Do the Government save money by potentially risking babies lives/health?

butterflymum · 10 October 2007 at 4:36PM

I think they do, and this is one type of money saving I would rather not happen. Many mums pay privately to have a Group B Strep test done, I would like to see them not have to pay at all. That is why I support the following and wonder if anyone else feels likewise? Hope I have posted this in appropriate forum.

Info copied from Group B Strep Support Group:

"GBS Petition to the Prime Minister

In conjunction with Group B Strep Support ( www.gbss.org.uk ), Pregnancy & birth magazine is petitioning the Prime Minister for every woman in the UK to be offered a sensitive test for group B Streptococcus (GBS) at 35-37 weeks of pregnancy on the NHS, and for every pregnant woman to be given accurate information about GBS as a routine part of her antenatal care. If you would like to sign this petition, please visit

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/groupbstrep/.

Carrying GBS is normal - up to 30% of adults do, usually in the intestines although in women it's very common in the vagina. Carrying GBS causes no symptoms and requires no treatment. GBS can be passed to a baby around labour but usually this isn’t a problem. Sadly though, for some babies, it can be serious, causing blood poisoning, pneumonia and meningitis. However, testing women late in pregnancy - and offering antibiotics through a vein at intervals once labour has started to those whose babies are at higher risk - would prevent 80% or more of all GBS infections in newborn babies. Reliable screening is not currently available in the UK but GBSS believes it should be – which is why we’ll be presenting the Prime Minister with the petition.

Please do ask your friends and family also to sign the petition – the more names on there, the more powerful the message it sends to the Prime Minister.

And, if you’d like to ask your MP to support this campaign, that would be fantastic."

tiamai_d · 10 October 2007 at 5:09PM

My friend tested positive for StrepB. We met in hospital (both had pre-ecclampsia) and she was told that during labour she would be given a dose of antibiotics. She ended up having a c section, but was initially induced and in labour for about 6 hours. She never did get any antibiotics. When she questioned this she was told that it was overlooked, and didn't matter anyway as she had a c section.

It is serious, and it's shocking that simple precautions are not being carried out when they could potentially save a babies life.

adea · 10 October 2007 at 5:19PM

i've signed it

butterflymum · 10 October 2007 at 5:48PM

:eek:

tiamai_d wrote: »

She ended up having a c section, but was initially induced and in labour for about 6 hours. She never did get any antibiotics. When she questioned this she was told that it was overlooked, and didn't matter anyway as she had a c section.

To quote from the GBSS website:

"Will a Caesarean prevent GBS infecting my baby?

Caesarean sections do not eliminate the risk of GBS to a baby of developing GBS infection since the bacteria can cross intact amniotic membranes to set up an infection in the baby, although they do reduce the risk."

Unfortunately, even in this day and age, not all health professionals fully understand the potential risks, albeit this is thankfully changing with the help of organisations such as Group B Strep support and their many volunteers. I myself have previuosly helped GBSS by taking literature into a Maternity Unity to raise awareness, as have many others.

Dormouse · 10 October 2007 at 6:17PM

Have signed, thanks for posting. It's ridiculous how overlooked this matter is.

jo_b_2 · 10 October 2007 at 9:52PM

I've signed. It seems strange that they don't offer this and yet they try to give every baby Vitamin K when there is a much smaller likelihood of them needing it! :rolleyes:

Neither of mine had Vit K but that's another story....

Carmina_Piranha_3 · 11 October 2007 at 12:15AM

would that be 30% of pregnant women testing positive? or am i being thick?

i don't suppose they'd want to have drips up for such a large proportion of women when they can barely provide enough staff to deliver the babies at our local.

my niece was ever so poorly with this but the antibiotics worked, thankfully.

butterflymum · 11 October 2007 at 9:38AM

Carmina_Piranha wrote: »

would that be 30% of pregnant women testing positive? or am i being thick?

Up to 30% of the adult population are carriers - that means men and women.

The main point is that many other things are tested for &/or treated routinely during pregnancy, even if the likelyhood of them having such potentially drastic effect on a the baby is less. Many European countries as well as America, decided a number of years ago that it was important to provide the test as part of their standard ante-natal care package, the UK, however, have not, despite very good indications in favour if doing so. Methinks this is money saving of the wrong kind. Yes, the number of babies that actually die may be small, but even one, when it is usually preventable, is one too many. But we should also remember the number of babies who are very ill from having contracted Group B Strep and unfortunately require ongoing special care throughout their lives, this care is a cost that again, most likely, could have been avoided, as with routine testing and treatment, most of these babies would probably not have suffered the illness in the first place, so not required the ongoing care.

Glad to hear your niece made a good recovery.

Thanks to all who have added their signature so far.

cha97michelle · 11 October 2007 at 1:15PM

I have signed and also just emailed all my friends and family to do the same.

I was tested for this in labour, and when the baby was in my arms they told us i had this, and then we had 2 day of him with a canula in and antibiotics when they could have stopped this just from a simple swab test which i could have taken myself if it would have saved them some money. Can't see how it saves much anyway if they test you once in labour.

For anyone who has had this, i am now pregnant again, and when i had my booking in appointment this time i told them about this, and i have to have the antibiotics in birth again this time.

Please hassle your midwife about this as the potential side effects can be horrible, and i count my lucky stars that we weren't left with any lasting damage from something so stupid

butterflymum · 12 October 2007 at 9:55AM

Good of you to share - hopefully it will help others realise that this is not, as many think, something that doesn't happen often so can be swept under the carpet. Our middle son also needed antibiotics after birth but was thankfully fine, many, as you have said, are not as fortunate as we were and sadly, even in this a new century, some babies still die needlessly.

zztopgirl · 12 October 2007 at 10:31AM

I signed this already, i have strep b and after 2 children i cant bear to have anymore, it feels like im gambling to have a healthy child and ive been lucky both times.

My firstborn didnt get antibiotics til 24 hours after the birth, and i only found out i had strep when i read an interview that Jane Plumb did for a magazine.:eek:

My second child, midwives didnty have a clue and i had to bring in information from the charity, i was even told that i couldnt have it twice and wouldnt need antibiotics during birth. I did get antibiotics during the birth but only at the very last minute, dd then shot out(like shelling peas lol) and then that was it. I was convinced by all that she was in perfect health and wouldnt need treatment. Hence i spent the first few weeks worrying myself sick.

The sooner they test all women for this the better, how many babies are needlessly dying and how many midwives and doctors have no knowledge of this? I know from the amount of pregnancy books and magazines ive read, there is very little or no information out there.

I have another lesser known complaint too, i had a dvt during pregnancy, i wish pregnancy magazines would take note of this, it doesnt just happen on aeroplanes. So not only are my children lucky to be alive, so am i!

Do the Government save money by potentially risking babies lives/health?

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free