Doc Wants Me to Get Lead Blood Test for Toddler- I Think They're Unnecessary. ?

They prick his finger for 1 drop of blood. My kids didn't even feel it. So I wouldn't call that traumatic.

It's standard here in IL for those tests at 1 yr.
What if he's anemic and you don't know it yet?

I fall on the "I don't know more than the doctors" side of the house. So I never objected.

Ask for the phlebotomist who is most experienced with young children - there will be one there that will step up to help you.

It's a finger prick and many kids have been found to have issues while getting it...I wouldn't fret over a simple test...and it is not just about statistics.

We have lived in three states and all three states we have been in do this.

Here's what I would do if I were in your shoes. I would agree to the test with conditions. I would want only a butterfly needle - in fact, I wouldn't use a lab that doesn't have those when my kids were little, especially since my youngest needed testing more than a few times. And I would tell the ped that you want more testing done that just that at the same time since you are already there for a blood draw.

You might ask why for more testing, but some doctors actually do a routine test at one year. Your particular ped might not, but since you are doing the county the favor for their statistical study, you should get some piece of mind at the same time. See what your doc says.

Perhaps your county has its share of old building and lead paint problems, and other issues that can cause anemia. By helping with their study, you can be getting your area federal funds to mitigate this to help children in your area, so I wouldn't be too quick to say no.

Dawn

It's routine here. It's just a finger stick -no biggie. It actually REALLY helped friends of ours who were renting a house that was *supposed* to be up to code, yet had horrible levels of lead in it! Their little girl had a ton of lead in her system! They never would have known until she got really sick if they had not have had the test.

Very common in many states. I'm not sure why you have to go to a separate lab; our pediatrican's office did my child's test during a routine checkup--no big deal. As for not wanting to do it just for statistics -- if we all refuse these tests, there won't be any statistcs to help health departments (and eventually, us, as parents) understand if there are spikes in some conditions overall. The big picture really does matter to us as individuals and to our kids' generation. Just a plug for participating, especially as this really is not very invasive. Plus, a child can have anemia issues that would not show without a blood test, so even if you think there is zero lead exposure, why not get the test done since it covers anemia?

Traumatic!? It's a finger prick, he's going to get shots anyway. Better safe than sorry and get it done; my eldest tested high one year, totally at random, and my other kid did not... turns out it was something at her preK.

I would absolutely get it done.

A better question than 'why should we?' is 'WHY NOT?'

If the doc thought my child were anemic then i would definatly jump on board. if there is a risk of lead in the water supply (bathing water ) then yeah. i would find out the reason for it.

No this is not a test for our area that I recall. I trust our doctor and he has been great so far about not giving meds often or unnessissary shots.

This is routine pretty much anywhere, and moreso if you live in or visit an older home. My DD was tested for both lead and anemia with one lab visit. I asked the pediatrician who down at the lab (we used the one in our clinic) was good with kids and she told me who to wait for. I also had to have DD's blood tested for jaundice when she was a tiny baby, so I figured it was just another grit your teeth and get past it moment. I also agree that a butterfly needle is a good request. Our lab did everything with one needle stick. I'd have to check her records to see if she got a full blood panel, too.

It is routine in PA. I don't remember it being traumatic at all. I think they just pricked the finger. It was not a full blood draw.

my daughter had it done at her 1 n 2 yr check up, its just a finger prick not a full on blood test

Do it. Our daughter had slightly low iron levels, and I was glad to know.

As for lead, kids aren't just exposed by living in old houses. Many things kids might find contain lead--jewelry, lipstick, backpacks and lunchboxes--even toys! We had a blood-pressure cuff that Consumer Reports found to have high levels of lead, and when we asked Mattel to recall it or replace it, they refused at first, even though the lead levels were high enough that they couldn't sell the product in the state of Illinois (they finally replaced ours with one that wasn't red--apparently red dyes are most likely to contain lead)! Also, there can be high levels of lead in the soil from the good ol' days of leaded gasoline or other sources. Our friends got a series soil tests for gardening and were surprised to find out that their soil had high enough levels of lead for them to quit gardening. They weren't sure why, but they did find some broken glass buried deep and wondered whether someone had used the lot for dumping or something long ago. Who knows? I guess that's the point. Be safe. Lead causes permanent brain damage.

My daughter had it done at age 1 also, it was just a finger prick, and she didn't even cry. I think it's not invasive enough to worry about. Might not be as big of a deal as you think.

Goodness. A little prick to see if your child has been exposed to lead is a tiny little thing. So many older homes have lead paint in them, even some older school buildings still have it underneath lots of coats of other stuff.

I think not knowing if there is lead in his system is far scarier. Kids can't even go to pre-school here with out their lead tests.

I live in Westchester County - the did the 1 year blood test on my son. No one likes getting blood drawn. I just gave him a cookie after he was done, he wasn't traumatized at all. His reaction was no worse than when he gets shots.

Knowing your child does not have lead exposure or anemia is more important that the dislike of getting the blood drawn. I found out my son had borderline low iron from that test (so I just give him a multivitamin and no reason to retest before he is 2) and we had friends in Chicago that found out their son did a mild exposure to lead - there was no reason to believe those results for either of us. Its worth knowing that information. I know they will retest my son at 2 to check that his iron level isn't any lower and where it should be.

Yep! My guys got one at one year, and at two years. Seems routine here in California :-)

This was requested for both of my kids in NJ & DE as well. I didn't bother to take either of them to get it done, though.

My daughter had one done at her 1 year check up and they just poked her finger. From what I've heard it is something that is always done now, but it was never done on my 3 1/2 year old when he turned 1.

It is important they get enough iron so I would do it to check iron levels. It is a tiny finger prick. They then hold up teeny tubes to the drop of blood to suck it up into the tube. They call you later with the results. Our daughter was slightly low in iron which was good to know.

Obviously you have never lived in military housing. They only test once, I would have them test every 6 months because they do come up positive.

It's only a prick, it's peace of mind. Who cares who they share the results with? So the state of NY knows a child in Westchester County doesn't have lead poisoning. THat's a good thing, right? This is why we are some of the healthiest people on earth.

And getting a finger prick at 1 is much less traumatic than giving 2 vials of blood when you are 4 and actually know what's happening. He'll be fine.

I would do it. Its no worse than any other shot. Its peace of mind. There are a lot of ways to get toxic levels of lead, its definitely something I wanted to know.

yes its a great thing to have done. We had no reason to believe my son was in danger either. But he was and it took us a long time to get the lead out of his system. He was 2 points away from the high dangerous mark. We have no idea where he got it, how or why. Nobody else in the family had it or got it.

Its always best to be safe than sorry. Its one of those things you can't see if someone has it. This way if he does have it, he can get treatment before it cause major health problems.

All it is, is a little finger poke. Mine never reacted to it much, it didn't bother them. They were more annoyed at the bandaid they put on after than the actual poke.

If you live in a home manufactured more recently than when lead paint was outlawed, and your relatives do as well, and any regularly visited locations are also, then I tend to agree with you. Really there should be no reason for your child's health to do that. And I would probably decline to have it done 'solely for their statistical research'. But, if any place your son visits routinely is older than that, so that there may have been lead paint that was painted over or removed later (possibly not properly) then I would go ahead and let them do it. Better to be safe than sorry.
They never asked to do that with my kids, but my kids are older and it may be a newer thing. They DID ask about risk factors for lead exposure, and we had none. That was the end of it for us.

My daughter's one year old test was in the arm with a butterfly needle. All since have been through a finger prick.

Just to let you know, a one year old won't see it coming. He'll take it better now than when he is 5. :(

my DD had a finger stick at her 9 m check... and iron level was low. We also live in an older house... so the doc did send us for a full testing (which at least for us was a blood draw... not another finger stick). so for us the finger stick was routine and they only did full labs when that was low

My daughter was tested for anemia on several occasions because she was so tiny for her age. She was always found to be extremely healthy, however. She had a wonderful diet, ate everything, she was just tiny. She's 25 years old and still tiny. She's built like my mother.
Anyway, they just did the finger pricks and she didn't even cry. They did it on her toe once, for gravity purposes I guess, but she didn't like that so they stuck with the finger thing. I think my son was only routinely tested once as he was such a big, bouncing healthy boy.

As for the lead tests, one would hope that the testing would confirm that guidelines in place to procect our children from lead poisoning are working.
I think it would be important to know if certain counties in certain states have higher or lower levels of lead exposure.
But, that's just me.

Just my opinion.

I would *not* do it solely for statistical analysis and would not consent for my results to be shared in that way (children are entitled to their privacy too).

That being said, lead exposure can be very detrimental to children.

My ped only did it if you lived in a house older than a certain age (and I can't remember what that age was).

If I were doing it over again I probably would get that test solely to know that lead was not an issue.

Good luck.

I did not get it done for my son because it was not going to be just a finger prick. They were actually going to have to draw blood. From a 1 year old? No thanks. Seemed a little traumatic, especially since he also just has is 12 month shots. I never got it done and the Dr never mentioned it to me again, so I figure he was not concerned about it either.

Health department statistics are very important, they benefit everyone! This is how they determine potential problems/trends in certain areas. Please do it, it's probably just a finger prick at that age, and even it's a regular blood draw, it's not that big of a deal, it happens really quickly.

Those are routine tests where I live. In fact, they do the test for anemia (basically, and iron level...nothing more than a finger prick) each year. The lead test is done when they're two, here.

Also, results are anonymous when they are shared for research purposes. Don't follow the ridiculous advice that your children are entitled to their "privacy" and shouldn't share an anonymous lead test result. If it weren't for research, we'd all be a lot sicker and there'd be a lot less cures. Please don't consider that as a reason NOT to get a very reasonable test.