What's wrong with eye drops?

[Jo Dirt]

With my last two babies my husband said be sure and tell them NO eye drops (I never mentioned eye drops so I'm sure they got them). I see several other posters say the same thing.

I just wonder what the issue is with eye drops?

[justme1972]

If it is proven that mom does not have gonorrhea, chlamydia, or any other STD that could cause eye problems, then why is the treatment necessary in the first place?

I would say it's because you never know if the husband, or she, is being faithful. Just when you think you've heard it all...you hear something even worse.

You can still contract and STD after the initial round of testing and pass it on to your child.

I am very, very secure in my marriage, but no way would I have passed on the drops for my children. No matter how long you are married to someone, bottom line, you just never know what someone will do...and I would hate to think my children suffered a 100% preventable defect, just because I had faith that I may have later found out was misplaced.

You never really know anyone.

[NPinWCH]

All moms recieving prenatal care where I work are retested for chlamydia/gonorrhea as well as GBS between 35-36 wks. So a negative result would be reasurring; of course even if negative at 36 weeks you still could be positive at time of delivery.

In 12 yrs I have had very few people outright refuse e-mycin oinment. I have had many ask it be put off until after the baby has nursed or is sleeping.

Regardless of the state the parents can refuse! I have serious issues with hospitals/nurses/doctors telling patients that they must allow something because it is state law. The parents have rights to refuse any care they don't want. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH IT. My job is to educate them and make sure they understand, to chart what was said, notify the doc and then leave the choice to them.

[Jo Dirt]

If a patient is free of STDs, eye prophylaxis is not necessary. But insuring that a patient is free of STDs is not quite as simple as it seems. A patient who cultures negative at her first pre-natal visit may become infected during pregnancy, and since STDs are often asymptommatic, she may have no idea that she is infected. Cultures done on admission to L&D will not show results for a few days, by which time mom and baby will already be home.

Because an undiagnosed infection poses such a great risk to the newborn, and because the treatment is so cheap, easy and safe, it has become mandatory. It is a practical matter of weighing the risks and benefits in terms of individual and public health. That means that some babies will be treated unnecessarily in order to acheive the goal of eradicating visual impairment due to congenital eye infections.

This seems like a good and reasonable practice to me. I read in a pregnancy magazine awhile back that a woman should never assume that she does not have some kind of STD because she can not be 100% positive her husband has been faithful.

It's sickening but it's a cold hard fact.

I think I read somewhere else that out of a survery something like 70% of men (it was something like 30% for women) have been unfaithful. So, I think the eye gtts are a good idea.

[SiennaGreen]

I had a very simple solution. I had the gamut of tests done at 36 weeks when they did the GBS. Everything was clear, I wasn't the least bit intrested in sharing bodily fluid with my husband those last 4 weeks, and I declined eye prophylaxis for all three babies.