Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

[brendamanning]

The not testing partners thing is probably all to do with litigation, blah, blah blah................... Isn't everything ? Madness !   Brenda ----- Original Message ----- From: sally williams To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D     I agree with you, Brenda, my point is that we aren't allowed to test the partners even if they want it.   Sally    -------Original Message-------   From: brendamanning Date: 07/26/05 18:19:26 To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D   Sally,   If women we see at our midwives clinic decline Anti D because the father of their babe is Rh Neg also , then we take them at their word & they are not pressed to have RhoGam or whatever is currently being touted. It is their decision &  their responsibility, surely the onus is not on us to be testing their partners: your body your  baby your choice. If we are wanting women to believe this then we must respect their decisions when they are made & equally they must accept the consequence of their actions.   Brenda ----- Original Message ----- From: sally williams To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:56 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D     Funnily enough, we are not allowed to test the partners of Rh neg women to see if they are negative too, thus ruling out the necessity for giving Anti-D, because apparently we can't trust women to be truthful about the father of their baby!!   Sally       -------Original Message-------   From: Tanya Fleming Date: 07/26/05 13:29:52 To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D   I can't help but believe that the increased used of Anti-D during pregnancy is a money-making line for the pharmacuetical company's that produce it.  I must admit...i haven't done a lot of research on it.  What i would like to know, is...is the increased use of anti-d in pregnancy resulting in a significant decline in isoimmunisation?  I suppose these sort of studies won't be around for a while, as this is reletively new practise.  My personal belief....being a negative blood group and having had 2 babies before....both negative blood groups....anti-d was not given in pregnancy with these babies.....I would probably choose not to have it with future pregancy's either unless positive baby after birth.   tanya ----- Original Message ----- From: brendamanning To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D 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     _____________________________________________________________________  FREE Emoticons for your email! Click Here!