What's the deal with erythromycin eye ointment?

~*sierra*~ · #1 January 27th, 2011, 01:44 PM

So, i'm not sure what the deal is with this stuff. I know its 'law' from a time when women's husbands went off to war and brought them home all sorts of delightful STD's which they could then pass to their babies during birth. But nowadays i got screened for all those STD's already (all negative) so why do i need to give these to my baby? I do have the option to say no, which i only recently found out, i hadn't given it much thought before because i thought it was a really set in stone law and i didnt think i even had the option to say no. is there any benefit to giving the eye ointment if all my tests came back negative? i asked my midwife if it can hinder breastfeeding or bonding and she said no, so those would be my main concerns. are there any harms to giving the ointment?

bittersweet · #2 January 27th, 2011, 02:22 PM

I've read per posts on JM it can clog tear ducts. They test for STDs usually at the first prenatal appt, so between that time and delivery, a woman can potentially contract something. I think that is why they still give it. It is an inexpensive treatment with minimal side effect if any on the majority of babies.

We allowed Jenna to get it. It didn't cause any problems with Bfing or bonding to my knowledge and I don't remember it sticking around for very long. Even if you are able to deny it, they might say you can't can give you a really hard time about it. So be prepared to fight if you are serious about not getting it.

Oriyan · #3 January 27th, 2011, 03:09 PM

Its blurs the vision of babies for a bit (cause its ointment) and a lot of moms say that it prevents that first view of mom. We held off for a bit before we had it put in. Then we wiped it away because in NY, the eye ointment and Vit K shot are mandatory.

Resi · #4 January 27th, 2011, 03:20 PM

We declined and they gave us no issues at all. Years ago, they used silver nitrate but it suppose to have been removed. When I was pregnant I remember reading that the nitrate was still in the goop. Either way it wasn't something I felt Oliver needed.

greeneyes · #5 January 27th, 2011, 03:40 PM

The deal is, if you've never popped positive for an STD then it's completely unnecessary. And if it's unnecessary, why do it? Yes, it may cause a clogged duct but even worse is if your baby has a reaction to it. I'm allergic to penicillin and sensitive to erythromycin and didn't consider that my kids might have the same sensitivities. Poor Lily had a TERRIBLE reaction to it and I can't think of a worse place for that to occur than in baby's eyes. Trust me, holding my screaming daughter as she thrashed at her face in pain was enough for me to fight the whole state of Texas not to have that crap put in Violet's eyes.

And as for the clogged duct, that's no joke either. A close friend of mine had her son the month after V and the ointment clogged his right duct so bad he had to have eye surgery shortly after his first birthday. His eye was swollen shut and crusted over his entire first year of life.

JediRach · #6 January 27th, 2011, 05:16 PM

We didn't get it and didn't have to fight with anyone about it.

soImarriedAnerd · #7 January 27th, 2011, 05:34 PM

we didn't get it either. Studies show that simple rinsing they eyes with water has the same effect...well he was born in water...sooooo LOL I would have opted out even without water birth.
The reason we still give it..... many men are pigs and the highest rate of infidelity is while a women is pregnant and the lowest use of condoms is when women are pregnant. Its about 11 cents per dose and the hospital only needs sued once for that to be cost effective....so there you go! Its cheaper than being sued for not giving it.

~*sierra*~ · #8 January 27th, 2011, 06:38 PM

oh my god, bad mother alert, the thought of her having a reaction to the ointment didnt even occur to me. since i'm planning a waterbirth too, tested clear of all the STD's, pretty sure dh isn't being unfaithful (and even if he wasnt, we arent having the sex anyways!), i think i'm going to pass on it. thankfully i won't really need to fight my midwives about it, they are great. also just talked to dh about it and he feels the same way as me about it, that it's just not necessary.

**jessie** · #9 January 27th, 2011, 11:39 PM

I don't know a lot about it. It isn't done here in Germany... at least not routinely.

LisanAndy · #10 January 28th, 2011, 04:01 AM

I hate it but have had it done for all my kids. Taylor now has to get surgery on a blocked tear duct because of it

**IF** we ever have another kid we're strongly considering a home birth and will say no to that.

bittersweet · #11 January 28th, 2011, 04:25 AM

Wow, I didn't realize clogged ducts were more common and required surgery. Ick.

I think I will look into if it is required here.

LisanAndy · #12 January 28th, 2011, 05:50 AM

Yeah she's had a blocked duct ever since she was born. We help out hope it would fix itself (we were told there was a chance) but it never did. We still have to get her in for her consultation appointment here in the next few weeks. We're told it's painless and easy but still, I don't want my baby to need surgery over something so dumb.

ANGWife · #13 January 28th, 2011, 07:18 AM

Henry got the ointment because I am super prone to yeast infections (I've already had 3 this pregnancy alone).

thepinkleprechaun · #14 January 28th, 2011, 04:59 PM

So glad I said no with both my kiddos! Nobody fought me on it either time, well I don't remember that much after Aden was born but they didn't give me any crap about it with Phinny.