talking specifically about OP because she had an unusual situation with her husbands allergies and I am very happy to hear that she is going to take the antibiotics and talk with her doctor about the possibilities of allergies in her child. I think it is a very responsible and wonderful decision. I just can't help but feel immense sorrow for the babies whose mothers decline. I am sorry, I don't want to cause drama, but I think it is one of the most selfish and cold decisions a mother could make. You are risking your childs life when it could easily be avoided

I am in.total agreement.

[Ellasundies]

Originally Posted by Ellasundies ^^ That is not true. There are problems caused by antibiotics with treating GBS and there are other treatment options out there that have been tested by main stream medicine that have been found to be effective. I think I linked to them earlier in this thread. This issue is not as clear cut as you would like to think.

Quoting myself to say whoops. My links to research were in the last thread that popped up on GBS.

For those of you who think Mom's are being selfish for not taking the antibiotics. I will say this....

*There are other completely valid treatment options out there that are backed up by research that don't involve antibiotics. That are just as effective.

*There are completely valid reasons to not want antibiotics based on research.

*Prophylactic antibiotics during labor don't always work and won't always protect from death and in some cases CAUSE the baby to be sicker.

Before you make such harsh judgements maybe people should read up on the subject a little more. I can totally understand choosing to take antibiotics for yourself. But to call another women selfish and not taking proper care of her newborn when she chooses a different treatment course when there are other treatment courses out there and when there is no cut and dry answer to the issue is just

[BeccaSueCongdon]

Originally Posted by Ellasundies Quoting myself to say whoops. My links to research were in the last thread that popped up on GBS. For those of you who think Mom's are being selfish for not taking the antibiotics. I will say this.... *There are other completely valid treatment options out there that are backed up by research that don't involve antibiotics. That are just as effective. *There are completely valid reasons to not want antibiotics based on research. *Prophylactic antibiotics during labor don't always work and won't always protect from death and in some cases CAUSE the baby to be sicker. Before you make such harsh judgements maybe people should read up on the subject a little more. I can totally understand choosing to take antibiotics for yourself. But to call another women selfish and not taking proper care of her newborn when she chooses a different treatment course when there are other treatment courses out there and when there is no cut and dry answer to the issue is just

Would you care to share this solid research you've discovered? I've seen a couple very small scale studies involving hibiclens as an option in undeveloped nations, where abx are hard to come by. But have yet to see anything on a larger scale, or any randomized double blind studies.

And I've definitely never seen anything about the antibiotics putting baby at increased risk.

[dudleypippen]

Just wanted to pipe in- the CDC recommends universal screening, which is what most providers go by. They also have an algorithm for risk based screening in cases where women aren't tested, don't have prenatal care, or labor before results are available. Many providers will use scare tactics about procedures in the event that you aren't tested, but NOWHERE in the protocols are routine spinal taps, automatic treatment for baby or anything other than close observation of an asymptomatic infant recommended. A copy of the CDC guidelines for GBS is available through there website and is an excellent read The guidelines also have some epidemiologic information which I think is helping for women deciding if they want to be tested based on prevalence and infection rates.

[Mom2lucy]

i would also like to chime in and say my sister had a false negative test for GBS. She did not get the antibiotics of course and my niece was born very very sick. she was immediately taken to the NICU, my sister didnt even get to see her at all. She had a tube down her throat, a pic line, iv's, and a spinal tap- just everything. My sister couldnt even touch her baby for 10 days and the baby didnt go home for 3 weeks. She ended up having meningitis. I think its very scary to have that happen and I am even considering asking for antibiotics even if i test negative. just my two cents and little story.

[BeccaSueCongdon]

Originally Posted by Mom2lucy i would also like to chime in and say my sister had a false negative test for GBS. She did not get the antibiotics of course and my niece was born very very sick. she was immediately taken to the NICU, my sister didnt even get to see her at all. She had a tube down her throat, a pic line, iv's, and a spinal tap- just everything. My sister couldnt even touch her baby for 10 days and the baby didnt go home for 3 weeks. She ended up having meningitis. I think its very scary to have that happen and I am even considering asking for antibiotics even if i test negative. just my two cents and little story.

Poor baby. :-(

[Green Decals]

I'd like to quote a few things here but can't, so here goes anyway... Some people think it is irresponsible to decline antibiotics when the test comes back positive. Those folks tend to not understand the high risk of antibiotics, and the life-long effects they can have on a newborn (gut issues, etc.). Yes, group B strep can be deadly, but so can antibiotics, and there are many more long-lasting complications of abx treatment that are not understood and/or not directly attributed to abx because of how our medical system works.

Would I ever decline a group B test? Not personally, no. Nor would I ever go on abx as a result of a positive test. Tests results are not cold, hard proof of the presence or absence of group B strep, and abx are not a save-all-end-all-risk-free solution. There ARE other options out there, that are SAFER with little to no side effects or risk of further complication. If a mother chooses to use one or more of those non-abx options, more power to her! I highly doubt that anyone here is choosing not to the abx just "Willy-nilly" or because they don't like the idea of an IV in labor. Research your options, and make the best choice for YOU and YOUR baby.

[laila]

Originally Posted by BeccaSueCongdon Since you have tested positive, that will be noted in your chart. If you refuse the antibiotics, baby will be strictly monitored and will probably undergo a spinal tap and other invasive procedures. Especially if you or baby spikes a fever (which can happen if you get an epidural). I've been GBS positive both times. I got the abx first time, no big deal. Second time I was home and didn't get them. Baby was born in her caul so she didn't get exposed to it. Then I met a lady online whose baby contracted it and died of sepsis. :-(. It's a highly effective and comparatively low risk preventative measure that will save you further invasive testing.

This wasn't true for me. I only tested postive once, and denied the antibiotics. We just enjoyed our babymoon in the hospital; baby had to be monitored for 2 days before the release. I stayed with in him in room the whole time. He didn't have any additional tests, just a wait and make sure he is ok approach. My water usually has to be broken though in the last few minutes of labor, so the risk was a lot less than for some. My midwife said denying it was fine, and was not worried at all. I go natural though in labor, in a hospital with a midwife, but no ivs or anything so when I denied it, my midwife was not surprised. I do not deny the antibiotics for me; it is denied for the safety of my child's immune system. There can be lifelong negative effects to giving baby's antibiotics before their systems have had a chance to build themselves. This is what I choose for my baby, but this doesn't mean I will EVER judge another mama's decision for her baby.