Abstract
Description The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all newborns receive an intra-muscular (IM) dose of vitamin K within 6 hours of delivery for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). There has been an increase in the number of parents who have refused the IM vitamin K dose for their infant based on its possible link to leukemia, preservatives that may lead to adverse reactions, and wanting to avoid pain for the infant. When newborns do not receive IM vitamin K, the most serious feared potential complication is intracranial hemorrhage with potential neurologic sequela including seizures, developmental delay, and death. Recent studies support the contention that parents are making the choice to refuse IM vitamin K without sufficient knowledge of the potential consequences. Parental decisions typically align with the best interest of the child; however, when parental decisions veer from the child's best interest, the limit of parental autonomy is tested. The precedent set by previous cases in which parental autonomy was challenged suggests parents should not be able to refuse IM vitamin K because the therapy has nearly no burden and forgoing this therapy has the potential for substantial harm. It has been argued that as long as the degree of intrusion is modest (a single IM injection) and the benefit substantial (prevention of possible death), states are granted the power to mandate the use of such an intervention. Mandated IM vitamin K for all newborns, regardless of parental approval, would rescind some parental autonomy but improve overall beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice in the care of newborns.