Re: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D
Here is Sara's web site http://www.withwoman.co.uk/ look for the With Woman articles and there you will find Evidence based information about Anti D Denise Hynd "Let us support one another, not just in philosophy but in action, for the sake of freedom for all women to choose exactly how and by whom, if by anyone, our bodies will be handled." Linda Hes - Original Message - From: Mary Murphy To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:42 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 dont know that it is a blood product and one that often comes from Canada as we dont 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 dont 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 womans body also goes into her babys. 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. England2001 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 cant track it down. MM No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.5/58 - Release Date: 25/07/2005
RE: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D
Hi Brenda, I did not intend to offend you. I picked that part of the sentence, because so many women do not know it is a blood product. I too have had JW clients and no isoimmunization. That is all part of the paradox that Sara speaks of in her writings. Even if women DO object to blood products, many still want to try and improve their chances of a healthy baby. I personally believe it is a bit over the top, but I am a pos blood group and have never had to worry about it. Like you, most midwives would tell women about the origin of the product, but there is also the danger of it being just another routine that women think is mandatory, ..like routine blood tests, ultrasounds, CTGs intrapartum ABs etc. etc. women get information, but often not the explanation that goes with it. Cheers, MM Brenda wrote: 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.the local small Mid unit herewe 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 ator WinRho (do they still pay blood donors in the USA ?). NONE of t hem are isoimmunised, despite not adhering to any protocols, and interestingly no-one hereever gave them any grief about declining the Ig, so perhapsinstinctually 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 dont know that it is a blood product and one that often comes from Canada as we dont 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 dont 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 womans body also goes into her babys. 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. England2001 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 cant track it down. MM
Re: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D
None taken Brenda - Original Message - From: Mary Murphy To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:29 PM Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D Hi Brenda, I did not intend to offend you. I picked that part of the sentence, because so many women do not know it is a blood product. I too have had JW clients and no isoimmunization. That is all part of the paradox that Sara speaks of in her writings. Even if women DO object to blood products, many still want to try and improve their chances of a healthy baby. I personally believe it is a bit over the top, but I am a pos blood group and have never had to worry about it. Like you, most midwives would tell women about the origin of the product, but there is also the danger of it being just another routine that women think is mandatory, ..like routine blood tests, ultrasounds, CTGs intrapartum ABs etc. etc. women get information, but often not the explanation that goes with it. Cheers, MM Brenda wrote: 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.the local small Mid unit herewe 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 ator WinRho (do they still pay blood donors in the USA ?). NONE of t hem are isoimmunised, despite not adhering to any protocols, and interestingly no-one hereever gave them any grief about declining the Ig, so perhapsinstinctually 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 dont know that it is a blood product and one that often comes from Canada as we dont 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 dont 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 womans body also goes into her babys. 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. England2001 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 cant track it down. MM
RE: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D
Title: Bericht http://www.withwoman.co.uk/contents/info/anantid.html the booklet 'Anti-D in Midwifery, 2nd editionPanacea or Paradox?' you can purchase at http://www.elsevier-international.com/catalogue/title.cfm?ISBN=0750652322partnerid=474 Lieve Lieve Huybrechts vroedvrouw 0477/740853 -Oorspronkelijk bericht-Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Mary MurphyVerzonden: maandag 25 juli 2005 20:42Aan: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auOnderwerp: [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. England2001 “ 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 --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/54 - Release Date: 21/07/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/54 - Release Date: 21/07/2005
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. Inthe local small Mid unit herewe 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 hereever gave them any grief about declining the Ig, so perhapsinstinctually 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 dont know that it is a blood product and one that often comes from Canada as we dont 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 dont 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 womans body also goes into her babys. 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. England2001 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 cant track it down. MM
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 beliefbeing a negative blood group and having had 2 babies beforeboth negative blood groupsanti-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. Inthe local small Mid unit herewe 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 hereever gave them any grief about declining the Ig, so perhapsinstinctually 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 dont know that it is a blood product and one that often comes from Canada as we dont 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 dont 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 womans body also goes into her babys. 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. England2001 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 cant track it down. MM
RE: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D
Coming from New Zealand the whole deal of giving anti d routinely at 28 34 weeks is very different to what guidelines NZ have. The red cross blood service in NZ have guidelines http://www.nzblood.co.nz/?t=25 scroll down to use of anti d during pregnancy and post partum. I am rhesus iso immunized due to a mixing somewhere between 36 weeks and birth, without a visible bleed, but I was told I was a tiny percentage, something like 1 in 1000 woman who become iso immunized, most have a visible bleed and can be given the anti-d. Sara Wickhams book is fantastic and I too believe the pharmaceutical companies get more out of the prophlatic use of anti-d than woman do. Kirsten From: owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au [mailto:owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au] On Behalf Of Tanya Fleming Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 6:55 AM 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 beliefbeing a negative blood group and having had 2 babies beforeboth negative blood groupsanti-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. Inthe local small Mid unit herewe 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 hereever gave them any grief about declining the Ig, so perhapsinstinctually 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 dont know that it is a blood product and one that often comes from Canada as we dont 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 dont 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 womans body also goes into her babys. 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. England2001 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 cant track it down. MM
Re: [ozmidwifery] RE:RH - Anti D
I thought I'd just put my 2cents worth in as a pregnant Rh negative mum. I don't know much about the science behind it but I was told with my first one (only 2 yrs ago) that I would only need Anti-D if I had a bleed or after birth and not routinely because it was difficult to get. This time around a GPtold me that I need it at 28/36 weeks, after birth and if I have any bleeding. I am thinking that the availability of Anti-D must have picked up so there is an opportunity of $$ for someone. Joh - Original Message - From: Tanya Fleming To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 7:25 AM 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 beliefbeing a negative blood group and having had 2 babies beforeboth negative blood groupsanti-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. Inthe local small Mid unit herewe 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 hereever gave them any grief about declining the Ig, so perhapsinstinctually 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 dont know that it is a blood product and one that often comes from Canada as we dont 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 dont 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 womans body also goes into her babys. 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. England2001 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 cant
