01/24/2024
Every so often, a group of paediatricians write and publish an article in a medical journal about the fact that some parents decline vitamin K for their newborn baby.
Generally, they express their concern and the overarching message is that these parents are making the ‘wrong’ decision, thus professionals need to use better tools to persuade them down the ‘right’ path.
Vitamin K is effective, they say.
And they’re right on that point.
If we gave it to every baby, they say, we would prevent almost all cases of vitamin K deficiency bleeding.
Right again.
I’ve read the same research that they have.
But the next bit of their argument is where they and I differ.
Because I’m all about parents having all of the information so they can make the decisions that are right for them. Which includes not just the short-term benefits of interventions, but the wider picture.
That includes any medium and long-term consequences (which is very important when it comes to things like induction, and antibiotics for group B strep) and also the gaps in our knowledge.
In other words, the questions that we don’t have answers to.
This is a key issue with vitamin K, and also with Anti-D/RhoGAM.
Because when proponents of western medicine find something that works, they tend to want to just give it to everyone, and they stop asking questions.
This closes off the paths that might lead to better, more nuanced options.
The paths that might help us to target interventions better, rather than making blanket recommendations and then trying to coerce compliance from those who – rightly – have concerns about this approach.
If you’d like to understand the bigger picture on vitamin K, without coercion in either direction, see www.sarawickham.com/vk
There, you'll find links to my popular book on this topic, and also my information hub, which contains several free articles to help those wanting to understand the pros and cons.
I hope you’ll find it useful.
