or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RH Neg question

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Should the baby of an RH Neg mom have the cord clamped sooner?  Does babies blood remain in Placenta?  Can it be removed in anyway before encapsulation?  Is it ok to consume placenta of RH Neg mom?  Can it hurt baby?

post #2 of 18

Although I haven't researched it in a few years.......to my knowledge, rh neg issues are more for following pregnancies than the current baby. 

I am rh neg and I don't do the shot anymore. I did it with my first two kids (hospital and birthing center birth) but have not done it for my last two UCs....and I don't plan to with this one either.  I had done extensive research on it when pg with my last and the chances of ACTUALLY having an issue was soooooo insanely small that I don't see much of a reason to make a fuss about it.

But I can't answer your question with scientific research.....as I never even looked to see if the cord should be clamped sooner. Although I don't leave it on for too long anyway. But I would not *think* it would be an issue.......but I am sure you can find your answers with a quick google search =)

post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 

Thanks for your response.  Did you encapsule your placenta?

post #4 of 18

I did not....and I am not the most knowledgeable person about that......but I wouldn't think it would matter??? But that is purely just a guess!

post #5 of 18

I am with BlessedOne. I am RH neg. I used to do the shot, realized that the chances of an issue are very small. However, as it turns out, all of my babies have been neg. so far too so I have had no need to wrry anyway. I did order a bood typing kit for this LO, just in case. If the birth itself gives us an y reason to believe that blood may have been mixed, we can see if the blood types would be an issue.....but a far as the placenta...I have no idea.Since my babies have turned out neg. I ave never had to think about it- but my last midwife, who was well-experienced didn't seem to think there was any reason to cut the cord any sooner bc "just in case" before doing the blood typing. Very interesting question though...I may have to go do some research myself !

post #6 of 18

Oh, I'd love more info on this. I'm Rh- and did consume my placenta last time around with an Rh+ baby, but I never thought of the risk and my midwife (who knew of my plan) never said anything. I didn't have rhogam during pregnancy but I did after the birth.

post #7 of 18

If you are having a UC, how would you type the baby's blood after birth?  I am planning one for my 3rd that I am 6 wks pg with now, but I am rh- and pretty sure that dh is rh+.

post #8 of 18

DUmb question on my part but why would you need to clamp sooner? I am also RH- and DH is +.

post #9 of 18

Just a side note to this I guess.  I am rh- and hubby is rh+.  I did have the shot with our first baby, but it didn't work.  Turns out that can happen on very rare occasions.  Now with this baby I'm isoimmunized.  Guess I should have refused the shot after all.  All the extra concern and testing has not been fun.  Thankfully baby is fine and due in 2 weeks!

post #10 of 18

I have been told (though I don't have references for it) that consuming the placenta, either fresh or encapsulated, is not a problem because when it passes through your digestive system the problematic substances are altered.  That makes sense to me.

post #11 of 18

cord clamping makes no difference.  i'm rh- and i took my encapsulated placenta with both children.  one had my blood type and the other o+ like his father. 

either way, consuming the placenta in this way is not going to cause you problems, it's much like eating a rare steak, in that you're not going to become sensitized to cow blood and have future reactions.  eating it is much different than what happens with your immune system when you react to the + type while having subsequent pregnancies.  perfectly safe.
 

eta: i did receive the rhogam with my first pregnancy and m/cs that i had.  i didn't have it with the last child because i had my tubes tied.  i encourage you to research about the rhogam.   there are virtually no side effects, no really bad preservatives and it can prevent some awful heartbreak. i have never seen a reason not to get that.  we don't fully vax but i believe the rhogam is pretty important if you can ever get pregnant again.

post #12 of 18

for the people that indicate they don't get the rhogam, i am curious about why not?  i've really never heard of a reason to not get it, and am curious about the decision to decline it..

post #13 of 18
Why not rhogam?  This is why not:

I too am Rh neg. I got the shot when I was pregnant with DS. I was oblivious to the case against at that point. He ended up being rh neg as well so it was all for naught. When I was pregnant with DD I was a bit more discerning and had read some concerning things about it so I did extensive research. I decided not to get it with her unless she ended up being Rh pos and then I would only get the shot after the birth. She was Rh pos and so I got the shot after she was born. In hind sight... I am still unsettled about having gotten in even with her being positive. We had an uncomplicated home birth, delivered the placenta in it's own time and all that so I just don't know if it was worth the risk. I will probably never know. When assessing the risk of anything that is going into your body, always ALWAYS read the package insert. I have included a link to it. If you fully read it you will get a grasp of some of the risks. It contains human blood products so they cannot totally ensure that no viruses or other infectious agents. They use donated blood plasma to make it. I used to donate plasma myself, so I know a good bit about the process. I was broke and in college and needed the 60 bucks a week they gave me for it. That is the typical plasma donor, someone who reeeeeeally needs 60 extra dollars per week. Keep that in mind. In the year and a half that I donated on a regular basis I was tested twice- TWICE! for HIV and other communicable diseases. I donated every 3 or 4 days and the only screening I went thru each time besides those two test were vitals checks and a questionnaire that the tech would speed thru so fast and you just say no no no no to all the questions in order to donate. By the looks of people who donated there, some were college students like me. A few were older adults who looked pretty clean... The rest (read: majority) were an unsavory lot of smelly, dirty looking folks who could easily have been drug users or whatever.... And just lied on the questionnaire. 
Now.. Yes the plasma gets filtered.... But they say right there on the package insert that they can't guarantee that viruses aren't in it.  That risk alone is reason enough for me not to get it, but there are plenty of other risks. It contains Polysorbate 80. I have provided some links about that one too. And there's more... If you do the digging to find it. But I think I have sufficiently answered the "why not" question. 

Rhogam package insert: www.bdipharma.com/Package%20Insert/Ortho/RhoGam_02-2008.pdf
Polysorbate 80 info:
The article starts out about flu vaccine that contains Polysorbate 80, but he goes on to speak in detail about the ingredient itself.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/15/fluarix-flu-vaccine-that-can-cause-infertility.aspx
And another:
http://suite101.com/article/polysorbate-80-causes-infertility-a60320
post #14 of 18

Renaissance, i will ignore the classism in your post and focus upon the conversation about the rhogam. 

 

has there ever been an instance of anyone getting a blood borne illness from rhogam?  because it was my understanding that the product was extremely filtered.  i couldn't find any information about anyone having ever received an illness via the injection, and i did quite a bit of research. 

 

i also couldn't find a reliable, scholarly resource that spoke to the polysorbate 80 issue; mercola articles don't qualify, in my opinion, as reliable or scholarly research.  i wouldn't let my college students use those as resources for research. 

 

if those are the only concerns, versus the articles i was able to locate that describe both what happens in subsequent pregnancies with sensitization, including quote:

"hydrops fetalis has a high risk of mortality. Long-term problems can result from severe cases, including:

 

and the information points to sensitization being preventable, through rhogam. 

i will say again that we don't vax our child, so i understand the concerns and also how to read the insert that accompanies medication. 

 

i just wondered if anyone else had anything about why not to do the rhogam?

 

 

eta: i guess i can't ignore the classism.  are you really saying that you think that poor = drug users and "clean, college" students don't?  or that older people don't use drugs?  or have unprotected sex?  maybe you want to use your research skills to read a little about how both drug use and potential to have contracted STD's cuts across class and income lines. 

post #15 of 18

First of all, there is no classism in my post. You are reading between the lines and pulling something out of my post that simply isn't there. And you're misquoting me as well. I never equated clean with college students, though you quoted that I did. I said "some were college students like me. A few were older adults who looked pretty clean..."  If anything I was using "college students" as a word of caution. Many college students experiment with drugs and are notoriously promiscuous. But I thought those things went without saying. I shouldn't have assumed. Second, I specifically said the older adults "looked pretty clean" as a way of saying, they LOOKED clean- but you never can tell. I have an aunt who is way upper class. She is very clean and professional looking. But guess what? She is a user. And she's dying of Hep C. So no. I definitely was never saying that poor=drug user or that older people don't use or have unprotected sex. I know better and I don't need my "research skills" for that one, but I was posting about my decision not to use rhogam, not about social issues. 

Additionally I pointed out how poor I was at the time. (for the record, I am by no means wealthy now, but considering I have a roof over my head and some food in my fridge I won't claim to be poor though we do qualify for WIC benefits) And I have never been a drug user. But when you are laying on a gurney donating your plasma 5 ft away from the next gurney where a visibly dirty (like, dirt scales on skin and clothing, matted hair, torn clothing, holes in their shoes) person is also donating and you can smell that they haven't bathed in quite some time, and they are fidgety and keeping glancing at the door, you do start to wonder if that person is fit to donate. The place employed a security officer to stand at the door and on more than one occasion I witnessed them having to escort someone out of the bldg when they became too agitated with the wait time or for having arguments with others in the waiting room (it was a busy center and the wait time was often 2 hours before being allowed to donate).

If a board certified physician isn't scholarly enough for you (talk about CLASSISM), I doubt anything I can come up with will please you, but try this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8473002

 

You mentioned that you don't fully vaccinate... It's all about weighing risks and deciding what you personally believe is worth the risk for you and yours. The rhogam package insert states:

"RhoGAM and MICRhoGAM are made from human plasma and may carry a risk of

transmitting infectious agents, e.g., viruses, and theoretically the Creutzfeldt-Jakob

disease (CJD) agent. The risk that such products will transmit an infectious agent has

been reduced by screening plasma donors for prior exposure to certain viruses, by

testing plasma for the presence of certain current virus infections and by using pathogen

removal and inactivation techniques during the manufacturing process. All of the above

steps are designed to increase product safety by reducing the risk of pathogen

transmission. Despite these measures, such products can still potentially transmit

disease. There is also the possibility that unknown infectious agents may be present in

such products"

For me, it's a risk I am not comfortable with based on my own personal experiences. Not classism. You stated in your post "for the people that indicate they don't get the rhogam, i am curious about why not? i've really never heard of a reason to not get it, and am curious about the decision to decline it.." And I supplied you with my reasoning. Plain and simple. If you were merely curious why not just take my answer for what it said rather than reading in malice where there is none? Your response to my post made me feel attacked for something that isn't even true about me. You were curious and I gave MY reasons for MY decisions and you attacked me for it. I didn't attack you for your decision to get the shot. I simply stated why I chose to wait in my second pregnancy to see if the child was positive and why I would hesitate in future pregnancies to get it at all. Don't tell people you are "just curious" when you then turn around and ambush someone for sharing their personal experience just because it happens to be something you don't personally agree with.

post #16 of 18

you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renaissance31 View Post

That is the typical plasma donor, someone who reeeeeeally needs 60 extra dollars per week. Keep that in mind. In the year and a half that I donated on a regular basis I was tested twice- TWICE! for HIV and other communicable diseases. I donated every 3 or 4 days and the only screening I went thru each time besides those two test were vitals checks and a questionnaire that the tech would speed thru so fast and you just say no no no no to all the questions in order to donate. By the looks of people who donated there, some were college students like me. A few were older adults who looked pretty clean... The rest (read: majority) were an unsavory lot of smelly, dirty looking folks who could easily have been drug users or whatever.... And just lied on the questionnaire. 
 

so how other than you implying that poverty = increased drug use is a way to interpret this? 

 

also.  from the rhogam insert: A 40-year history of safety and reliability
– No documented cases of viral transmission

 

so the Homeless People Germs really aren't at issue here. 

 

rhogam shots contain 0.01% polysorbate 80 (from the insert) and the cancer study you cite used 0.1 ml/rat to study the effects. 

on the average a rat in a lab weighs 250–300 g for females, and 450–520 g for males (we'll just have to trust wikipedia on this one for the sake of brevity)

 

so a one or two time shot in a human weighing, presumably, around 100-200+ pounds and the filtering of a placenta isn't exactly the same as 1/10 of a ml of straight up polysorbate80 in an animal that weighs around 400 grams. 

 

as for Mercola, isn't he an aids denialist?  as in he believes that aids isn't real?  i just can't accept anything from that website as legitimate, which is not classist in the least.  it's literacy. 

 

whereas these stats:

an rh- mama has a 10-15% chance of sensitization upon delivery, though she is more likely to deliver a non negative baby (60%)

if you are sensitized and the next baby you have is +, you are looking at amnio tests, many blood draws, and a huge risk of harm to the baby.  some of that can be: (from here)

 

The rate of hemolysis determines whether the nature of HDN is mild, moderate, or severe. In mild cases, the small increase in the rate of hemolysis is tolerated by the fetus. At birth and during the newborn period, symptoms include a mild anemia and jaundice, both of which may resolve without treatment.

In cases where there is a greater increase in the rate of hemolysis, the level of bilirubin may still remain low during the pregnancy because of the ability of the placenta to remove bilirubin from the fetal circulation. However, after birth the neonate's immature liver is unable to metabolize the increased amount of bilirubin that instead accumulates in his or her blood. Within 24 hours of birth, the level of bilirubin may rise dramatically. If levels continue to rise, bilirubin may enter the brain to cause kernicterus, a potentially fatal condition that leaves permanent neurological damage in the babies that survive.

An even greater rapid and prolonged destruction of RBCs leads to severe anemia in the fetus. The liver, spleen, and other organs increase their production of RBCs to compensate for their loss. The drive to produce RBCs causes the liver and spleen to increase in size (hepatosplenomegaly), and liver dysfunction can occur. Immature RBCs (erythroblasts) spill into the circulation, giving rise to the alternative name of this disease, erythroblastosis fetalis. A complication of severe HDN is hydrops fetalis, in which the fetal tissues become swollen (edematous). This condition is usually fatal, either in utero or soon after birth.

post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by hildare View Post

 

so how other than you implying that poverty = increased drug use is a way to interpret this? 

 

 

 

I believe the words I used were "could easily have been" .... I said nothing about an "increased" chance that they were users - those were YOUR words. Words you assumed I meant, which I did not.

 

I don't understand how literacy has anything to do with you not accepting anything Mercola says as legitimate. But that is your own personal opinion. He IS board certified so they obviously don't have an issue with him and I have no issue with him, and I know plenty of others who have no issue. Granted, I know several people who don't agree, but they leave it at that. Disagreement. They don't bash him.

 

As to the amount of Polysorbate 80... that is irrelevant to me personally. I have a problem with the ingedient period based on the research I have done. I wouldn't take a few micrograms of poop and put it in my food because oh well it's only a little bit... no... So no matter how small the amount, I'm not ok with putting it in my body when I don't have too. There are cumulative effects of toxins in our bodies that have little been studied. Do you know how many things have Polysorbate 80 in them? Quite a lot. The Environmental Working Group rates it as a "moderate hazard" substance. http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/search.php?query=polysorbate+80 But I'm sure you have an issue with them too. I don't. So again, for me and my family, after careful reasearch, deliberation and discussion, we have decided that is something we want to aviod whenever possible.

 

And when you say

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hildare View Post

 

so the Homeless People Germs really aren't at issue here.

 

 

 

Acutally, I never said anything about "homeless people germs" ... but what you are saying is that they aren't an issue FOR YOU. For me, after personally seeing and spending time around the people who donate plasma on a several days per week basis for 18 months, it IS an issue for ME. It isn't about class. It is about the lack of proper screening and testing procedure at the three donation centers I have first hand knowledge of. Again, you said you were curious why someone would refuse, I answered, you attack. You aren't simply curious. You seem far more interested in tearing me down and forcing your own views on the matter on me and telling me that my views are wrong. Who are you to judge my decisions about what I chose not to put into my own body?

 

 

 

I don't feel it's a good use of my time to continue this discussion with you, so I will leave it at that.

post #18 of 18

delayed cord clamping is less likely to cause baby's blood to go in your body.
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Unassisted Childbirth