Levy Avrohom, Nabatian Shira
Pediatrics, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, USA.
Attorney, New York University, New York, USA.
Cureus. 2025 Feb 20;17(2):e79368. doi: 10.7759/cureus.79368. eCollection 2025 Feb.
Antivaccine rhetoric has been a major topic of discussion in politics, the news, and on social media platforms. As social media use has become a mainstay of communication, it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between factual and non-factual information. People have become unsure of what to believe and fear vaccinating their children in case the horrors they see on social media are true. This antivaccine rhetoric has spread from just vaccines to essential prophylactic treatments such as Vitamin K administration in newborns. This is despite ample evidence showing that Vitamin K administration prevents fatal bleeding in newborns. There is also evidence that Vitamin K administration has minimal side effects, demonstrating that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Despite the lack of medical basis, an increasing number of parents are refusing Vitamin K for their newborns. This article explores parents' legal right to make medical decisions for their children, the scope of parental neglect, and whether refusing Vitamin K constitutes neglect from a medicolegal standpoint. It also provides recommendations on addressing this issue.
反疫苗言论一直是政治、新闻和社交媒体平台上的主要讨论话题。随着社交媒体的使用已成为交流的主流方式,区分事实与非事实信息变得越来越困难。人们开始不确定该相信什么,并且担心给孩子接种疫苗,以防他们在社交媒体上看到的可怕事情是真的。这种反疫苗言论已经从疫苗扩展到了诸如给新生儿注射维生素K等基本预防性治疗措施。尽管有充分证据表明注射维生素K可预防新生儿致命出血。也有证据表明注射维生素K的副作用极小,这表明其益处远大于风险。尽管缺乏医学依据,但越来越多的父母拒绝为他们的新生儿注射维生素K。本文探讨了父母为子女做出医疗决策的合法权利、父母疏忽的范围,以及从法医学角度来看拒绝注射维生素K是否构成疏忽。它还提供了应对这一问题的建议。