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 -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: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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
RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D
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
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. WhenI 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 usea 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.auTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-DDate: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:29:33 +1000Further to the discussion about anti-D, I was in clinics today and thesubject came up.Woman was Rh - and partner was also Rh -.Dr was happyfor her to skip anti-D.After she left he explained that in many instancesthey give it anyway.He said that the Blood typing system in common use isnot entirely accurate and that there can be a partially expressed Rh + thatreads as a negative.If this is the case, baby can still be Rh +, despiteparents both being negatives.I had not heard of this before.Lindsay-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G LemaySent: Friday, 29 July 2005 4:01 AMTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-DYes, mistakes can be made by hosp labs on the blood typing of thenewborn.Happened to me.Two neg parents, first child neg.Normally Iwouldn't have even checked the bld type of the 2nd child but the parentswanted the ABO group.Monogamous couple.Had to beg to have the labcheck again.Turned out they had made an error.Big apologies.Started me wondering how many other mistakes are made.Now, I buy EldonCards to type the Dad and newborn myself at home.It's really prettyeasy and these little kits make it idiot proof.They cost about $8Canadian andare well worth it.The hosp labs are a secondconfirmation afterwe do testing at home.Also, I hate to get into this because it gives me a headache but I wascorrected by a student about the idea that Rh neg is recessive.She dida wonderful, brainy presentation to the class to demonstrate that Rh negis dominant.I'm sorry I can't duplicate it, but think about it.TwoRh neg parents always have Rh neg offspring but two Rh pos parents canhave 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 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: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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-DAt 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"
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: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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. Leanne Wynne Midwife in charge of Women's Business Mildura Aboriginal Health Service Mob 0418 371862 -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored
Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D
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 parentshad a pos gene to pass on they would themselves be positive. The positive parentscan 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
Mmm... - Original Message - From: Kirsten Dobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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
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 http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
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.
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 babeis 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 theirpartners: your body your baby yourchoice. 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 necessityfor 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. 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
Re: [ozmidwifery] RH - Anti D
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. 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 las
Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D
The nottesting 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 babeis 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 theirpartners: your body your baby yourchoice. 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 necessityfor 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. 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
Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-D
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 nottesting 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 babeis 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 theirpartners: your body your baby yourchoice. 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 necessityfor 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. Inthe local
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 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
Both parents must have had one gene for eachRh typing andpassed 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.auSent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 4:20 PMSubject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Rh anti-DI 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. NaomiFunnily 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
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: 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 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
Perhaps possible with a recessive gene ? Autosomal dominant or not etc.. - Original Message - From: Susan Cudlipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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
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: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au 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
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. 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 Do you Yahoo!? Messenger beta: Free worldwide PC to PC calls and a special headset offer!
