Re: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D

[brendamanning]

MM,   When I explain the presently recommended protocol for current management, it doesn't mean that I support or endorse it !  Just providing the basic rationale.   In the local small Mid unit here we have a high proportion of Jehovahs Witnesses as clients. They are predominantly RH Neg (due to intermarriage in a small community presumably). So none of them have any form of Anti D, Rhogam or WinRho (do they still pay blood donors in the USA ?). NONE of them are isoimmunised, despite not adhering to any protocols, and interestingly no-one here ever gave them any grief about declining the Ig, so perhaps instinctually none of us believe it's the 'right ' thing to do !   On the other hand there were thousands of RH Neg women from overseas in the RWH in the 80's & 90's who lost baby after baby to hydrops & other iso- immunisation related path. It was heart breaking for them. How were they different, was it just their previous birth exp in another country or some other aetiology we never understood ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Mary Murphy To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:42 AM Subject: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D Brenda wrote: so long as you have no objections to receiving a blood product, you are following the presently recommended protocol. Many women don’t know that it is a blood product and one that often comes from Canada as we don’t have enough from Australia.  It is really big business.  I attended the launch of the product here in W.A a few years ago and no expense was spared on a dinner for appropriate health professionals..GPs, Obs, Midwives , hospital administrators.  There is nothing mandatory about the new “routine” and many women do not follow it for the above reasons.  It really is a big experiment that women are expected to follow because it is seen to be “best”.  We really don’t know what will happen when all these women get potentially unnecessary blood products in pregnancy. Many of the babies will be Neg blood group.   What goes into a pregnant woman’s body also goes into her baby’s. A good book to read is written by  Sara Wickham “Over the last 30 years, anti-D, or Rhogam, has become accepted as being routinely advisable for rhesus negative women. However, the question remains that - if women's bodies are designed to give birth without intervention for the majority of the time - why is this necessary? Sara Wickham explores the paradox between physiological birth and the routine 'need' for anti-D and highlights some interesting evidence which may explain this paradox. England 2001 “  MI1883 Title: ANTI-D IN MIDWIFERY: PANACEA OR PARADOX? Book by Sara Wickham Price: AU$65.95 (convert currency)    Maybe someone has this book?  I know I read an article by Sara with much the same title, but I can’t track it down.  MM