Re: [ozmidwifery] rh neg discussion

2005-08-22 Thread Anne Clarke 



Dear Jan,
 
Yes she does.
 
RegardsAnne ClarkeChair - BFHI Queensland

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Janet 
  Ireland 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 5:30 
  PM
  Subject: [ozmidwifery] rh neg 
  discussion
  
  DISCUSSION PLEASE 
  if a mother is rh neg and babe rh pos kliehauer 
  neg and weak anti d present passive from last anti natal ante D does a mother 
  still have to have anti D JAN__ NOD32 1.1198 
  (20050819) Information __This message was checked by NOD32 
  antivirus system.http://www.eset.com

RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-08-02 Thread Carol Van Lochem 

I had a similar experience when pregnant. My antenatal bloods grouped me as A Neg. I had given blood years before & knew I was A Pos. When I queried it with our ob he just felt it best to treat me as negative anyway. I wasn't happy about recieving blood products unnecessarily, so enquired at the Blood Bank. They sent me back a letter saying I had a Du Variant (still not sure what it is exactly). The letter went on to explain that at some hospitals the basic testing they did would show me as Rh negative. The Blood Bank's testing needs to be very accurate and so they use a far more expensive test which shows my true blood group. It made me wonder how many women that are really Rh pos are being treated unnecessarily.>From: "Lindsay Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au>To: 
>Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D>Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:29:33 +1000>>Further to the discussion about anti-D, I was in clinics today and the>subject came up.  Woman was Rh - and partner was also Rh -.  Dr was happy>for her to skip anti-D.  After she left he explained that in many instances>they give it anyway.  He said that the Blood typing system in common use is>not entirely accurate and that there can be a partially expressed Rh + that>reads as a negative.  If this is the case, baby can still be Rh +, despite>parents both being negatives.>I had not heard of this before.>Lindsay>>-Original Message->From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G Lemay>Sent: Friday, 29 July 2005 4:01 AM>To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au>Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D>>Yes, mistakes can be made by hosp labs on the blood typing of the>newborn.  Happened to me.  Two neg parents, first child neg.  Normally I>wouldn't have even checked the bld type of the 2nd child but the parents>wanted the ABO group.  Monogamous couple.  Had to beg to have the lab>check again.  Turned out they had made an error.  Big apologies.>Started me wondering how many other mistakes are made.  Now, I buy Eldon>Cards to type the Dad and newborn myself at home.  It's really pretty>easy and these 
little kits make it idiot proof.  They cost about $8>Canadian and  are well worth it.  The hosp labs are a second>confirmation after  we do testing at home.>>Also, I hate to get into this because it gives me a headache but I was>corrected by a student about the idea that Rh neg is recessive.  She did>a wonderful, brainy presentation to the class to demonstrate that Rh neg>is dominant.  I'm sorry I can't duplicate it, but think about it.  Two>Rh neg parents always have Rh neg offspring but two Rh pos parents can>have an Rh neg child.  Gloria>>leanne wynne wrote:>> > Rh neg is recessive so in order for someone to be Rh neg blood group> > they must possess 2 x Rh neg genes - one from each parent. If 
somone> > is Rh pos it is possible for them to carry either a positive or> > negative recessive gene. I hope that makes sense?> > Leanne.> >> >> From: "Fiona Rumble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au> >> To: > >> Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D> >> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:57:37 +1000> >>> >> Both parents must have had one gene for each Rh typing and passed on> >> their recessive gene so that bub got two copies of positive and> >> therefore was positive> >> Regards> >> Fiona Rumble> >>   - Original Message -> >>   From: Susan Cudlipp> >>   To: 
ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au> >>   Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:45 PM> >>   Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D> >>> >>> >>   At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were both> >> Rh-ve and> >>   yet their baby was Rh+ve.> >>   Now was this a case of 'Father unknown' or a mistake, or is it> >> possible for> >>   this to happen?> >>   Both partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is> >> question> >>   by the way!> >>> >>   I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom was> >>   -ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of 
these> >> pregnancies:-> >>   small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing,> >> Elective C/S> >>   (no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with MRP(3rd).  As I am a> >> blood> >>   donor (or used to be) I know that I never developed antibodies,> >> although I> >>   did have anti-D at the appropriate times following potential risks> >> - except> >>   for

RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-08-02 Thread Mary Murphy 
I have had a client with this result.  We were uncertain if she was pos or
neg and so we treated her as pos. after the birth and had Kleihauer and
Coombes done, She was Pos. She had declined A/N Anti D. MM 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lindsay Kennedy
Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 5:30 PM
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

Further to the discussion about anti-D, I was in clinics today and the
subject came up.  Woman was Rh - and partner was also Rh -.  Dr was happy
for her to skip anti-D.  After she left he explained that in many instances
they give it anyway.  He said that the Blood typing system in common use is
not entirely accurate and that there can be a partially expressed Rh + that
reads as a negative.  If this is the case, baby can still be Rh +, despite
parents both being negatives.  
I had not heard of this before.
Lindsay


--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.

RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-08-02 Thread Lindsay Kennedy 
Further to the discussion about anti-D, I was in clinics today and the
subject came up.  Woman was Rh - and partner was also Rh -.  Dr was happy
for her to skip anti-D.  After she left he explained that in many instances
they give it anyway.  He said that the Blood typing system in common use is
not entirely accurate and that there can be a partially expressed Rh + that
reads as a negative.  If this is the case, baby can still be Rh +, despite
parents both being negatives.  
I had not heard of this before.
Lindsay

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G Lemay
Sent: Friday, 29 July 2005 4:01 AM
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

Yes, mistakes can be made by hosp labs on the blood typing of the 
newborn.  Happened to me.  Two neg parents, first child neg.  Normally I 
wouldn't have even checked the bld type of the 2nd child but the parents 
wanted the ABO group.  Monogamous couple.  Had to beg to have the lab 
check again.  Turned out they had made an error.  Big apologies.  
Started me wondering how many other mistakes are made.  Now, I buy Eldon 
Cards to type the Dad and newborn myself at home.  It's really pretty 
easy and these little kits make it idiot proof.  They cost about $8 
Canadian and  are well worth it.  The hosp labs are a second 
confirmation after  we do testing at home. 

Also, I hate to get into this because it gives me a headache but I was 
corrected by a student about the idea that Rh neg is recessive.  She did 
a wonderful, brainy presentation to the class to demonstrate that Rh neg 
is dominant.  I'm sorry I can't duplicate it, but think about it.  Two 
Rh neg parents always have Rh neg offspring but two Rh pos parents can 
have an Rh neg child.  Gloria

leanne wynne wrote:

> Rh neg is recessive so in order for someone to be Rh neg blood group 
> they must possess 2 x Rh neg genes - one from each parent. If somone 
> is Rh pos it is possible for them to carry either a positive or 
> negative recessive gene. I hope that makes sense?
> Leanne.
>
>> From: "Fiona Rumble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
>> To: 
>> Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D
>> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:57:37 +1000
>>
>> Both parents must have had one gene for each Rh typing and passed on 
>> their recessive gene so that bub got two copies of positive and 
>> therefore was positive
>> Regards
>> Fiona Rumble
>>   - Original Message -
>>   From: Susan Cudlipp
>>   To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
>>   Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:45 PM
>>   Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D
>>
>>
>>   At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were both 
>> Rh-ve and
>>   yet their baby was Rh+ve.
>>   Now was this a case of 'Father unknown' or a mistake, or is it 
>> possible for
>>   this to happen?
>>   Both partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is 
>> question
>>   by the way!
>>
>>   I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom was
>>   -ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of these 
>> pregnancies:-
>>   small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing, 
>> Elective C/S
>>   (no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with MRP(3rd).  As I am a 
>> blood
>>   donor (or used to be) I know that I never developed antibodies, 
>> although I
>>   did have anti-D at the appropriate times following potential risks 
>> - except
>>   for the APH and ECV attempt.
>>
>>   Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs of giving anti-D during
>>   pregnancy, it causes us no end of headaches in our busy ante-natal 
>> clinics.
>>   We are not allowed to keep a stock as it is 'too precious' to place 
>> into the
>>   hands of midwives ( who might presumably throw it away or sell it 
>> on the
>>   black market??)  So we have to go through a complicated ordering 
>> process
>>   which takes time away from our clients, and increases our work load 
>> - I hate
>>   it!
>>   As to the seemingly generous supply of Rhogam - where does this 
>> come from?
>>   While it was less available we were only giving the 28 & 34 week 
>> doses to
>>   primips, now apparently there is enough for multips too.
>>   Sue
>>   "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men 
>> to do
>>   nothing"
>>   Edmund Burke
>>   - Original Message -
>>   From: "Naomi Wilkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>   To: 
>>   Sent: Tuesday, July 26,

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-28 Thread Fiona Rumble 



 

In my original post I was making a suggestion based on 
natural selection not knowing that the neg gene is always recessive (yes I also 
did some research). Because the negative gene IS RECESSIVE  two negative 
parents have only negative genes to pass on and therefore cannot have a positive 
baby. If the parents had a pos gene to pass on they would themselves be 
positive. The positive parents can however pass on either of their two 
positive genes and I think this is what Leanne means when she says that a 
positive person can have a positive recessive gene because they can be Dd or 
DD.
Cheers Fiona (always willing to be 
corrected)
 
Both parents must have had one gene for each Rh 
typing and passed on >> their recessive gene so that bub got two 
copies of positive and >> therefore was 
positive
  Two Rh neg parents always have Rh neg 
offspring but two Rh pos parents can have an Rh neg child.  
GloriaLeanne wynne wrote:> Rh neg 
is recessive so in order for someone to be Rh neg blood group > they must 
possess 2 x Rh neg genes - one from each parent. If someone > is Rh pos 
it is possible for them to carry either a positive or > negative 
recessive gene. I hope that makes sense?> Leanne.
 

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-28 Thread G Lemay 
Yes, mistakes can be made by hosp labs on the blood typing of the 
newborn.  Happened to me.  Two neg parents, first child neg.  Normally I 
wouldn't have even checked the bld type of the 2nd child but the parents 
wanted the ABO group.  Monogamous couple.  Had to beg to have the lab 
check again.  Turned out they had made an error.  Big apologies.  
Started me wondering how many other mistakes are made.  Now, I buy Eldon 
Cards to type the Dad and newborn myself at home.  It's really pretty 
easy and these little kits make it idiot proof.  They cost about $8 
Canadian and  are well worth it.  The hosp labs are a second 
confirmation after  we do testing at home. 

Also, I hate to get into this because it gives me a headache but I was 
corrected by a student about the idea that Rh neg is recessive.  She did 
a wonderful, brainy presentation to the class to demonstrate that Rh neg 
is dominant.  I'm sorry I can't duplicate it, but think about it.  Two 
Rh neg parents always have Rh neg offspring but two Rh pos parents can 
have an Rh neg child.  Gloria


leanne wynne wrote:

Rh neg is recessive so in order for someone to be Rh neg blood group 
they must possess 2 x Rh neg genes - one from each parent. If somone 
is Rh pos it is possible for them to carry either a positive or 
negative recessive gene. I hope that makes sense?

Leanne.


From: "Fiona Rumble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
To: 
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:57:37 +1000

Both parents must have had one gene for each Rh typing and passed on 
their recessive gene so that bub got two copies of positive and 
therefore was positive

Regards
Fiona Rumble
  - Original Message -
  From: Susan Cudlipp
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
  Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


  At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were both 
Rh-ve and

  yet their baby was Rh+ve.
  Now was this a case of 'Father unknown' or a mistake, or is it 
possible for

  this to happen?
  Both partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is 
question

  by the way!

  I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom was
  -ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of these 
pregnancies:-
  small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing, 
Elective C/S
  (no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with MRP(3rd).  As I am a 
blood
  donor (or used to be) I know that I never developed antibodies, 
although I
  did have anti-D at the appropriate times following potential risks 
- except

  for the APH and ECV attempt.

  Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs of giving anti-D during
  pregnancy, it causes us no end of headaches in our busy ante-natal 
clinics.
  We are not allowed to keep a stock as it is 'too precious' to place 
into the
  hands of midwives ( who might presumably throw it away or sell it 
on the
  black market??)  So we have to go through a complicated ordering 
process
  which takes time away from our clients, and increases our work load 
- I hate

  it!
  As to the seemingly generous supply of Rhogam - where does this 
come from?
  While it was less available we were only giving the 28 & 34 week 
doses to

  primips, now apparently there is enough for multips too.
  Sue
  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men 
to do

  nothing"
  Edmund Burke
  - Original Message -
  From: "Naomi Wilkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


  >I had this experience!  I am Rh neg and so is my hubby.  I was 
told I would
  >still need to have anti-D during pregnancy.  Although the doctor 
never
  >stated that my husband may not have been the father of my child, 
that's
  >what was implied.  I refused and thankfully was saved from any 
further

  >harassment as I had my beautiful baby at home.
  >
  > Naomi
  >
  >
  >
  >>
  >>
  >>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
  >>
  >>
  >
  >
  >
  > --
  > This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
  > Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
  >
  >
  > --
  > 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

  >
  >

  --
  This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
  Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.




Le

RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-27 Thread Mary Murphy 
Hi, one possibility is that the lab could have made a mistake or there was a
mix-up with specimens?  MM

There is no possibility 2 RH- parents can have an RH+ baby. The positive
gene is dominant, therefore:

If a person has the genes + +, the Rh factor in the blood will be positive. 
If a person has the genes + -, the Rh factor will be positive. 
If a person has the genes - -, the Rh factor will be negative.

Therefore both those parents had the - - genes and could not have passed on
the + gene and therefore can't have produced a positive baby!

Kirsten

--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread brendamanning 

Mmm...
- Original Message - 
From: "Kirsten Dobbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:58 PM
Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D



There is no possibility 2 RH- parents can have an RH+ baby. The positive
gene is dominant, therefore:

If a person has the genes + +, the Rh factor in the blood will be 
positive.

If a person has the genes + -, the Rh factor will be positive.
If a person has the genes - -, the Rh factor will be negative.

Therefore both those parents had the - - genes and could not have passed 
on

the + gene and therefore can't have produced a positive baby!

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Cudlipp
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:16 PM
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were both Rh-ve 
and

yet their baby was Rh+ve.
Now was this a case of 'Father unknown' or a mistake, or is it possible 
for

this to happen?
Both partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is 
question

by the way!

I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom was
-ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of these 
pregnancies:-

small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing, Elective C/S
(no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with MRP(3rd).  As I am a blood
donor (or used to be) I know that I never developed antibodies, although I
did have anti-D at the appropriate times following potential risks - 
except

for the APH and ECV attempt.

Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs of giving anti-D during
pregnancy, it causes us no end of headaches in our busy ante-natal 
clinics.
We are not allowed to keep a stock as it is 'too precious' to place into 
the


hands of midwives ( who might presumably throw it away or sell it on the
black market??)  So we have to go through a complicated ordering process
which takes time away from our clients, and increases our work load - I 
hate


it!
As to the seemingly generous supply of Rhogam - where does this come from?
While it was less available we were only giving the 28 & 34 week doses to
primips, now apparently there is enough for multips too.
Sue
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing"
Edmund Burke
- Original Message - 
From: "Naomi Wilkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


I had this experience!  I am Rh neg and so is my hubby.  I was told I 
would



still need to have anti-D during pregnancy.  Although the doctor never
stated that my husband may not have been the father of my child, that's
what was implied.  I refused and thankfully was saved from any further
harassment as I had my beautiful baby at home.

Naomi






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






--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.


--
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




--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. 


--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.

RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread Kirsten Dobbs 
There is no possibility 2 RH- parents can have an RH+ baby. The positive
gene is dominant, therefore:

If a person has the genes + +, the Rh factor in the blood will be positive. 
If a person has the genes + -, the Rh factor will be positive. 
If a person has the genes - -, the Rh factor will be negative.

Therefore both those parents had the - - genes and could not have passed on
the + gene and therefore can't have produced a positive baby!

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Cudlipp
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:16 PM
To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were both Rh-ve and 
yet their baby was Rh+ve.
Now was this a case of 'Father unknown' or a mistake, or is it possible for 
this to happen?
Both partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is question 
by the way!

I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom was
-ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of these pregnancies:- 
small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing, Elective C/S 
(no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with MRP(3rd).  As I am a blood 
donor (or used to be) I know that I never developed antibodies, although I 
did have anti-D at the appropriate times following potential risks - except 
for the APH and ECV attempt.

Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs of giving anti-D during 
pregnancy, it causes us no end of headaches in our busy ante-natal clinics. 
We are not allowed to keep a stock as it is 'too precious' to place into the

hands of midwives ( who might presumably throw it away or sell it on the 
black market??)  So we have to go through a complicated ordering process 
which takes time away from our clients, and increases our work load - I hate

it!
As to the seemingly generous supply of Rhogam - where does this come from? 
While it was less available we were only giving the 28 & 34 week doses to 
primips, now apparently there is enough for multips too.
Sue
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
nothing"
Edmund Burke
- Original Message - 
From: "Naomi Wilkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


>I had this experience!  I am Rh neg and so is my hubby.  I was told I would

>still need to have anti-D during pregnancy.  Although the doctor never 
>stated that my husband may not have been the father of my child, that's 
>what was implied.  I refused and thankfully was saved from any further 
>harassment as I had my beautiful baby at home.
>
> Naomi
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
> Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
> 

--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread brendamanning 

Perhaps possible with a recessive gene ?
Autosomal dominant or not etc..
- Original Message - 
From: "Susan Cudlipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were both Rh-ve 
and yet their baby was Rh+ve.
Now was this a case of 'Father unknown' or a mistake, or is it possible 
for this to happen?
Both partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is 
question by the way!


I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom was
-ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of these 
pregnancies:- small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing, 
Elective C/S (no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with MRP(3rd).  As 
I am a blood donor (or used to be) I know that I never developed 
antibodies, although I did have anti-D at the appropriate times following 
potential risks - except for the APH and ECV attempt.


Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs of giving anti-D during 
pregnancy, it causes us no end of headaches in our busy ante-natal 
clinics. We are not allowed to keep a stock as it is 'too precious' to 
place into the hands of midwives ( who might presumably throw it away or 
sell it on the black market??)  So we have to go through a complicated 
ordering process which takes time away from our clients, and increases our 
work load - I hate it!
As to the seemingly generous supply of Rhogam - where does this come from? 
While it was less available we were only giving the 28 & 34 week doses to 
primips, now apparently there is enough for multips too.

Sue
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
nothing"

Edmund Burke
- Original Message - 
From: "Naomi Wilkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


I had this experience!  I am Rh neg and so is my hubby.  I was told I 
would still need to have anti-D during pregnancy.  Although the doctor 
never stated that my husband may not have been the father of my child, 
that's what was implied.  I refused and thankfully was saved from any 
further harassment as I had my beautiful baby at home.


Naomi






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






--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.


--
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




--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. 


--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread brendamanning 



Susan,

At present it comes from the USA, with all the attendant risks of donors who 
are paid to donate.


LOL at you ref to the disruption in running the A/N clinic, that's exactly 
how I feel !! As for the storing it in the clinic, God knows what we'd do 
with it eh? To quote a Professor of Obstetrics last year "can't have 
midwives running about like loose canons, they must be accountable & 
supervised" (with path forms, etc) We are a dangerous breed apparently.

Dear Lord !!
It's even more of a pain for the Homebirth women I attend, no end of hassle 
! Esp getting results form cord blood. Path "don't want to "to tell the 
results to the parents as they 'may get it wrong' !! Like the parents don't 
have a vested interest in getting it exactly right


Brenda

- Original Message - 
From: "Susan Cudlipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were both Rh-ve 
and yet their baby was Rh+ve.
Now was this a case of 'Father unknown' or a mistake, or is it possible 
for this to happen?
Both partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is 
question by the way!


I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom was
-ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of these 
pregnancies:- small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing, 
Elective C/S (no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with MRP(3rd).  As 
I am a blood donor (or used to be) I know that I never developed 
antibodies, although I did have anti-D at the appropriate times following 
potential risks - except for the APH and ECV attempt.


Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs of giving anti-D during 
pregnancy, it causes us no end of headaches in our busy ante-natal 
clinics. We are not allowed to keep a stock as it is 'too precious' to 
place into the hands of midwives ( who might presumably throw it away or 
sell it on the black market??)  So we have to go through a complicated 
ordering process which takes time away from our clients, and increases our 
work load - I hate it!
As to the seemingly generous supply of Rhogam - where does this come from? 
While it was less available we were only giving the 28 & 34 week doses to 
primips, now apparently there is enough for multips too.

Sue
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
nothing"

Edmund Burke
----- Original Message - 
From: "Naomi Wilkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


I had this experience!  I am Rh neg and so is my hubby.  I was told I 
would still need to have anti-D during pregnancy.  Although the doctor 
never stated that my husband may not have been the father of my child, 
that's what was implied.  I refused and thankfully was saved from any 
further harassment as I had my beautiful baby at home.


Naomi






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






--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.


--
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




--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. 


--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread Fiona Rumble 



Both parents must have had one gene for 
each Rh typing and passed on their recessive gene so that bub got two 
copies of positive and therefore was positive
Regards Fiona Rumble

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Susan 
  Cudlipp 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 12:45 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh 
anti-D
  At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were 
  both Rh-ve and yet their baby was Rh+ve.Now was this a case of 'Father 
  unknown' or a mistake, or is it possible for this to happen?Both 
  partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is question by 
  the way!I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom 
  was-ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of these 
  pregnancies:- small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing, 
  Elective C/S (no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with 
  MRP(3rd).  As I am a blood donor (or used to be) I know that I never 
  developed antibodies, although I did have anti-D at the appropriate times 
  following potential risks - except for the APH and ECV 
  attempt.Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs of giving anti-D 
  during pregnancy, it causes us no end of headaches in our busy ante-natal 
  clinics. We are not allowed to keep a stock as it is 'too precious' to 
  place into the hands of midwives ( who might presumably throw it away or 
  sell it on the black market??)  So we have to go through a 
  complicated ordering process which takes time away from our clients, and 
  increases our work load - I hate it!As to the seemingly generous 
  supply of Rhogam - where does this come from? While it was less available 
  we were only giving the 28 & 34 week doses to primips, now apparently 
  there is enough for multips too.Sue"The only thing necessary for the 
  triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"Edmund Burke- 
  Original Message - From: "Naomi Wilkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  <ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au>Sent: 
  Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PMSubject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh 
  anti-D>I had this experience!  I am Rh neg and so is my 
  hubby.  I was told I would >still need to have anti-D during 
  pregnancy.  Although the doctor never >stated that my husband may 
  not have been the father of my child, that's >what was implied.  I 
  refused and thankfully was saved from any further >harassment as I had 
  my beautiful baby at home.>> 
  Naomi>>>>>>>>>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>>>>>>>> 
  --> This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.> Visit 
  <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to 
  subscribe or unsubscribe.>>> -- > 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>> --This mailing list is sponsored by ACE 
  Graphics.Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to 
  subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread Susan Cudlipp 
At the risk of sounding stupid, I remember a couple who were both Rh-ve and 
yet their baby was Rh+ve.
Now was this a case of 'Father unknown' or a mistake, or is it possible for 
this to happen?
Both partners seemed quite sure that the parentage could not be is question 
by the way!


I'm also Rh-ve and have had 3 bubs, one of whom was
-ve.  I had several risky episodes during the course of these pregnancies:- 
small APH, attempted ECV (failed), Chorionic villus testing, Elective C/S 
(no 1), 2 VBAC's, and a retained placenta with MRP(3rd).  As I am a blood 
donor (or used to be) I know that I never developed antibodies, although I 
did have anti-D at the appropriate times following potential risks - except 
for the APH and ECV attempt.


Quite apart from the moral rights and wrongs of giving anti-D during 
pregnancy, it causes us no end of headaches in our busy ante-natal clinics. 
We are not allowed to keep a stock as it is 'too precious' to place into the 
hands of midwives ( who might presumably throw it away or sell it on the 
black market??)  So we have to go through a complicated ordering process 
which takes time away from our clients, and increases our work load - I hate 
it!
As to the seemingly generous supply of Rhogam - where does this come from? 
While it was less available we were only giving the 28 & 34 week doses to 
primips, now apparently there is enough for multips too.

Sue
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do 
nothing"

Edmund Burke
- Original Message - 
From: "Naomi Wilkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D


I had this experience!  I am Rh neg and so is my hubby.  I was told I would 
still need to have anti-D during pregnancy.  Although the doctor never 
stated that my husband may not have been the father of my child, that's 
what was implied.  I refused and thankfully was saved from any further 
harassment as I had my beautiful baby at home.


Naomi






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






--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.


--
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




--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread Alesa Koziol 



Absolutely
Alesa 
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  brendamanning 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:14 
PM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh 
anti-D
  
  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 
  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 !
   

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread 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 
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.
 
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 d

Re: [ozmidwifery] RH - Anti D

2005-07-26 Thread Denise Hynd 



Thank you 
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: 
  Michelle Windsor 
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:57 
PM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] RH - Anti 
  D
  
  Having done a bit of research on it recently for our birth centre women 
  it seems that only 1.5% of negative women will become isoimmunized during 
  pregnancy.  And that figure includes a large proportion who are 
  mismanaged and not given Anti-D when potential sensitizing events occur eg. 
  bleeding, ectopics, abdominal trauma.  So the real figure would be much 
  less.  It seems total overkill to treat all women for a problem that 
  98.5% of them won't encounter.  The other thing is that Anti-D does cross 
  the placenta and there are no studies on the long term effects on the 
  baby.  In Ireland in the 80's (before complete blood screening) there 
  were women who ended up with Hep C through Anti-D.  It makes me wonder if 
  in the future they will detect other blood borne diseases which were 
  transmitted via Anti D.  Just my thoughts
   
  Cheers
  MichelleTanya Fleming 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  







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.
   
  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

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread sally williams 






 
 
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 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.
 
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 Ti

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread Naomi Wilkin 
I had this experience!  I am Rh neg and so is my hubby.  I was told I would 
still need to have anti-D during pregnancy.  Although the doctor never 
stated that my husband may not have been the father of my child, that's 
what was implied.  I refused and thankfully was saved from any further 
harassment as I had my beautiful baby at home.


Naomi






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






--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D

2005-07-26 Thread brendamanning 



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 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.
   
  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

RE: [ozmidwifery] RH -

2005-07-26 Thread Ken WArd 



I 
personally believe anti d or rhogram during pregnancy is a bit over the top. 
Provided the woman has it following each pregnancy, or if there is a bleed 
during the pregnancy, ok.  Iso-immunization is now so rare that we "ran 
out" of anti d because there were insufficient people with antibodies. It was 
very scarce, and we had to be careful who we gave it to. Now there's rhogram, a 
seemingly endless supply, and all neg. women are coherced into having it during 
the pregnancy. It's a bit like vit k, hep b vac etc. Of bebfit to some.  I 
suggest some reading, plenty of info on the internet, and make your own 
decision

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  brendamanningSent: Monday, 25 July 2005 11:39 PMTo: 
  ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: Re: [ozmidwifery] RH 
  -
  Hi Jo,
  Directed at your Mothers enquiry:
   
  There really isn't another 'point of view', just the 
  facts.
   
  The management of Rh Neg women during pregnancy has 
  altered in the past 1-2-years. Possibly this has caused 
  confusion because your Dr is suggesting a new strategy which he 
  hasn't fully explained. Also we accustomed to antibodies being a good 
  & positive thing, in discussing the RH factor it's messy because they are 
  an undesirable thing. Hard to get the head around! The following 
  is routine management.
   
  I wonder if it's clearly understood that the 
  idea of Anti-D or Rhogam is to prevent the formation 
  of antibodies. In this regard you have done 
  all the right things as you have no antibodies 
  present in your blood. If you have antibodies 
  to the rhesus factor in your blood you have become 
  "iso-immunised" (i.e. 
  immunised against the RH factor). By giving women who are RH Neg Anti-D or 
  Rhogam during their pregnancy (at 28 & 34 weeks) any undetected small 
  bleed that may have occurred unbeknownst to the mother will not affect her 
  antibody status. 
  It is designed to prevent her body forming antibodies to the unborn baby's blood (as s/he has 
  an unknown status, i.e. we are unable to determine whether the baby has or 
  doesn't have the RH factor until s/he is born & we test the cord 
  blood).
   
  The big picture is to wipe-out iso-immunisation from the population & the most 
  common time for it to occur is with pregnancy ( it can occur at other times as 
  well i.e. an incorrect blood transfusion). So eventually no women in Aust 
  will be iso-immunised.
   
  Of course you would never put you baby at risk, 
  that's why you are checking you are doing the appropriate thing. You are being 
  a responsible mother, checking things out before going ahead because someone 
  said "because that is just what's done". Good on you !
  You are in the perfect position to have Anti-D/Rhogam 
  as you are NOT iso-immunised, so long as you have no objections to 
  receiving a blood product, you are following the presently recommended 
  protocol.
   
  Tech Info at:
  http://www.transfuse.com.au
   
  Hope this helps.
  Brenda M
  http://www.themidwife.com.au
   
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
jo 

To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 

Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:49 
PM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] RH -


Hi wise 
midwives,
Below is a question 
received through the HAS website. Could anyone please help with an 
answer.
Cheers
Jo 
hunter
 
Hi
Hope you could help with 
another point of view please.
I am 28 weeks pregnant I 
have a 5 year old & 2 year old and had a missed miscarriage on the 9th 
November last year, after each child I have had the RhoGAM injection 
including with the miscarriage before I had a D & C (11week 5 days) 
although baby had stopped growing at 8 1/2 
weeks.
I am having a home birth 
with a reg midwife and went to the doctor to ask for blood form to have the 
babies cord blood tested at birth to see if I need the RH 
injection.
I am now being told that 
I have to have the injection again now at 28weeks and 34 weeks regardless 
!
This did not happen with 
my 2nd child and there are no antibodies showing at any blood test 
.
Why ? all the doctor 
will tell me is because that is what is done.
I would never put the 
baby at risk and would like another opinion.
Many 
thanks
 

Re: [ozmidwifery] RH - Anti D

2005-07-25 Thread Michelle Windsor 
Having done a bit of research on it recently for our birth centre women it seems that only 1.5% of negative women will become isoimmunized during pregnancy.  And that figure includes a large proportion who are mismanaged and not given Anti-D when potential sensitizing events occur eg. bleeding, ectopics, abdominal trauma.  So the real figure would be much less.  It seems total overkill to treat all women for a problem that 98.5% of them won't encounter.  The other thing is that Anti-D does cross the placenta and there are no studies on the long term effects on the baby.  In Ireland in the 80's (before complete blood screening) there were women who ended up with Hep C through Anti-D.  It makes me wonder if in the future they will detect other blood borne diseases which were transmitted via Anti D.  Just my thoughts
 
Cheers
MichelleTanya Fleming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:








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.
 
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
		Do you Yahoo!? 
 
Messenger beta: Free worldwide PC to PC calls and a special headset offer!

Re: [ozmidwifery] RH -

2005-07-25 Thread brendamanning 



Hi Jo,
Directed at your Mothers enquiry:
 
There really isn't another 'point of view', just the 
facts.
 
The management of Rh Neg women during pregnancy has 
altered in the past 1-2-years. Possibly this has caused 
confusion because your Dr is suggesting a new strategy which he hasn't 
fully explained. Also we accustomed to antibodies being a good & 
positive thing, in discussing the RH factor it's messy because they are an 
undesirable thing. Hard to get the head around! The following is routine 
management.
 
I wonder if it's clearly understood that the idea 
of Anti-D or Rhogam is to prevent the formation of antibodies. In this regard you have done all the right 
things as you have no antibodies present 
in your blood. If you have antibodies to the 
rhesus factor in your blood you have become 
"iso-immunised" (i.e. 
immunised against the RH factor). By giving women who are RH Neg Anti-D or 
Rhogam during their pregnancy (at 28 & 34 weeks) any undetected small bleed 
that may have occurred unbeknownst to the mother will not affect her antibody status. 
It is designed to prevent her body forming antibodies to the unborn baby's blood (as s/he has an 
unknown status, i.e. we are unable to determine whether the baby has or doesn't 
have the RH factor until s/he is born & we test the cord 
blood).
 
The big picture is to wipe-out iso-immunisation from the population & the most common 
time for it to occur is with pregnancy ( it can occur at other times as well 
i.e. an incorrect blood transfusion). So eventually no women in Aust will 
be iso-immunised.
 
Of course you would never put you baby at risk, that's 
why you are checking you are doing the appropriate thing. You are being a 
responsible mother, checking things out before going ahead because someone said 
"because that is just what's done". Good on you !
You are in the perfect position to have Anti-D/Rhogam 
as you are NOT iso-immunised, 
so long as you have no objections to receiving a blood product, you are 
following the presently recommended protocol.
 
Tech Info at:
http://www.transfuse.com.au
 
Hope this helps.
Brenda M
http://www.themidwife.com.au
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  jo 
  
  To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 
  
  Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:49 
PM
  Subject: [ozmidwifery] RH -
  
  
  Hi wise 
  midwives,
  Below is a question 
  received through the HAS website. Could anyone please help with an 
  answer.
  Cheers
  Jo 
  hunter
   
  Hi
  Hope you could help with 
  another point of view please.
  I am 28 weeks pregnant I 
  have a 5 year old & 2 year old and had a missed miscarriage on the 9th 
  November last year, after each child I have had the RhoGAM injection including 
  with the miscarriage before I had a D & C (11week 5 days) although baby 
  had stopped growing at 8 1/2 weeks.
  I am having a home birth 
  with a reg midwife and went to the doctor to ask for blood form to have the 
  babies cord blood tested at birth to see if I need the RH 
  injection.
  I am now being told that I 
  have to have the injection again now at 28weeks and 34 weeks regardless 
  !
  This did not happen with 
  my 2nd child and there are no antibodies showing at any blood test 
  .
  Why ? all the doctor will 
  tell me is because that is what is done.
  I would never put the baby 
  at risk and would like another opinion.
  Many 
  thanks