From The Tennesean:
A bleeding disorder in babies so rare that it typically affects fewer than one in 100,000 is becoming more common in Tennessee because parents are refusing vitamin K injections at birth, according to pediatric specialists.
Since February, four babies with no signs of injury or abuse have been sent to Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt with either brain hemorrhages or bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. Dr. Robert Sidonio Jr., a hematologist, diagnosed them with vitamin K deficiency bleeding.
After discovering that all four had not received the preventive treatment, which doctors have been giving to newborns since the 1960s, he started making inquiries. Pediatricians told him parents are increasingly refusing consent because of concerns based on misinformation or the goal of having natural childbirths.
What happened to the children?
All four children survived, but the three who suffered brain bleeds face challenges.
“These are kids that end up having surgery to remove the large amount of blood out of their head or they would have died,” he said. “It’s early. It’s only since February, but some of the kids have issues with seizure disorders and will have long-term neurological symptoms related to seizures and developmental delays.”
That is about as spectacular a parenting fail as letting your child go through a windshield head first in a car accident because you thought refusing to buckle your child in a car seat made you look “educated.”
Even animals fight tooth and claw to keep their young from harm. Human parents should do no less. Instead, Western, white women thrill to the thought that immature transgressive behavior marks them as independent thinkers. It doesn’t; it marks them as ignorant, gullible and willing to take terrible risks with the lives of their children for no better reason that to preen to themselves and others.
I can only begin to imagine the life of agony that awaits these children and their parents. I’d like to see how the mothers explain to their brain injured children that they didn’t have to bleed into their heads; they didn’t have to sustain permanent neurologic damage; they were born without handicap and the only reason they are disabled now is because their mothers thought their friends on the internet were more knowledgeable about hemorrhagic disease of the newborn (HDN) than actual pediatricians with actual medical training.
What could these women possibly say:
1. Sorry you’re brain damaged but shots scare me and the tradeoff between brain damage and the mild discomfort of an injection seemed perfectly reasonable to me?
2. Sorry you face a life of disability, but the women on Mothering.com assured me that refusing the vitamin K shot was safe, and who wouldn’t believe them?
3. I wish you could walk and talk like all the other kids, but HDN is rare and I figured that pretending it couldn’t happen to you would prevent it from happening to you?
4. I believed that doctors were engaged in a giant conspiracy to inject babies with vitamin K for their own enjoyment and HDN was made up to scare mothers?
5. Hey, don’t blame me. I educated myself on the internet?
6. Shit happens and I’m sorry it happened to you, but you were probably meant to be brain damaged?
Or how about:
7. I am desperately sorry and will be for the rest of my life. In my ignorance and hubris, I thought I was educated when actually I was nothing but a fool?
Yes, that sounds about right.
Why is this only talking about the mothers? It’s not like the dads don’t have any part in the decision making.
Why are these people even allowed into hospitals, when they’re just going to ignore the doctors advice anyways?
Although refusing the vit K shot is stupid. There is a LONG stretch between refusing 1 shot and forcing someone to have a homebirth and refusing medical care afterwards.
Why is there such a long stretch? These people clearly don’t trust doctors, nor do they actually care what they say. Why let them hog medical attention from people who will actually listen to doctors. If you deny vaccines, you should have to sign a paper forfeiting your rights to science based medicine. Let them snort cumin and chug lemon juice, they obviously know better than the doctors.
And where do you put the line on how much ‘ignoring medical advice’ can you do before you are banned from receiving medical care? If you put the bar as low as ‘vit k shot’ virtually no one would have the right to get medical care.
Obviously no smoker should. All drug users should be banned as well. All overweight people.
What about those who do not do enough exercise? Those who don’t necessarily have a healthy diet?
Does refusing any kind of medical treatment even one time in your life bans you for life? I didn’t get the HPV vaccine. Should I be banned for life? How about not getting the flu vaccine every year? How about not taking prenatal vitamins?
My dentist recommended I have a filling in one of my teeth, I didn’t get it. I also don’t floss. I guess I shouldn’t have the right to dental treatment anymore
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Most of what you listed effects only you. Vaccines are a matter of global health. If you’re going to deny something that helps humanity as a whole, then why should you benefit from medical science? Also please get your HPV vaccine, it’s safe and effective, and you need to be protected.
You do realize how many people don’t get the flu vaccine right? That means denying medical care to over half the population only over that one vaccine.
And Vit K is not a matter of global health either. It affects only your baby.
Vaccine denial in any form is a matter of global health. Often Flu shot denial is systemic of vaccine denial as a whole. When one person denies the VK shot, more people will follow suit. Then more after them, and if we allow it to continue, then many more babies will unnecessarily suffer. In a perfect society, denying vaccines for your children would land you in prison and cost you your parental rights. Consent becomes irreverent when it comes to matters of global health.
I thought we were talking about completely denying medical care for the rest of their life to people who refused the Vit K shot.
My point was that putting that kind of condition up for healthcare would result in absolutely no one having the right to it, because no one is following medical recommendation 100% of the time.
And we can all thank good ol’ Kate for this nonsense. The “mama” who knows more than all the physicians and scientists combined has been pushing this one to her little herd of sheep.
I came across this very information article written by a pediatrician through a post on another website, and I am crossposting it here.
http://www.healio.com/pediatrics/journals/pedann/%7Bb5ee598c-213c-4284-86b7-c7055e31f71a%7D/playing-newborn-intracranial-roulette-parental-refusal-of-vitamin-k-injection
I hope anyone who lands here to argue reads and thinks about it.
Since the whole link does not show up, the title of the article is
“Playing Newborn Intracranial Roulette: Parental Refusal of Vitamin K Injection”Apologies (again) for the typo: information should read informative
While the Vit K shot is virtually harmless the Vit K DROP would be even BETTER. What bothers me about this post is the fear mongering. Thinking women, recognize that aspect of this post. Ask yourself why people use FEAR and SHAME to accomplish anything that is truly good. Na, if it’s good, there is no need for such tactics…
You think it would be BETTER if she used WORDS with random UPPER case letters?
The only reason that people like Dr. Amy must use fear is that the opposition does the same. The difference is, we use real fears rather than invented ones.
No, the vitamin K drops are not better, they have much less efficacy. See, that is why scientist, doctors, and public health experts make these decisions and not lay people that think that drops are better because they sound less scary.
Really? So you think Mothers Against Drunk Driving doesn’t have good argument against driving drunk?
Why do you think anyone is even contemplating refusing the vitamin K injection? It’s only because natural childbirth advocates have insisted that they have something to fear from it.
No, the drops are not better because they do not prevent late bleeds which are much more dangerous
Seriously? But the fear tactics used by MAM is ok, but science based information regarding the risks posed by poor choices is fear mongering?
When my son was born he was given the vit k injection – It was done about an hour after he was born when a nurse took him to bath him, weigh him,measure him etc (this was all done in labour room next to me), but when I had my daughter two and a bit years ago, I don’t remember her being given one (it was a different hospital, and she was with me at all times and I am certain she wasn’t given one – they didn’t have a nursery so she was never taken for any testing or injections etc, even when they did the BCG injection – which here in South Africa, because TB is so common and there is MDR and XDR TB is done before you leave hospital, it was with me holding her on the bed, but there was a place to put baby in a nurses care outside the neonatal ICU when you showered or bathed, but nobody said “oh, we did her vitamin K shot quickly while you were in the bath”). I must admit I don’t know that much about it, is the vitamin K something I should have done now, or has the danger period passed and we’ve been lucky?
The danger period is relatively brief – a matter of months, IIRC. If your daughter is 2 years old now, she is able to metabolize vitamin K from her food and is in no danger at all.
She’s fine now; this is just a danger in newborns, but having been a mom/baby nurse, I would bet she got it and you just didn’t notice.
I meant to send in this link ages ago – a similar situation of newborn bleeding because of Vit K refusal:
http://themommydialogues.com/the-final-six-mandys-story/
…and the story didn’t bother me as much as the mother’s comment down in the comment section: ” In the future, I will probably STILL not give a
vitamin K shot at birth, but try harder to be sure my own levels are
sufficient.”
How great that they were lucky, and their newborn hemorrhaged in a visible manner, instead of bleeding in the brain, or intestines, where such a thing may not have been noticed until it was too late.
I really don’t get how they could have that happen and NOT take it as a lesson to give the shot.
What I find odd is that one of the main points of the NCB movement is “Mama Wisdom”, yet they don’t seem to bother having indepth conversations with their mothers, grandmothers, and older women in their community. Perhaps if they did, then they would choose more wisely when it comes to medical care. My grandma and my aunt are amazed by the advances in obstetric and paediatric care, as is my husband’s grandma. When discussing pregnancy and family stories, as we do when there is about to be a new addition, they pass down the family history even though it’s hard:
“If only we had known what folate was and why it is so important!”
“If only we had known that Vitamin K may have prevented a brain bleed! It has ruined my son’s life.”
“I wish we had been vaccinated, my husband didn’t catch mumps until he was in his 30’s and he nearly died.”
“I was a footling breech, my mother thought she was going to lose me while being transferred to the hospital.” (1930’s Europe, middle child of 9)
My grandma (age 88) thinks c-sections are the best thing ever.
My grandma is more fond of satellite-based weather warnings, pertussis shots, and measles shots. (She has her reasons for all three.) She also adores the microwave…
Like I always say, I think a big part of the problem with the alt-med crowd and the antivaxxers is that they don’t know enough history, family or otherwise.
My grandma still says “when I was at the hospital”. She has been hospitalized exactly once in her life: for my mom’s birth, her only pregnancy carried to term, She stayed there 40 days. Do I need to say it was not exactly a blissful birth and postpartum period?
My grandfather (who was born in 1898) was a 35 week preemie who was lucky to survive and only did so because he was literally wrapped in cotton wool on a hot water bottle, in a shoebox and fed with an eye dropper for the first month of his life.
NICU might be distressing and invasive, but it beats that.
My mother, who remembers the sound of her baby sister sick with whooping cough/pertussis (Luckily, she survived, but was in the hospital for a while) thinks vaccines are amazing.
My husband’s aunt had polio (before the vaccine). Her mother blamed herself for that, regretting a day spent playing at the river and thinking that is how auntie contracted polio. Auntie thinks vaccines are amazing (she also continues to be fascinated at the advancements in medical science).
My husband’s grandfather (the one that had the mumps) caught polio part way through WWII while in the navy. He came off fairly lightly – only ended up with a dodgy leg. Between that and my memory of how miserable my brother was when he caught the mumps thanks to our mother succumbing to the woo, there was no question in our minds about vaccinating our kids.
Exactly. History should tell you something. I was happy to have a c-section for my breech baby. I had actually read all of my pregnancy book and the words head entrapment were all I needed.
Afterwards, I talked to a few older mothers that had vaginal breech deliveries. All of them told me how lucky I was that they do c-sections for that now. One of those women is my MIL, who almost lost her first child due to a breech position (Not to mention the damage she said it did to her). I really do not understand the push for vaginal deliveries of breech babies. It seems like talking to some women who have been there done that would tell you it’s not a great idea.
My husband’s aunt, who is in her 80s had a vaginal breech delivery. I dare not ask her too many questions, but from what I gather the baby stayed sick a LONG time, and she almost bleed to death. They both ended up okay, but that had to be very scary.
So is it generally a part of NCB to eschew prenatal vitamins? I had assumed the NCB types were the ones shelling out big money to Big Supplement for prenatal vitamins that are more speshul than what’s available at the supermarket. I ask this because if they didn’t have a problem with prenatal vitamins, why do they have a problem with a Vitamin K injection?
I’ll bet if they repackaged Vitamin K injections as “organic” and doctors started to reject it, the crunchies would be all for it.
Maybe we should do this!
“All babies are given an injection of organic vitamin K”
Awesome!
Vitamin K-ale mayhaps? Make it green, and suddenly they’re lining up outside the door for “kale” injections. Hell, bribe one of he usual suspects (Natural News, MAM, etc.) to sing the praises of this “kale” injection, and wait for the crunchies to come flocking
But keep the current one as ‘not organic’. Then they can still feel like they are making a choice that is superior to the rest of us.
“So is it generally a part of NCB to eschew prenatal vitamins?”
It definitely exists, and seems to be becoming more common: http://www.babble.com/pregnancy/not-taking-prenatal-vitamins-diet-pregnancy-dos-and-donts/
“After all, women have been giving birth much longer than prenatal vitamins have been available. I started to discover a more natural way of living, from skipping some of the optional prenatal tests (like the quad screen) to eating a different type of diet, which prompted me to plan a home birth. ”
http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1369152/anyone-else-not-taking-prenatal-vitamins
“Like many of you, I’m not taking Prenatals either. I drink raw milk, try to eat lots of greens, kefir, salmon roe, milk thistle and I’m about to start taking a teaspoon of Molasses a day, I also take Colloidal Silver if I start feeling under the weather. “
Colloidal silver?? God help the poor baby who comes out blue because its mother took too much colloidal silver.
My thought was way more horrible, the poor baby that will end up with anencephaly because it’s mother took no folic acid 🙁
Raw milk in pregnancy…listeria risk anyone?
Nothing like an all natural case of hydrops or a miscarriage.
Seriously, the stupid, it burns.
Or TB, no?
It’s the old “I am in control of my pregnancy and birth” instead of “the pregnancy is in control of me and there’s nothing I can do to affect either the actual birth because my uterus is not under my voluntary control or the health of my infant” mentality.
I think these women are terrified that there is Something Bigger than their conscious desires out there which makes certain actions of their bodies happen willy-nilly. Humans have been trying to obtain absolute control for millennia: witness certain types of advanced yoga, which are supposed to bring smooth muscle actions such as respiration and heartbeat under voluntary control.
Of course a decent diet is necessary; but when you consider that gastric juices are 2% hydrochloric acid, it’s a wonder ANY nutrients ingested orally wind up being absorbed at all. As for Vit.K, babies are actually born with enough but within hours of birth the level falls precipitately and does not return to normal until about the 8th day of life [which is why the commandment for circumcision for Jews is to take place on the 8th day, or is deferred if there is a medical objection, but not done before]
A lot of people don’t realize they can have more of the kind of birth they want in a hospital if they would research hospital policies instead of trying to find ways to just argue with OBs and nurses. Of course, it is wise to do whatever is necessary if mother/baby health is compromised or in danger.
“So is it generally a part of NCB to eschew prenatal vitamins?”
Standard I think. Even the midwifery practice at George Washington University Hospital (which you would think believes in modern medicine) recommends eschewing vitamins, at least on the website.
If its standard care, they won’t do it. Period. Thats just how it is.
You figure, they think OBs are evil and horrible, and out to hurt you, so they won’t do anything they suggest.
Also, if a HB MW cannot doit, they won’t offer it.
THIS. Sums the mentality up nicely. Anything a HB MW can’t do is “controversial” or “unnecessary”. I’ve been told multiple times that pitocin in unnecessary because I could just walk around. except I did that, and still needed to be induced. Either my OB and I were to incompetent to figure out walking properly, or somebody’s full of it.
Don’t you know you are supposed to “waddle” not walk, its tots different! The mentality is indeed baffling.
Woo culture is alphabetist.
They LOVE Vits C and D, are fairly warm towards B, ambivalent about A, but loathe K.
What did K do to deserve such scorn?
One of my facebook friends just recently posted about this. “Any mamas have any thoughts on vitamin K injections?” First of all, don’t even get me started on the stupidity of polling Facebook friends instead of asking you doctor. I responded to her, gently explaining why it’s important. Then one of her idiot hippie moms posts “Just do delayed cord clamping- it takes care of it 🙂 Also make sure he gets plenty of mama milk and he’ll be just fine ;)” Oh the idiocy. I promptly responded that “mama milk” is in fact quite low in vitamin k, and that vitamin k deficiency has nothing to do with cord clamping and everything to do with the immature liver of a newborn and poor placental transport of vitamin k.
This is the crap that makes me want to give up. Why am I spending all of this money and energy going to medical school? I’m just going to be regarded by the general public as an evil money grubbing liar who works for big pharma. I could just sit at home and google shit all day, and then be seen as a wise sage who has a right to tell everyone else what to do.
It’s a personal quirk of mine that a certain type of woman cannot use the word “mother” but must use a diminuitive. It ranks up there with the use of “birth” as a transitive verb [which is actually grammatically wrong] and “still” for “dead”, and various euphemisms for “contractions” rather than the word itself. I sometimes wonder if they realize how inane and absurd they sound to literate speakers of English.
It never used to bother me, but yeah, the “mama” thing goes so hand in hand with the unthinking sheep-like following of the “reject all modern medicine in favor of unproven methods” that I’ve come to despise it. It sounds childish too. My children call me mama. Other grown women should call me by my name.
But this quoted woman didn’t mean “other female human beings who have a child.” She meant to signal the crunchy NCB meaning of mama. Otherwise, why even ask mothers, why not parents, or people who might know because it’s their field? Language has shades of meaning that often native speakers don’t consciously think about. E.g., try explaining to a non-native English speaker why we have emotional baggage, not emotional luggage.
I think we had this discussion a few posts ago, but that’s why being called a “mama” by a native English speaker sticks in my craw, in a way that being called “mama” by a native Russian speaker is just a little weird in that they didn’t use my name.
I feel the same with with always referring to children as “kiddos”. I can’t put my finger on why, but it may be because to me it sounds childish and overly cutesy. What, “I took the kids to see a movie” is too formal?
“Stillborn” is real English.
I think she means the phrase “born still”, which is sort of the same, but not really.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I hate all the euphemisms for dying.
That’s it. “Junior was stillborn” is fine; “Junior was born still” is not. Stillborn Junior was born dead. For me, that ranks with saying someone “passed”, rather than “passed away” [which of course is a euphemism itself]. Whenever I hear that Auntie passed, I want to ask where she was going.
I sometimes think it is a shame Edwin Newman wasn’t canonized.
You’re nicer than I am; I always want to ask, “passed what–gas?” I have the same aversion to diminutives–it drives me batsh!t when I’ve been having a hard time in pregnancy and early motherhood and some nitwit says, “why don’t you ask mom for help?” Not even “YOUR mom,” but “mom.” My mother is actually dead (not “passed”) and was not even the kind of person I could ask for help when she WAS alive. Anyway, it’s really annoying, since they are never my siblings and we do not share a mother.
I automatically dismiss anyone who refers to mothers as “mama” unless they’re speaking/writing in Spanish.* Huge pet peeve.
*Or any other language where “mama” is the norm. It’s English speakers who are trying to be cute that I direct my ire towards.
Why am I spending all of this money and energy going to medical school?
Because people like me will need you (well, depending on your specialty.) The loudmouth bullies who want to cure cancer with dog poop or whatever the latest fad will be at that time are an extreme minority. The vast majority of us respect the medical profession.
Most of your patients will appreciate your care and expertise. The crazies on the Internet are the minority.
No really, NCB is the lunatic fringe.
Most people will trust you and thank you.
Sometimes even enough to put it in writing.
Forget gifts, if you want to thank a doctor write a nice letter or card.
I treasure the ones I get (and I do occasionally get some).
Don’t get me wrong, I know a GP who refused to give someone Tramadol and Diazepam and their brake lines were “mysteriously” cut the same day, but generally people are nice and value your time and expertise.
I think since I live in a very hip, affluent, white, urban neighborhood with lots of young people just starting families, it feels like this is becoming the dominant opinion. It’s nice to be reminded that this is actually just a fringe group 🙂
No. Don’t quit there are plenty of sane people that need you. I’ve just spend the day crying over my kids’ doctor retiring. We need good doctors.
From your attitude, if you were in my area I’d give you a try as my doctor.
I’ll tell you what these women will say, “Babies can get HDN and have brain bleeds even if they get Vitamin K, so it wouldn’t have made any difference for my baby.” And most of them will believe it, because it would be such unbearable guilt to do otherwise. But so glad that this article is out there, hopefully to help OTHER women and OTHER infants.
http://community.babycenter.com/post/a44206495/vitamin_k_shot
I linked the article of the Tennessee incident on my FB page and got in a “discussion” with someone about unnecessary interventions. She linked me to this article, which I laughed at. http://www.vaclib.org/basic/vitamin-k.htm
Ha! Written by a doula with no other education. I could do cutting of pasting of articles that I don’t understand and write a fake paper too with my Theater degree. At least I took some creative writing courses.
I feel for those families – incredibly sad that something so simple could prevent something so tragic.
It’s not just mothers making this decision. I had a longrunning debate with my partner, who was against the shot. His reasoning, and he’s not in any way “internet educated” or a follower of the woo, was that the chances of haemorrhagic disease of the newborn (which he knew virtually nothing about) was low, and that taking vitamins when they weren’t necessary was mildly harmful as a general principle. He seems to have a thing against the whole concept of preventative medicine, eg treating everyone in the hope of helping a few, and commits the “better driver than average” fallacy of believing that he’s particularly unlikely to be among the few. Judging by his answers, I’m guessing that there’s a side order of “if you do everything right, you won’t need any unnatural interventions” going on in there. It wasn’t him filling out the consent forms before the kids were born though, and he got overruled. Neither of us noticed the injections being done at the time.
So, if you’re going to persuade people like him, I think the best approach is to tip the knowledge balance and make haemorrhagic disease of the newborn as familiar as, say, car accidents or whooping cough – other things rational people take action against, even though it probably won’t happen to them.
“Things rational people take action against, even though it probably won’t happen to them.”
I like that! Some unlikely risks are impossible to guard against. Others you can guard against only at outrageous cost in time, money or inconvenience, or missed opportunity, like trying to protect your child from kidnapping by keeping him within arms reach at all times, even through school age. But some rare hazards are really easy to prevent, and there’s no reason NOT to do it.
OT for this post, but found these “extreme nursing” photos…it’s scary to see what people will come up with, some of these just don’t look safe. http://blogs.babycenter.com/mom_stories/photos-breastfeeding-07242013-like-youve-never-seen-before/
Do the benefits of breastfeeding now protect babies from white water rafting accidents? How is taking an infant rafting responsible parenthood?
Being a responsible parent isn’t going to give you bragging rights or head pats from your internet “friends.”
” I demanded that I feed my daughter as soon as she took her first breath.”
And my poor daughter had to wait 20 minutes or so for her first meal. Clearly I’m a terrible mom.
I am sure that is the best thing- taking your first breath and then having a breast shoved in your mouth.
I am sure they will think I am torturing my baby because, after they hold her up so I can see, I want her wiped off and wrapped in a blanket before being handed to me.
Also, is it just me, or does the baby breastfeeding out in the snow either look really cold or really unhappy (or both)? his poor little face looks really red 🙁
Is there anyone around to ask the obvious?
WHY?
Reminds of the conversation in MASH
Frank: “What would have happened if the minutemen, on their way to Concord, had stopped to worry about toilet paper?”
Hawkeye: “So we would have had independence 15 minutes later?”
Why is it necessary for a baby to eat with its first breath? Jeez, that doesn’t even have a basis in “it’s natural”!
What mother in her right mind would refuse the vit k shot? My kids didn’t even notice. In fact, I don’t even remember them getting it. We did refuse the eye ointment, but I was tested for STDs several times during the pregnancy ( hospital policy if you’re going to refuse it)
My SIL refused shots for her kids at birth. Yup. All of them. She doesn’t start vaccinating her kids until they’re two either. Yes, she is crazy.
Ideally I would like to refuse the STD eye drops, because I am single, not sexually active, baby is from IVF with donor sperm, and I have been tested since getting pregnant just in case of somehow getting something from the procedure, but I am not sure if it is worth the hassle of trying to convince the hospital. I don’t think its a dangerous procedure but there is no reason for my child to need the drops…
It’s hard when you are having your first baby and the natural birth movement is all up in your business. I took a hypnobirthing class, as I wanted a natural birth. I heard a LOT of propoganda about shots and “uneccessary” things that could happen to your baby after delivery “if you let them”. I took most of it with a grain of salt but the natural mothering cult is strong and it’s leaders are very charismatic…like Jim Jones or Charles Mason. They get in your head and make you question everything.
These poor babies. And people actually do dismiss the advice of medical professionals in favor of ass-vice from those on MDC and other message boards. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I wish there was some way to hold those idiots responsible.
Not a vit K story but I’m so excited over what happened at work recently. I had a parent of a preemie ask me when her daughter would get her vaccines, as the preemie was now almost 2 months old. Mom asked to sign the consent for whatever we recommended because she wanted her daughter to get them ASAP. Mom and dad also are going to get their pertussis boosters since it’s been a while. We are so used to having to convince parents in Seattle to vaccinate their kids…
Those parents need to talk to people like my Mom, who has had these childhood diseases and have seen other children die of childhood disease before the were vaccines, or social services to help pay for needed medicines.
I’m considering visiting my parents for a long time after my son’s birth because people there actually vaccinate their kids. I could take him somewhere and not worry some idiot will give him pertussis. It’s not like I am going to take him out all the time but going to the store would be nice.
Woo hoo! I love proactive, rational parents.
I didn’t give my son the Vitamin K shot. I’m going to feed him Special K instead. I understand it does the same thing.
*fainted*
To guarantee results, make sure you pour breastmilk over the Special K.
Sprinkle some ketamine on top for extra K power
and some quinoa.
Don’t forget the kale!
And make sure to drink your cumin and lemon juice magic water, and smoke a huge bowl afterwards!
The same thing? Really? That’s just what Big Cereal wants you to think.
Honeycomb is big cereal. It’s got a big, big bite! Yeah, yeah, yeah! (God, I probably just dated myself)
Oh no, that is not only not dating yourself, it is a major advance in your progress to the PCM certification.
See, Amazed? Zornorph is the type of go-getter that the certifying board likes to see.
Now if we just have a good Chex cereal reference to our flakes fainting, it would probably be enough.
Bofa, you really had that NCBer flummoxed over the PCM certification, didn’t you?
It really threw her for a loop, that’s for sure. She was basically a victim of Pablo’s First Law of Internet Discussion, as we are very familiar with the issue of random certification letters.
And don’t forget probiotics and juicing. Who needs vaccines when you can boost your immune system with those? Just don’t get me started on Vitamin C, garlic or oil pulling. We might be here all day
Actually, my daughter (almost 14 months) LOVES Special K. She won’t eat Cheerios anymore since I gave her some of mine.
I felt bad that my baby got stuck with two needles 90 min after going through the trauma of birth, in front of two people who I knew would NEVER allow anybody to stick their babies with needles “unnecessarily.” I gritted my teeth and wiped the gunk out of his eyes with the towel, didn’t bother explaining because I knew it would do no good, and rested easy on the fact that of the many things I worry about, at least three were wiped off the list. I wish they had a shot for SIDS.
P.S. And he cried a lot harder and longer after being born.
This reminds me of a father I knew that was so against sending his kids to daycare and was lecturing me about sending mine to daycare while I worked. He sited reasons such as mixing your kids with other kids that are poorly trained and all the diseases your children can catch at the daycare. I asked him where was he going to send his kids for schooling. A public school of course! I told him those would be the same kids that he was trying to avoid in daycare.
When I really peeled back the layers of his crap, his kids weren’t in daycare because it was cheaper to dump them off on his parents and not pay a daycare fee. Charming!
Totally inappropriate to lecture you on daycare. But geesh, daycare IS expensive. I totally get why he’d have his parents watch the children instead. I would hardly call it “dumping” the children on the grandparents. It’s a lovely bond for the children to have. I wish I had healthy, sane grandparents nearby to watch our kid!
Some people do dump off on grandparents. Sorry, it is true. I was still a kid at home when my mom allowed my sister to dump her daughter off on my mom and I. Guess who ended up doing a bulk of the baby care?
I am sorry, but if daycare is so expensive, then maybe people should make more responsible decisions about having children. I know, I am about to have virtual rotten tomatoes thrown at me.
I would like to have my mom near by to watch my children, but I would pay her something to do it, and respect that she has a life and places to go sometime.
It’s always complicated and difficult when people go into business of any sort with family.
You are right. But I think it would be worse to mooch off of my elderly mother.
Worse then what?
My parents took my kids every weekend for a while, because we needed the help. Now they take them for a weekend now and then, for fun.
I see nothing wrong with this as long as the grandparents are able and actually want to keep the grandkids. I do see something wrong with grandparents having to practically become the parents because the real parents are irresponsible. If the arrangement really works for both parties, great. But no one has to tell me that there are grandparents who are just flat out being used. I have seen it too many times.
Well, they raised the self entitled brats, so I kinda think it’s their fault. I’ve seen this so many times. They spoil their kids for years and are then totally surprised when they grow up to walk all over them. I know a woman who has 3 adult, deadbeat sons living with her. Umm, throw them out! Tough love people!
I know teenage aunts and uncles who are doing more for their nephews and nieces than the parents of the baby are. I should know, I was one of them. I know this doesn’t apply in every situation. I know some grandparents keep grandkids for company or because they are being paid. Some parents have their children living with them because they need someone there with them.
As a grandmother who has taken care of her granddaughter a lot in the past 2 1/2 years, let me say that courtesy never hurts. My daughter arranges with me in advance when she wants to bring granddaughter*, and if i have a special event that might interfere with childcare, I let her know. And it works well for all of us. In the early months Shir even occasionally spent the night with us so my daughter and her husband could take a weekend break together. But I’ve never had a problem announcing that a particular day would be unsuitable. I wouldn’t show up for a visit at my son’s in NYC without prior arrangement and I would expect him to call to let me know when he’s going to be in Israel. That’s only polite.
*Childcare in Israel shuts down in August, and I’ve just finished running “savta’s summer camp” every weekday for the past three weeks. I can’t provide my children with financial help, but I can help out in other ways, and do, gladly.
My mother watches my son at our house every day. We do pay her – far less than we would pay for daycare, but something. It is an arrangement that has worked exceedingly well for our family. She loves spending time with him, I love that he is at home, safe, and cared for according to my values.
I have friends whose parents have watched their children, and their parents refused to take money to do it, even on a full-time basis.
The key to making such an arrangement work is an honest discussion with no expectations on the part of grown children that their parents will be ready, willing, or able to provide childcare.
Hooray! This is what I am talking about. I am not saying it is bad for grandparents to keep their grandkids; I am saying it is bad for grandparents to be USED.
The grandparents do occasional care, but for regular care we have a nanny. The grandparents would like to do much more frequent care, but want to be grandparents – i.e. lots of treats, no enforcement of schedules or rules. To me that’s not worth the free price tag. I want childcare that will work by my rules, that I can fire if I need to.
That’s great if that works for you, Leica. But not everyone feels the same way, not everyone is in the same position financially, not everyone has grandparents who aren’t good at setting boundaries with kids.
Do what works for you and your family. But this by no means suggests that other people are wrong for relying on grandparents more.
Exactly. And without knowing the actual discussions that transpired between the two parties, we have no idea if the grandparents are dumped on or not.
Maybe there was an agreement. Maybe there wasn’t. Maybe grandma and grandpa can’t set boundaries and can’t say no, even though they want to.
Mainly, I don’t to disparage anyone who uses grandma care, even though it’s a luxury I don’t have.
I am sorry, but if daycare is so expensive, then maybe people should make more responsible decisions about having children.
Yes, because as we know, life is entirely predictable. No one ever finds that their circumstances change. No one ever discovers that daycare spots in their price range theoretically exist, but are all full. Head Start programs are fully funded at a level that always meets local demand, before and after school daycare programs have enough slots to accommodate all working parents, and there are underpaid professionals panting to meet the needs of parents who work swing or graveyard shifts. Every child’s special needs can be met, at no increased cost, in care. The plant never shuts down, no one ever takes a pay cut, employment benefits are guaranteed for life, and nothing but irresponsibility ever causes large, unanticipated expenses. No one ever gets sick, and people only die of old age. Birth control always works, sex is always consensual, abortion services are reasonably priced and available to all women.
We live in an imperfect world, and cannot expect perfect results.
These are not the situations I am talking about. There are grandparents that are being unfairly used because the parents are being irresponsible and selfish. And that is wrong.
Sure, it’s terrible to use people.
But it seems that you require a lot of bootstrapping independence from parents (they should have made better decisions when they had those kids!), and not the most basic of boundary-setting from grandparents. Surely, grandparents who object can say no, they cannot care for their grandchildren next Saturday, or on Mondays all semester, or what they will.
There’s an astounding asymmetry in your expectations.
Sorry, but I don’t think that what I have to say is so far out. I think it is better when families work together. A lot of these problems arise when grandparents won’t set boundaries.
I am only speaking of situations when grandparents are used; not when the arrangement has been discussed and everyone is in agreement. In my original post, I was refering to a dad who was saying he wasn’t sending his kids to daycare for all these lofty reasons, when actually he wasn’t sending them because it was cheaper for granny to keep them.
I have problems getting down on a guy just because he went for the cheaper childcare option. I mean, that’s why I send my kids to Ye Olde Generic Group Care, where the curriculum is playtime, movie time, and sharing, and not the ZOMG amazing group care where they don’t even have a tv. That’s why I don’t have a full-time nanny. Every parent I know has made that compromise at some level or other – we could get better childcare with more money, and either we don’t have the money, or we’re not spending it that way.
The guy may have been a grade-A jerk. It’s ridiculous to lecture other parents about how they should avoid daycare, because there is a real economic thing there. But there’s not a lot of distance between “Why would I pay for daycare when grandma is cheaper?” and “I’m so lucky we have grandma, and don’t have to pay for daycare.”
I don’t care that he chose to send his kids to grandma because it was cheaper. I care that he was beating me over the head for sending my kids to daycare for all of these lofty reasons, when he really was sending them to grandma because it was cheaper…is there an echo in here?
I agree with you. It’s just that you wrote that he was “dumping” the kid on the grandparents, which may or may not have been an accurate reflection of the dynamics of that particular relationship. And it sounded like more of a sweeping commentary that those who opt for grandma-care over childcare are “dumping”.
Right again. I guess I just know so many grandmothers who get dumped on, including my own mom.
It’s totally bogus for dad to make this lame lofty reasons. I agree. And to guilt-trip other parents because of it is reprehensible. But without knowing his particular situation and agreement (or lack thereof) with his parents, we have no idea whether or not this particular childcare situation is “dumping” or not.
I wish dad would’ve been more honest. Not just to not be a jerk around other parents, but also to talk about the very real financial struggles parents have.
You are right
But what happens when grandparents are placed in a situation where they cannot refuse, and for no special reason at all? After all, my friend could hardly say she wouldn’t take the kid on Mondays when the students were already informed that their day of choice was a good one for their professor. They asked her whether it would be OK and she didn’t call the person she expected to take care of the child to ask whether it suited her.
Same family, a different situation: every Friday, the kid is taken to Grandma’s house. One day, he didn’t arrive and when she called, she was told that today, he wouldn’t come at all. No one bothered to inform her. She could have planned her day in a different way if she had known.
Don’t get me wrong, I was a kid who was much taken care of by my grandparents. I’ve seen it work many times. But I have seen grandparents being used, too.
Sadly, I suspect Grandma will continue to get used unless she sets boundaries. Starting with saying “No,” and letting her son and DIL figure out back-up childcare if they are so rude as to not check with her first before assuming she’s available.
Oh Grandma is hardly used anymore. She made it clear that should they just knock on her door without warning in advance when they could have, they’d find it locked. It’s amazing, how such an approach enables people to tell the difference between emergency and neglect.
I’m with Jessica here. I’m not seeing that as a situation where the grandparent can’t say no. Really. The students are the professor’s problem, not the caregivers, a college campus ought to be crawling with potential paid babysitters, and there’s a whole world of problems that could be circumvented by letting parents deal with this problem once.
There is no reason the grandparents couldn’t say no here. Mom agreed to teach a class on Mondays, grandparents not available? Fine, hire a nanny. Find a daycare or preschool. Swap childcare with a friend.
I think it’s sad that we’re assuming that grandparents are being taken advantage of when those very grandparents are saying yes.
Sure. And not informing Grandma that this Friday, unlike literally all Fridays for the last, say, three months, you won’t need her babysitting services is no disrespect, huh?
I know it was not a slip of attention because DIL was very insulted that her MIL had the nerve of being offended.
Nannies are expensive here. And too many of them won’t lift a finger for a day per week. Here, a good nanny may cost you a month’s salary… your salary. Of course grandparents are saying yes. No one wants to leave the child without care and that’s a very real possibility around here right now. Most people cannot afford nannies.
It’s still disrespectful even if you know Grandma is willing to babysit. The normal thing is for the mother at least to try to get the grandmother as least inconvenienced as possible. Heck, when I ring my mum, the first thing I ask is, “Can you talk?” Not for the world would I presume to land a kid upon her for the next semester without asking what time is convenient for her.
Of course that was disrespectful. But grandma didn’t need to say “yes” to the Mondays. It’s mom’s problem, not hers.
Grandparents need to start setting boundaries. If it doesn’t work, say so. If mom took a job assuming it would be OK with grandma but didn’t consult her first, not grandma’s problem.
No, the thing is, it was no problem at all for Grandma. She loves having the kid around. The problem is, they still needed to ask because it meant rearranging her own weekly plans and because that’s just what one does. No matter whether she likes babysitting, she’s still doing Mom and Dad a favour and it’s incredibly rude of them just to assume that she’ll be available.
She did set the boundaries and it didn’t happen without offended people and dramatic snubs – no Friday kid for you, lady, and you’ll know it on Friday.
If those grandparents are capable of taking care of their grandchildren, they’re more than able to tell their kids to find someone else to watch them. They’re no helpless victims, here.
My daughters go to daycare every day for half a day, and my son has just started going three afternoons a week. My parents live in another country, and also they still work (and love it!), so having them care for the children would be difficult even if we were living in Poland. And if I could afford it then, I would still choose a good daycare over grandparents- more idendependence for all- assming the daycare would be good- I love my situation here where I get the best of both worlds… but I know it’s not that easy for everybody.
I think the only people who can know if it’s dumping or not are the actual people providing the childcare. Maybe the love it. Maybe they reached an agreement about it. Or maybe they resent the hell out of it but said yes anyway when asked–and the parents have no idea that the grandparents aren’t enjoying it.
My mom, she lives far away, and her health is poor. But I know she is actually jealous of her friends who get to watch their grandkids a couple of days each week. And we’re talking 9–10 hour days. Some grandmas see it as a privilege.
In my mom’s case, she wouldn’t need the money (dad was a union guy with a decent pension) but I know some other grandmas could. In which case it would be respectful to offer.
A friend of mine was very offended with her son and DIL’s attitude. Twice a week, she took care of her grandson. She adores the kid but my, was she angry when her DIL took teaching a new course, assuming that she would take care of the child an extra day a week without bothering to ask. Sorry but I do call that dumping the child on the grandmother. A total lack of respect. And I say it as someone who spent much, much time being taken care of by Grandma as a child.
Why is she mad at DIL rather than her son?
Oh, she’s mad at her son, too. But after all, he could hardly know that his wife would not do as much as call his mother before saying, sure, Monday is a great day for me.
Or when grandparents have kept the child all week while the parents work, in then the parents assume the grandparent will keep the child all weekend while parent party.
My experience has been crunchy parents think the Vitamin K shot can cause leukemia. So I think at least for some of them, it’s not something they do because they want crunchy points or think shots hurt but because they think getting the shot could lead to their child dying later on from cancer.
So sad. Even this nut job who thinks Vitamin K is the devil says the leukemia link has been discredited: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/27/high-risks-to-your-baby-from-vitamin-k-shot-they-dont-warn-you-about.aspx
Though he gives parents a lot of scare-mongering to make them reject the shot for other reasons.
Dr. Amy, you are often lambasted for ‘being too hard’ on loss mothers, but in this case the shaming is exactly what should happen. These are BAD BAD BAD parents. Period. There is no justification for failing to protect your child from a completely preventable brain bleed. These people should be begging their children for forgiveness…..and apologizing to society for creating a burden that all of us will carry in meeting the lifelong needs of their disabled children. I am absolutely disgusted.
They thought it would lead to their child developing cancer. I’ll admit that link scared me at first, but I did enough reading to realize it was bunk and got my son the shot. The thing I don’t understand is why these people didn’t do the liquid vitamin K instead!
I’ve gone through a discussion with an anti-Vitamin K father on a different site, and he believed that a good diet would cover you for Vitamin K.
I’ve had some one tell me delayed cord clamping would fix it. Oh and it was all a conspiracy. That was a long and difficult conversation.
I think it’s disgusting to refer to a disabled child as a burden on society.
No one here used that phrase, Jenna….except you.
I see why you thought that was what she was saying, but I believe she was referring to the lifelong care of the disabled child as being a burden on society, not the child themselves. The vast majority of the population cannot afford to pay out of pocket for all the care and services a severly brain damaged child would need, which means other people end up helping to cover the cost, either through insurance premiums or taxes.
That is indeed what I was saying Poogles.
Funny you mention car seats because that seems to be AP types biggest cause – car seat safety – yet they take all these other risks with their children, no vaccinations, home birth, co-sleeping, unproven home remedies. Its like they are trying to make up the difference. Don’t get any of it.
So right on, a play group mom ripped into me for turning my one year old that is 32 inches tall and 27 lbs front facing while she has made up her own vaccination schedule and let her 6 month old go with a fever and ear infection 2 weeks before she went to a dr….
Well, she should have ripped into you, as whether or not your kid is 27 lbs or not does not change that they are still only 1 year old.
And this comes from a c-sectioning, formula-feeding, working mom.
So being a formula feeding, c sectioning working mom gives you the right to be a jerk? Sweet, I get to start being a jerk! Can’t wait!
Cars are incredibly dangerous. Why are you driving with your children at all? Millions of Americans manage to live in cities and avoid the danger.
Can’t tell if you’re being facetious…
Yes.
As it happens, I actually don’t drive. It’s not necessary. We walk or take public transportation ( but mostly walk). We didn’t consider moving to any city where that wasn’t an option. Does that mean I get to preen all over the Internet “oh lookie here, my choices are EVEN SAFER than yours, you irresponsible cow!”?
So what is a parent to do when their child has outgrown the rear facing size limits on their car seat but isn’t yet 2?
AAP says to turn the child forward at that point. Car seat gurus/sticklers will say “buy a new seat with higher limits.” It would be a lot easier to buy a seat with high limits from the get-go, but it’s the height limits that are most often the problem, not the weight limits, but the height limitations are not as well-known IMO.
That was exactly our problem. We hit the weight limit on our infant seat before 9 months, so we bought a high weight limit convertible seat. He was still good to rear face until about 18 or 20 months, I think. Then he hit the height limit. We said screw it and switched him front facing. He’ll be 3 in 6 weeks and is nowhere near the forward facing weight limit (and only a couple pounds over the rear weight limit). I think we are still good on forward height too.
I don’t agree that she should have ripped into her. I do think she was right in this instance; hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The physics of rear-facing is pretty clear-cut, and the issues are not just height and weight of the child, but proportion and neck strength. The link that Elle Bee posted is a good one.
If possible, search around for another car seat that will fit a large 1-year-old. Yes, they are expensive.
I can’t wrangle my heavy big one year old into the convertible carseat rear facing. I have RA and I just don’t have the dexterity, guess I shouldn’t leave the house or maybe shouldn’t have had kids if I can’t live up to every recommendation by the AAP.
Your kid is in the same situation as my daughter. As a 15-month old, she is bigger and taller than the average 2-year old. I really wanted to ask all the mom that insisted on the kids to set real-faced until they hit the magical “year 2”, how comfortable for you to sit in the car with both legs steak up over 75 degrees and no room for you to stretch or even move you arms up and down? I practice yoga for years and I can’t do that for over 20 minutes.
I don’t think RF until two is a bad recommendation for small or average sized kids, but some of these parents make RF until four!!! their hill to die on.
Actually, that’s what they do in Sweden because their research showed it to be the safest strategy. That said, because that’s the law, the rear-facing seats are designed to allow for more leg room, making it more comfortable for the kids.
But still, I don’t know why people are turning this into a “wacky parent” issue. It’s about child safety in a car, and car accidents are one of the leading causes of death for little ones. Not murder or terrorist attacks or child abuction. Car accidents and drowning. That’s what gets our little ones.
I have to wonder what kind of cars most parents in Sweden drive, because there’s no way I’d get a seat that could RF a four year old into my car.
Isn’t Sweden the home of the Volvo? From what I’ve read (no personal experience), a lot of it has to do with the design of the carseat itself. I also suspect there is a bit of putting the safety of the child ahead of their comfort, to some extent, because there really is no safety risk from not being able to extend your legs fully.
If anyone has a picture of a preschooler in a rear-facing seat in Sweden, I’d love to see it!
http://vicarseattechs.com/2013/rear-facing-why-do-it-and-how-to-make-it-work/
I used to watch a Swedish cop show (Wallander), and it’s hilarious watching thrilling high speed chases involving Volvo station wagons.
So don’t drive.
The point is that if car accidents and drowning are the leading cause of death for little ones, it’s prudent to take appropriate safety precautions when driving. And yes, driving less helps too.
It’s a “wacky parent” issue because it is a hotbed for sanctimommy assholery. Of course it’s not nuts to rear face your kids as long as you can. It IS nuts to berate strangers, post passive-aggressive comments on FB and to bemoan in forums dedicated to carseats how sad you feel for kids who FF at one.
I guess I just wonder…rear-facing is a *safety* issue, just like giving birth in a hospital. If what you’re saying is true, isn’t it also wrong for us to bemoan homebirth and feel bad for kids whose mothers deliver at home–perhaps even in water?
In reality, I see a lot of people run afoul of the rear-facing until 2 rule. I know middle-class moms who simply don’t want to spend money on the right kind of seat (most kids can rear-face until 2 with the right seat). I know moms who don’t want to sacrifice passenger leg room, which is what happens if you rear-face until 2 with a smaller car. I know some who rear-face their bio-kids until 2 but turn their very average-sized adopted kids FF earlier. I know moms who simply don’t like the additional wrangling of rear-facing or don’t want to listen to their child whine. Or they worry about their kid not having enough leg room.
I hear so many reasons for breaking this safety rule that all come down to a preference for convenience and minor comfort over prevention of serious injury or death in a car accident. When you think about how much most people drive and how car accidents are one of the top causes of death and serious injury for little ones, this is rather surprising.
I certainly know what you mean about people being sanctimommies (about anything) but when there are real safety issues at stake, where do you draw the line? This blog is a great example of a time when its worthwhile to risk offending and say that some choices are more dangerous than others.
But you’re NOT just saying that one choice is safer than another, you’re going on and on about how people who ff their toddlers just don’t know any better and you need to “educate” them, or they only care about their comfort or convenience. That’s when you crossed the line into sanctimommy.
Comparing it to home vs hospital birth isn’t fair, because the difference in safety between those two is far larger than the difference between rf until 2 and ff a large 1 year old.
As far as the comment about “minor issues of comfort,” are you saying parents who are 5’10” and 6’2″ and have a large kid, who can’t afford/don’t want an SUV or minivan, and who can’t afford absurdly expensive carseats, should be squashed up to the dashboard (which is unsafe) so they can rear face a little longer? Even if their pediatrician has told them ff is fine? All for a rather marginal, although admittedly real, increase in safety?
And what about toddlers who scream when rear faced? That can lead to distracted driving, which also isn’t safe.
All else being equal, rear facing is a bit safer. But you have to take the other circumstances into account.
It seems to me that crunchy isn’t the only brand of sanctimommy. Some people just have to find a way to feel superior.
But this is exactly what I hear other moms say. They say, “we needed more leg room in the front seat” or “my kid cries when rear facing”.
What’s funny is that the latter is most commonly heard from AP folks. They think it’s a problem for the kid to cry. God forbid. Some go as far as skipping the carseat altogether or moving to a booster seat far earlier than is safe. I know some who even NURSE their child in the backseat of the car–not in a carseat!
Kids need to follow basic safety rules, and they need to know that screaming their heads off won’t get mom or dad to bend rules that are in the interest of their safety.
Convertible carseats that can accomodate RF until 2 aren’t particuarly expensive. In fact, since the very same carseat can be turned forward at 2, it actually doesn’t cost anything extra at all.
I think a lot people don’t understand their options–they think if their kid outgrows the largest infant bucket seat, there are no other choices. Or that the only option is to swap their smaller infant buck for a larger infant bucket, which the child will soon outgrow.
There is also ample info online about which carseats will work rear-facing in smaller cars. No need for an SUV. Many places, like BabiesRUs will let you take a carseat to the parking lot to test out the fit in your car before you buy it.
I have little money, and it was actually a smart financial decision to get a convertible carseat that my kid could sit in for a very long time. Safer too. And I sucked up and helped him into the car seat every damn time because he couldn’t get into it easily rear facing. Turned it forward right after 2 and he climbed in no problem.
This article does a good job of explaining the safety issues: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/health/policy/22carseat.html
This line was especially profound: “children under 2 are 75 percent less likely to suffer severe or fatal injuries in a crash if they are facing the rear.”
And this: “It’s a horrible term,” she said, “but E.M.T.’s call the rear-facing seat ‘the orphan seat’ because in a bad car accident, that child is often the only one who survives.”
there you go again, educating the rest of us idiots who don’t keep our kids *quite* as safe as you do in all your superiority, even though our pediatricians seem to think we’re making a reasonable choice.
Also, I’m not sure why you don’t seem to think the distracted driver issue matters. Some kids are going to scream rear faced. My huge 20 month old started doing it when she realized she wasn’t facing the same way as her brother, and it made driving hell for me (baby screaming is very distressing to me, I must lack the “mothering hormone” some asshole commenter brought up the other day). I discussed all this with my ped, and he said turning her around was completely fine.
But I’m sure you’ll counter with why that isn’t good enough and I should just endure the screaming, possibly causing an accident in my distressed state that might kill me and the rest of the family, but of course shed be safe in her rf seat, just lacking a family.
I think rear facing definitely is *safer* all else being equal, but there are times where it just isn’t practical for a particular family/child – if not enough rear facing seats can fit in the car and getting a new car isn’t practical, and situations where it’s possibly not actually safer, if the child cries and gets upset badly enough to choke or get sick, or if the screaming is bad enough to distract the driver, and forward facing removes the sickness/choking/screaming. I will rear face as long as it’s practical but if my child is screaming to the point I can’t safely drive and is legally old enough to be flipped, I’ll try it to see if it works.
Okay, it is a real safety issue. That’s why I don’t drive at all: after two friends became paralyzed and another died in car accidents within 3 years, I gave it up and committed myself to only living places where I would not have to put my child in a car on a daily basis. So why do drivers in general get a pass? It’s a line in the sand.
It’s never been an issue for my kids that are in the 99 percentile. In fact, we just turned my 3 year old around the other day and she threw the biggest fit ever, insisting that she wanted to “sit backwards” (she likes it so she can talk with her brother who is in the row behind her). She is 42 inches and weighs 43 lbs.
It depends on what kind of car you have and carseat. I have a Subaru Outback and with a rear facing convertible car seat there just isn’t much room for a big kid who is too young to really cooperate and help get themselves into the seat.
Two words: Convertible carseat.
I can fit one rear-facing in a Toyota Corolla. They are good rear-facing until 35 pounds.
Height makes no difference. They may not be super comfortable, but it is still much, much safer for their developing brains and necks if they are in a car accident.
The nice thing about a convertible carseat is that they can become a forward-facing carseat at 2, so it’s not like you’re spending extra money to get one.
In fact, check the carseat you have now…you may still be able to have it rear-facing.
There is a good discussion on rear-facing here: http://www.childrenswishingwell.org/benefits-of-rear-facing-until-two-years-old/
Thank you, reading up the article and doing some on-line shopping =)
We really like the Britax Marathon. Also Evenflo makes some good ones. That is our spare carseat for the nanny and carpooling. The Sunshine Radian is great for forward-facing (nice and narrow if you need 3 carseats in a row), but won’t fit rear-facing in the back of a small car.
I made the mistake of asking about seats that can rear face most children up until about age two and fit in a small car. Some idiot told me to buy a new car to ensure I could fit a seat that would rear face the longest. Sure, if you want to give me $20k…
No. No. So ridiculous. There is a website, car-seat.org, I believe, that has car seat techs and can help you find a car seat that fits your car and will allow extended rear facing. No need to buy a new car!
hmm, I think that board doesn’t like me or my computer. i tried to post as unregistered, but I always get the anti-spam question “wrong” even though I’m positive it had to be right a few times.
Hmm. I’ve never tried to use it myself – just passing on recommendations I’ve heard elsewhere. I’ve also heard Car Seats for the Littles on Facebook is a good resource.
I might just register to get around the annoying requirement. I hate those squiggly letter things.
I get those wrong too. The people on the board were very nice about my questions about what convertible seat to get a for a newborn. I couldn’t carry the infant seats without abdominal pain after my C section.
The car sat laws are starting to get out of control as well. I am very petite, and according to my local laws, at the age of 30, I should still be in a booster seat according to my weight.
Agreed! I am glad it was much simpler when my boys were young. As it is, I’d love to be able to spend one on one time with my friend’s children (ages 5 and 6), but I don’t have a car seat and the behemoths she uses are not easy to move.
Except I think that many of laws exempt you once you turn 13.
Yes! And look around. Virtually every city has one or more organizations where a real human being can help you.
I turned my twins around at age 16 months because while I could fit two convertible car seats rear facing in my Subaru forester, my seat had to be forward so much that my nose and face were inches from the airbag. I drove around that way for a few months until my father pointed out that if I got in a fender bender and the airbag went off, my head would be blown off. I figured the risk of a minor fender bender was much higher than a catastrophic head on collision (the kind of collision where having kids rear facing would make a big difference) and switched my kiddos forward facing. (I asked the local fire department who are all about rear facing as long as possible and they also agreed that it was unsafe for me to drive the car with both seats rear facing.)
This is my first baby and there would rarely be anyone else with me, so I can push the passenger seat forward, but even then I think there’s a limit to how large the seat can be. I don’t think I’ll be able to fit a seat that can fit a RF child much larger than a 2 year old in my Civic.
Which style is it? I have a 4d Civic, and my ginormous Britax Marathon fits with no problems.
it’s a 4d from 2001 or 2002.
Mine’s an ’04 (and it’s not like Honda ever updates the design of the Civic). If you want something smaller though, the Evenflo Tribute is compact. We bought it as a backup, and it fits easily in an airplane seat and in the back of our nanny’s 2d coupe.
Yes you can! Try a Diono Radian RXT with an angle adjuster!
Seriously, the Britax Marathon. Behind the passenger seat. I did this with a Corolla, which is actually a smidge smaller than a Corolla. Yes, change to forward-facing at 2.
I just…I…well it’s too late to share my opinion on this. There are car seats that would have worked.
Well, we all survived somehow anyways. 🙂
I have a Subaru outback and there just isn’t enough room to wrangle a large one year old into a rear facing bulky Britax convertible carseat. If someone would like to buy me a minivan I’d be happy to comply with what in the state of MN is only a recommendation and not a law.
Depends on where you live. It’s the law in some places. I’m surprised to hear such problems with the Britax. I have a Britax Marathon and we did rear-facing until two in a Corolla. Not luxurious leg room in the front, but not a disaster either. We put it behind the passenger seat so it was inconveniencing people less frequently and still gave the driver ample room.
The carseat itself fits and he used it rear facing after he outgrew the infant seat, but it got to a point where I couldn’t squish him and his big long legs into the seat anymore, there wasn’t enough room. When I say he is a year, he is really 14 months I kept him rear facing till a year as that is the law in MN. My pediatrician said there is nothing developmentally magic about the two year mark and with his size she didn’t see anything wrong with it.
My 2.5 year old is still rear facing in a britax convertible in a much smaller car then that. They don’t need a ton of leg room, and a britax seat can be angled very upright and braced against the front seat if need be.
I just think it’s a safety issue. This isn’t directed only at you, but I have to say it seems disingenuous to me that so many people here can be so concerned about vitamin k (an admittedly crucial issue) and yet so dismissive about car seat safety. Car accidents are the leading cause of death for small children. It seems vital to me that that evidence based recommendations like the AAP stance on rear facing till age two should be followed just as we would respect any other prudent public health measure. If extended rear facing can reduce child fatalities and injuries it should be supported. Just because it happens to be an annoyingly smug AP pet issue isn’t a reason to ignore the evidence.
The difference is that rear facing a toddler isn’t practical in some instances. It’s not a matter of ideology like vaccinations or home birth. It’s not practical to rear face if there isn’t enough space between the car seat and the rear seat to get your kid into it and buckled. It’s not practical if you have a screamer that screams every time they are rear faced. Its not pracical is someone has to sit in the seat in front of a rear facing convertible carseat and they are over 5’3. I agree on the science behind rear facing. But the real safest thing to do is never drive anywhere or do anything, or have stairs in your house, or a stove, or pets. And we should all grow our own food, but not with tractors those are dangerous. And always ware a helmet.
The practicality arguments are the same ones people used against seat belts and all car seats a generation or two ago. Stairs and tractors and stoves aren’t the leading cause of death for children; traffic accidents are so it’s silly to compare them. You’re right that car seats aren’t (or shouldn’t be) an ideological issue. That’s why it’s so hard for me to understand why otherwise rational people try so hard to justify a position against adopting a simple safety measure which has been demonstrated to make a significant difference in outcomes in what is the single riskiest thing your child will do (ride in a car) on any given day.
It is a pain in the ass to fold a toddler into a rear facing seat, without a doubt. But it is also markedly safer. End of story. That won’t change no matter how many hyperbolic analogies you throw at the issue.
I have RA and have limited dexterity in my wrists and hands. I COULD NOT get him into the carseat backwards after he reached a certain size into the small gap. He is only 14 months old, 15 in a week, and growing out of 2T clothing. I guess my alternative is to shell out big $$ for a new car, or never drive with my son in the car. So anyone that stops after playgroup to chew me out about the matter will forever be a big old B in my mind. I think instead of accosting individuals about the issue, care seat junkies should petition auto and carseat makers to make their products more compatible. Most people that flip them around early that I know of do so because they cant get them into the careseat anymore. My original comment was in response to how AP parents get all sanctimonious about carseats…
There are many car seats that will work! My favorite is the Diono Radian RXT with angle adjuster under it! It’s in the back of my Dodge Challenger two door muscle car.
Good to know. I’m definitely going to first use an infant bucket seat that later gets replaced by a convertible seat either way, just trying to figure out if the higher weight limit infant seats will fit in my car or if I am better off getting a 30 pound or lower limit infant seat and switching to a convertible earlier…
Honestly, some of the lower weight limit ones are bulkier than the lower profile higher weight limit ones. I think you will for sure need the angle adjuster foam pad, but the Radian would work. Another option you could check into is the Maxi Cosi Pria with Tinyfit. You could use it from birth with the Tinyfit shell. I really like the Pria but its wider than the Radian and I’m thinking I want more children. The Pria had a 40lb and 40″ rear facing limit. You’ll probably want an infant seat you can take in and out of the car at first, but a Pria would cover you from birth as well. The Radian is for older infants who have good head control.
Yeah, I definitely want an infant seat that can be taken in and out first. But they come in so many limits, 22, 25, 30, 35, even a 40 pound bucket seat… I’m not sure how much bigger the higher limit ones are.
I have the Safety 1st Onboard Air 35 bucket seat and I love it because I can use it for air travel with my 10 month old who is very tall! However, it takes up more room than the Radian in my car! It’s also darn heavy for a bucket infant seat. I would suggest looking at the Chicco Keyfit and other smaller infant seats that allow you to leave the handle up! If you aren’t on a budget the Cybex Aton is my absolute favorite infant bucket. It’s also one of the smallest.
Cybex Aton: 25 ¼”
Chicco KeyFit 30: 27 ½”
Graco SnugRide 30: 28”
Safety 1st onBoard Air: 28”
Go for the really high weight limit ones. My kid was *skinny* and he still outgrew it well before the 35 lb weight limit. And when I say outgrew, I mean that there simply wasn’t enough strap for me to buckle him any more. I think he wasn’t even 30 lb. And he was thin.
At that point, we moved to a convertible. But the down side is that you can’t take them out of the car with a sleeping child in them.
If you’re still deciding on a seat, I would highly recommend the Car Seats for the Littles Facebook page. The techs there are great at giving out fact-based information. If you post your car and budget they can help you figure out a seat that will work for you.
I just made two years with my daughter rear facing in a Britax Boulevard. She had outgrown it by height. The only reason the seat fit was because I had replaced my 15 year old Toyota Paseo with a new 2008 Kia Sedona. I wanted to keep the Toyota longer but the old girl was on her last gerbil in the engine. If someone had told me I had to buy a new car to accomodate a car seat I would have thought they were insane.
They love the AAP recommendation on RF until two, but not its recommendations on vaccines, co-sleeping, circumcision, or just about anything else.
My son is still rear-facing at 14 mos and will be until he’s two, but I’m not sanctimonious about it.
Come back with me to a time when Mothering magazine dedicated a whole issue to vaccines. The year might have been 1989, Anyway , there was an article written by a nurse whose client base was the indigenous Native American population. Her article referenced enough scientific studies to defend the case FOR vaccinating. It was after I read her article in Mothering magazine that I reaffirmed my commitment to vaccinate my children.
that seems out of character for Mothering, but maybe in the 1980s and 1990s it was different.
The lack of logic terrifies me.
What is the side-effect of a shot of Vitamin K? A bit of soreness? The baby’s just been squished out between pelvic bones – I doubt they are feeling great right then.
What’s the possible side-effects of not getting the shot? Brain bleeding leading to neurological deficits/epilepsy.
I can’t even imagine how you would weigh the minor pain of the shot as being more substantial than the pain of a neurological defect.
Just spit out “brain damage”. Yeah, it makes people squirm, but that’s why you should use it. Make them squirm.
Say “It’s a single injection of a vitamin that is vital to stop bleeding or a chance of brain damage from a bleed you may not know is happening until your child won’t wake up or goes into seizures.”.
I have fathers watching as I give Vit K shots and eye ointment when admitting NICU patients. About half of the babies give no indication that they felt the shot at all, they are too busy sucking a finger or staring at daddy. The dads don’t even realize I already gave the shot. Really, the babies aren’t traumatized by the 25 gauge needle I’m using. They care more that I’m holding their limb still.
Absolute truth. Mine screamed just as loudly every single time they did a BP (which was like 20 times a day) as all the needles. She just was freaking out about being pinned.
When my daughter was born, she still had a lot of fluid in her lungs- while she didn’t need resus, she sounded gurgly and took awhile to pink up. The nurse gave her the Vit K shot then, in hopes it would make her cry enough to clear her lungs out. She let out one tiny, surprised squeak and went back to looking around. She cried more upon being born than she did getting the shot.
I’m sure my kids were given vit K shots. I have no recollection of when it happened. I do remember the eye goop on our first, but that was because he inherited his mom’s lazy eye, and his eye didn’t open well.
I think some of these people who refuse vaccines and Vitamin K shots need to talk to people who were around before these medicines were common, or before social services like Medicaid were around so these treatments could be more affordable. How many of these parents who refuse these shots have ever seen a child with measles, mumps, diptheria (sorry for the spelling) or some of the more serious childhood diseases that are now gone because of vaccines?
They don’t know their history, even their own family history. I know about my recent ancestors’ dead siblings, because my family managed to talk about it. Other families, maybe it was just too painful to even discuss, and a couple generations later, it was completely forgotten.
All I have to do is ask my mom. A lot of the people I know who remember these diseases are as young as 60 or 65.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/avn-campaigner-ordered-to-pay-11000-in-costs/story-fni0xqrc-1226704620071
Meryl Dorey in the news again.
This is something that I just don’t understand. What in the blazes is the objection to the vitamin K shot? No one anywhere has ever come up with a problem that can be attributed to it. What is the friggin downside?
I’ve mentioned this before. Although epidemiological studies have shown that there is no association between MMR and autism, at least in the beginning, it was not completely crazy. There were enough stories of “he got the MMR shot and BAM suddenly got autism” to at least investigate it. Now in the end, it is not surprising that nothing came out of it, and given when autism typically presents, it is not surprising that there is an association in the timing, but it was absolutely worth investigating.
The problem, though, arises because, after having found that it’s not MMR, all of a sudden it’s mercury (which was never in MMR) or any one of the other vaccinations on the schedule. But how does that follow? Just because it made sense to check out MMR, doesn’t mean that we should also be investigating DTAP or whatever. The reason we examined for the link to MMR was not because it was a vaccine, but because of the apparent association. There has never even been suggested an association between any other vaccine and autism (aside from the general accusation that vaccines cause everything). So why the big outrage about them?
Seriously, what do they think is the downside of the vitamin K shot?
I just don’t get it.
“Needles are traumatic to newborns” – tell that to my daughter who seems to be just fine after ten thousand heel sticks and 90 minute sessions to get a new IV in every time hers infiltrated. It’s either that or “Dr’s say its good so it must be a BIG PHARMA conspiracy” because obviously pfizer makes ten grand off a vitamin k shot
Leukemia was the justification I heard… Some study somewhere showed a possible link some years ago…
Leukemia is what I’m seeing on MDC this week. I haven’t tried to verify a link.
What is it about leukemia? Every conspiracy theorist I know is convinced that their pet issue causes leukemia. Not other illness or cancers. Is it because it is more likely than other cancers to hit young people and is therefore scarier?
It’s plausible. Also, a main cause of childhood leukemia is genetics, and no parent wants to face that.
Why? Genetics aren’t really in anyone’s control. Well, I did pick a donor, but still, it’s a crap shoot. What’s to face?
It’s very hard to deal with realizing that you unknowingly gave your child a debilitating condition due to your genes or a combination of you and your partners. Not logical – pure emotion. Trust me 🙂
I’m sorry.
It’s ok – I’ve come to deal with it very well now, but I can understand why someone might search for external reasons at first, because it’s a hard thing to deal with. You don’t want to be the one that hurt your kid, you know?
I get that. If my boys end up ADHD, it would be from their father…and his and my collective “fault” for choosing to breed. Granted, ADHD is not life-threatening, but it sure makes life more difficult than it needs to be.
There are gray areas in genetics like autism or bipolar disorder or male pattern baldness.
Then there are clearer ethical choices like X-linked diseases like Fragile X, Duchenne’s MD, certain hemophilias.
Even clearer choices like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, Tay-Sachs.
We don’t get a choice about the genetic material we are born with, but we can control what we pass on. It’s still largely a taboo subject though.
LOL bipolar disorder and male pattern baldness in the grey area. I’m glad I reproduced before I had a diagnosis because it would have been extremely painful to have to make a decision about having children. I don’t know if I have the genes for it or not. Nobody else in the family has a diagnosis. I suspect some of them may have the type 2 flavor I have because I really am a carbon copy of my dad, aunt, and grandfather.
Been thoroughly debunked. No correlation or causation between leukemia and vitamin K.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/1/191.full
From reading the comments in the original article, I think a lot of people object to the pain of an injection. Now I don’t remember my journey through the birth canal, but I’m just GUESSING that is less comfortable than a nanosecond of pain from a vitamin K shot.
I also think it comes down to the “everyone loves a conspiracy theory” objection. Doctors want to give my kid a shot! They must be getting rich off of it! The government is in bed with big pharma and they are poisoning us all! My mama instincts tell me my baby doesn’t need this shot!
I don’t get this at all! Vaginal birth sounds like a pretty unpleasant experience. I imagine a c-section would be a LOT more comfortable for a baby. Yet Vitamin K injections are traumatising while vaginal birth is championed at all costs? The logic makes no sense.
Some say that c-section births are worse for the baby because they are more likely to be born with breathing problems. Yawn, who knows. Real logic is becoming extinct in America.
They are more likely to have minor breathing problems, but they are less likely to DIE in an elective c-section!
Die from the Vitamin K shot or a vaginal birth?
They are more likely to die from a vaginal birth than an elective c-section. It’s not something that the anti c-section crowd mentions too often …
Well I guess I will have to take that chance, like I have with my other 5 (sucessful) vaginal births. I’m not saying you are wrong though.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a vaginal birth. Don’t know why you concluded that.
Sorry, I am a naturally sarcastic person. Doesn’t come off well over the net.
I like how you immediately starting huffing and assuming judgement of your previous reproductive choices rather than looking at the actual risks involved. How far along will you get before carrying a cross of that size is contraindicated? Or, are we going with the ‘trust martyrdom’ birth plan?
WHAT? It was sarcasm. I don’t even use a birth plan!! What just happened? I didn’t even disagree with PJ!
I think you misunderstood.
The risk of TTNB doesn’t scare me at all. Of course I’m an evil NICU nurse so the NCB nuts all assume I love to intervene as much as possible for silly reasons… Yeah not letting my daughter die from cord presentation and double nuchal arms breech was worth the C section risks to me!
Last winter I interviewed people who presented to Urgent Care for upper respiratory symptoms about whether they had gotten the flu shot. I’ll never forget the woman who was utterly miserable & seeking meds for relief who said she would never get a flu shot because “shots hurt.”
If you honestly think “shots hurt” you haven’t experienced actual pain.
I get every vaccination going, demonstrate glucometers to patients with my own fingers and volunteer my veins for the medical students to practice blood draws and cannulations on.
I am not a martyr, it just isn’t that painful. On a scale of “painful things done to me by medical people” a ‘flu shot barely registers.
Different if you are someone who has panic attacks or faints at the sight of a needle, but newborns rarely fall into that category.
I’m always surprised by people with large tattoos who freak out at a blood draw…
Eh, it’s probably a phobia plus a poor vocabulary/lack of self awareness. ‘It hurts’ is easier to say and comprehend than ‘it triggers an intense panic response’.
Shots hurt. Right. I am crying for her all the way to the allergist, where I’ve been getting three shots at a time every week since 2010, since the alternative is not breathing through my lungs.
Better still, go tell that to a diabetic, about how awful one shot a year is.
You know what was a lot more frightening to me than a shot? Not being able to breathe. I don’t really care if a shot had been the worst pain I’ve ever experienced. If it would have fixed the breathing problem, or kept it from happening, I would have gritted my teeth and gotten it done.
I didn’t get the flu shot one year out of sheer laziness: too much trouble to go in and I hadn’t had the flu in a decade so why should I bother? Plus, I was youngish and healthy, no big deal even if I got it, right?
Yeah, exactly what you’re thinking happened happened. I got a full blown case of influenza followed by a bronchitis that took the rest of the winter to shake. Ugh. Never again.
Did you notice the throwaway line about premature cord clamping causing brain damage? Dr. Mercola, a shit-stirrer? No! Not him!
At least he out and out refutes the Vit K=leukemia claim, cites the risks of HDN from lack of Vit K, and mentions the alternative oral Vit K. His arguments (it causes pain! which the baby remembers!) are incredibly weak, and I am surprised that so many fall for that crap.
This is why:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/27/high-risks-to-your-baby-from-vitamin-k-shot-they-dont-warn-you-about.aspx
So I’ll only get the shot if my child has a risk factor … oh wait, one of the risk factors is “undetected liver disease.”
The other risk factors seem to be “a human baby.” Risk factors include a long delivery, a short delivery, a forceps or vacuum-assisted delivery, a c-section delivery, a small baby, a mom who took meds during pregnancy… That’s an awful lot of risk factors to eliminate.
I saw that, too, and had a nice laugh.
“What in the blazes is the objection to the vitamin K shot?”
Back in my anti-vax leaning days, one of the major objections was simply that it is “unnatural”. They refused to believe that babies could be born “vitamin deficient”. It’s the same as the belief that “if birth is soooo dangerous, how has the human race survived all this time??” So, obviously, it’s just a big money-making scheme by doctors and Big Pharma, and is totally unnecessary.
People need to learn the difference between individual survival and species survival. They also need to learn that nature could not care less about them.
Because only the vitamins prescribed by chiros and naturopaths are good for you. If a doctor is prescribing a vitamin, it must have some nefarious purpose.
Just because it’s rare doesn’t mean it won’t happen to you. There are loads of rare diseases out there. I had no idea until it happened to me. Collectively, something like 10% of Australia have a disease considered ‘rare’.
Yeah, it’s rare, in terms of the rate. However, so are drunk driving deaths.
A child is 5 times more likely to have a vitamin K deficiency than a drunk driver is to die in a car accident. Yet, when enough people drive drunk, that low rate is still a problem.
You know what is even rarer? Serious complications from a vitamin K shot.
I hate this. I hate it I hate it I hate it. This, the vaccine shit, it just all makes me so gd angry I can’t even express myself. I want to shake people who think this way and scream in their face, because they are so convinced that Dr’s are evil that they will just throw their kids under a bus. It’s absolutely infuriating that people with perfectly healthy babies would squander that because of junk science, when there is so many people who don’t get to start from that place at all.
One of the people in my online community got “the call” for their son’s new heart yesterday, and he went in for surgery instead of starting high school today. Now he gets to go back to school on cyclosporin, and his mom gets to worry herself sick over whether or not some stupid asshole is sending their kid to school with pertussis because they don’t have two brain cells to rub together.
I seriously want to cry.
Captures my outrage perfectly.
A-freaking-men.
Hooray for a new heart at least?
Yes – he had been on the list for over a year, so it was wonderful news to wake up to yesterday seeing that they got the call. I just hate that they now have to worry so much in the future about the prevelance of pseudosciencers
And here lies the truth. Anti vaxxers aren’t just “making decisions for their child, as a parent.) They are making choices for every child around them who can’t get their vaccines. The choice to expose them to diseases that can kill them. F**K these people. Lock them all up. If your unvaccinated child causes another to get sick and die, then the parents should be charged with reckless homicide.
this sounds so much like my MIL, who has herself convinced that the reason her first 4 children have glasses is due to the drops put in their eyes at the hospital at birth, but that her 5th, a homebirth, doesn’t have glasses because he didn’t have the “unnecessary” drops. um, sorry, but law of averages dictates that 1 of 5 children, no matter the setting, will be different in some fashion. these people drive me nuts, why can’t they see it’s necessary for a child’s well-being?? and don’t even get me started on the antivaxers…
Genetics? How many people in her family wear glasses? How much screen time do they log? It’s pretty easy to figure out why people need glasses….Why people get allergies, now that’s a tougher question, but I suspect the answer is NOT “eye drops in the hospital at birth.”
How much crap goes into someone’s eyes while growing up, and she fixates on the medical grade substance? Try dirt, bugs, various types of soap, cloth, pool, pond and ocean water…