so the interesting thing about this test is - you can test positive for it, but not have it when you give birth. or you can test negative for it, and have when you give birth. all it means is the day you got tested you had it. dr's do this so if you have it when you give birth and your child catches it they have a little piece of paper that lets them off the hook. they can't test while you are in labor because it takes too long for the results to develop. back in the day, if you child showed symptoms thats how they knew you had it and they got it, and so the symptoms were easy to recognize and they would treat the baby. It is a serious thing though, dont get me wrong. "An estimated 12,000 infants in the United States will become infected with GBS each year. This bacteria will result in the death of an estimated 2,000 infants yearly, while leaving many others mentally and/or physically handicapped."

but that test they give you in the dr's office is more for their protection then for yours. you could still have group b when you give birth even if the test is negative, and you may be receiving antibiotics for something you dont have when you give birth because the test was positive a few weeks before.

I just wish there was a better way to do this test - some way they could know when you are in labor instead of treating you based on results from weeks before hand.


PS editing to add and clear up confusion- I DONT MEAN ADMINISTERING THE TEST IS SILLY! I THINK THE WAY IT CURRENTLY WORKS IS SILLY - OR PERHAPS BETTER PUT I THINK IT IS SAD HOW TO THE TEST IS PERFORMED SINCE CHANGING THE CURRENT METHOD COULD SAVE THOUSANDS OF BABIES LIVES EACH YEAR IF THEY COULD JUST FIND A WAY TO ADMINISTER THE TEST WHEN THE WOMEN WAS IN LABOR INSTEAD OF WEEKS BEFORE.

[sjkduke]

Well, I don't think it's silly, IMO, but even if other people consider it more of a liability by the doctor's office, then so be it. I'd honestly rather get tested, show positive and get the antibiotics than NOT and potentially have a sick baby. I think in my case though, I know the different possibilities, and I would be very nervous if I didn't get the test done. It's a simple swab, so it doesn't really bother me. Every test out there has a failure rate, so...it just depends on the person, I suppose.

IMO, they ought to just give everybody antibiotics just in case, just like they give the baby erythromycin eye drops at birth prophylactically.

[MamaJess0008]

i would never refuse that test. seems very silly to refuse such a simple test. id rather be safe then sorry and i agree with Sarah, they should just give antibiotics to be safe...

JMO.

[niema]

I didnt know you can test neg and still have it in labor!! I would want the antibiotics either way if they gave it like that!

[valandemmy]

i'm the kind of person that thinks better safe than sorry. if i did test positive for it, i definetly want to know so i can get the antibiotics. i will feel better just knowing either way even if there is a chance that it could be wrong.

[stacyp]

Ditto to Sarah.

[Butter]

Really, they need to come up with a rapid test for it. Like the rapid strep (throat) test they do at doctor's offices. It's not 100% accurate, but it would likely be much more accurate than doing the test at 36 weeks. Had I had the test when pregnant with Fritz, it would have been nearly 6 weeks later that he was actually born. Status can and does change in that amount of time. Instead, if they had a rapid test they could test women who are IN labor and know what their status is then and proceed as necessary. Clinical factors (like the number of vaginal exams and how long the water is broken, particularly if the doctor breaks it) is a higher indication of if the baby will get it than anything else. Most babies who get the sickest (particularly those who die) were infected in utero before labor began. There's nothing you can do about that and rarely is there even an indication that that is happening.

Giving antibiotics to all laboring women is a very bad idea. That can interfere greatly with the breastfeeding relationship as it can (and often does) cause yeast infections in mother and baby. The antibiotics do not prevent GBS infection in the baby. They delay the worst problems and give the doctors a chance to treat the child before they get too sick.

As for the eye drops in the baby, there's a HUGE controversy about those. They are so the baby can be protected against any STDs YOU, the mom, are carrying and they could pick up going through the birth canal and cause blindness. They are only necessary if you have an STD. Only one of my kids has gotten those eye drops and the (regular, mainstream) OB didn't even care if we did them or not because I didn't have any STDs.

[sjkduke]

I agree with you on some of those points Heather, but with the eyedrops...just from my experience in my office, we see a lot of patients who will swear up and down they've never been with someone else, or ever have been exposed to any kind of STD. And who knows, they may not even know! Now, for the most part, that's true, and it's not our job to judge who might be telling the truth and who doesn't, but they have the right to refuse being tested for STDs. THOSE women are the reason why it's so important for newborns to get the eye drops at birth. You never really know, you know?

I agree with you about the rapid testing though--makes a lot of sense. But usually the things that make the most sense are the ones that take forever to come into fruition!

ujm no where did i say anyone should refuse to the test. did you reaad the entire post? it was about how they should find a better way to perform the test so people get treated for it who need it. children have died because parents who needed antiobitics didnt get them and you know the dr's response "well she was negative when we tested her". could you imagine how you would feel if that were your child - the dr knowing d@mn well that the test they performed weeks ago has nothing to do with your status on the day of the delivery?!

edit to add- i agree with heather its also not a good idea to just automatically give antibiotics to someone who doesnt need them. while it would prevent some problems, it would create others. the need a new method of testing. not to say that would be 100% either but it would save a lot of lives!

i just think its sad to hear so many women think there is nothing wrong with current system of this testing when so many babies are die each year because of the method they are using. and they aren't going to change it if everyone just keeps pretending everything is honkey dorey fine the way it is. Personally, I don't think its fine the way it is. I think things need to be changed and I'm surprised more people don't feel the same way. I guess like with most things, people think its fine until it hits close to home.

Like I said, Im not saying don't get tested. I'm saying they need to make the testing method more accurate and save more lives. I am surprised anyone see's that as a debatable idea. I know many women are pro-doctor just do what they say don't ask any questions, but whats wrong with improving on some of the good things they are doing?

[Butter]

I agree with you on some of those points Heather, but with the eyedrops...just from my experience in my office, we see a lot of patients who will swear up and down they've never been with someone else, or ever have been exposed to any kind of STD. And who knows, they may not even know! Now, for the most part, that's true, and it's not our job to judge who might be telling the truth and who doesn't, but they have the right to refuse being tested for STDs. THOSE women are the reason why it's so important for newborns to get the eye drops at birth. You never really know, you know?

I agree with you about the rapid testing though--makes a lot of sense. But usually the things that make the most sense are the ones that take forever to come into fruition![/b]

I agree with you on both points. I personally know that I have been with one man ever and he's only ever been with me. They did STD testing at the beginning of my pregnancy with Ani as well. I don't know if they do that in all states, but they did in MD (or at least that OB group did) which is also probably why that OB said the eyedrops were totally optional for me. So I'm not saying they should be done away with completely. There are some babies who NEED those eyedrops to protect their vision, but it's another thing that women should be able to choose yes or no for. It's like when my sister was pregnant with her son and they told her she needed the rhogam shot because she's O-. She asked me about it and I explained to her exactly what it's for and since she's only ever been with her O- husband she didn't have to get it, but the doctors had no way of knowing that she'd never conceived a baby (including THAT baby) with an Rh+ man. She chose to forgo the shot and of course her son was O-. For some women it's necessary, but others who know their specific situation it's not.

And no kidding that the things that make the most sense are the one that take forever. A rapid test would also be useful for those women who go into labor before they've had the test at 36 weeks or before the results have come back. A lot of women have babies in that 35-36 week window and don't know their status when the baby is born.

heather- my midwives always had to do my tests early because thankfully i showed signs of delivering early both times. but you are right - some women never even get the chance to find out. then we have preemies with already weaker then average immune systems that could be exposed to this infection. or perhaps they give antibiotics in that case? in which case they might be receiving antibiotics they dont need. I think the test is useful, but so many more babies could be saved from death or permanent damage if they took the time to improve the method of the test.

as for the things that make the most sense taking forever - i agree with that - but i'm not okay with it.

[valandemmy]

i definetly agree they should have a better means of testing, but for now i guess the way it is will have to suffice. there are alot of things about our medical system that i don't like and/or agree with by the way lol!

[pat899]

I will not be taking the test. I will be treating a presumably positive result with hybiclense. I did post this earlier thinking I could get other women to think about the inaccurate nature of the test and treatment. No. They replied that I was unessacerally endangering my baby's life just to avoid a simple test.

Giving broad based powerful IV antibiotics to all delivering women would be a really bad idea. The problems it would create far outweigh the benifits.

Getting rid of routine internal fetal monitering would have a far greater benifit in the lowering of GBS transmission. But that would be one less procedure the hospital could add to your bill... so that probally won't happen.

pat Id love to hear more about hybiclense

[E1izabeth]

Does anyone know if the routine administration of the antibiotic could contribute to antibiotic-resistance in GBS making it harder to treat those babies who actually do get it? I know this is possible with other types of antibiotics and the germs they treat but I'm not sure if its possible with GBS. IMO, that would be a good reason not to give routine antibiotics. A rapid test would be ideal but untill then I think each mother has to make her own decision.
Just like each mother should be able to make her own decision about the eye drops. In my state there is a law requiring all babies to have the drops within an hour of birth. It drives me CRAZY because there is research showing that the drops may cause vision impairments in a certain number of children and I should be able to weigh the risks and benefits myself and come to a decision for my child. Same with the vitamin K shot, vaccines, sugar cereal, violent video games, etc. I'm the mom right?

[Butter]

Yes, that is one of the big risks of routine administration of antibiotics. ALL antibiotics can eventually cause superbugs. That would be a HUGE risk if all women were automatically treated. They don't use any special antibiotics to treat GBS. Usually they use plain old penicillin. If the mom is allergic to penicillin then they'll use an alternate antibiotics. There is evidence that just like other bacteria out there, there are now GBS strains that are resistant to penicillin.

edited because I just caught a typo and it annoyed me lol

[sjkduke]

Didn't mean for my response to open up some sort of debate, just offering up my opinion on the "silly" test at 12 am.

your entitled to your opinion it just soundeed like you were taking my opinion out of context LOL. some of the responses sounds like the point of this post was whether or not to take the test - my point was only it needs improving.

1sonsofar I totally agree with you, and heather I actually JUST saw something on the news about that antibiotic thing. like today! i was looking up stuff for dandruff and I found some video on you tube about antibiotics and staff infections and super bugs and stuff. its so funny you mentioned that!