Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:06:28 +0200 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
WHO recently published a booklet on postpartum care, in which they classify the routine administration of Vitamin K to all newborns as a practice for which there is insufficient evidence on which to base a clear recommendation, and which should be used with caution until further research is done.
I am not aware that Michel Odent has carried out research on this. Does anyone have the reference?
Breastfed babies are seen as needing Vit. K more than artificially fed babies. Several reasons-- formula has Vit K added, and artificial feeding allows for more growth of E.coli in gut, which is where we get our Vit K from. But the work showing lower levels in BF babies is old and methodologically flawed, from a time when babies had such short and infrequent feeding episodes that they got much less of the cream in milk, which is where the fat-soluble Vit K is.
It would be informative to know how much Vit K is present in a physiologic feed. Probably impossible to find enough breastfed babies who haven't gotten some form of exogenous Vit K so we could learn how much babies are capable of gleaning from their natural diet!
Before writing off Vit K prophylaxis as just another piece of worst-case scenario mentality, read the literature on the incidence- and gravity- of late onset hemorrhagic disease of the newborn. Even I get scared by that and I don't scare easily. The picture is complicated.
Rachel Myr [log in to unmask]
now writing as a midwife
Norway
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|