or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rhogam - Page 5

post #81 of 116
I've read this whole thread and learned a lot of new things. However, it's really outside the scope of the Vaccination forum since it deals more with the efficacy and necessity of the shot before, during, and after birth rather than issues it might hold in common with other Vaccination discussions (mercury as a preservative, for example.) Therefore, I'm bumping you over to Birth and Beyond.
post #82 of 116
Thank you AnnetteMarie for moving this here, b/c I am RH- and I don't really visit the Vax forum that much yet, and I am jut about at the point where I "need" to get the first shot... I am going to read through this thread more thoroughly for sure!!! And thanks to those who have posted b/c I knew very little about this...
post #83 of 116
Quote:
should we do a poll (maybe a new thread to get ppl to click on it) to see how many get the shot both times, just after or not at all????
Knowing what I do now (and hindsight is 20/20) I would NOT get the shot until after my child was born and tested Rh positive, and only then after some serious consideration. I had 3 shots of winrho during my first pg, all given by "competent" medical professionals. I was sensitized anyway. And I lost my first child at 40 weeks for unknown reasons (pathology tests showed a number of curious things happened including a massive inflammation of the placenta for again, unknown causes). I did go through a second pg (this one a sensitized one) and delivered a healthy (albeit slightly jaundiced) baby. I know sensitization is not desirable but it is also not the end of childbearing if it takes place. So, just my 2 cents but if I were to do it all again, knowing about how rhogam functions (the IgG) and its components (based upon the human plasma and possible infectious agents), I'd be more cautious about agreeing so readily to the shots.
post #84 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmieV View Post
I had no idea it was a blood product the first time I had it either. Nice "informed consent", huh?
I had had six shots of it before I knew.
post #85 of 116
Is it possible to have a + baby if both parents are -?
post #86 of 116
Asked a dr. about this just today as I was curious - that the anti-D is recommended here during pregnancy, but isn't it a bad thing to have anti-D antibodies and an Rh+ baby inside?
Her answer was that the amount given is enough to talk one's body out of producing its own antibodies, but not enough to cause significant hemolysis in the baby at all. Further explained that Rh- people can be transfused with Rh+ blood as long as it is an acceptable proportion of total blood volume, and that even isoimmunized mothers do not always produce enough antibodies to cause problems with an Rh+ baby - this is why an isoimmunized person would have no treatment as long as titers were okay.

And last of all, I believe anti-D is made from the blood of deliberately Rh-sensitized males, not from accidentally sensitized women.

Editing to add: no, being neg. is recessive in my understanding, so two Rh- parents shouldn't be able to produce an Rh+ offspring. But something is telling me there may be more to it than that and I can't remember what...real helpful, right?
post #87 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebirthbaby View Post
Is it possible to have a + baby if both parents are -?
I did not think it was but over many discussions of Rhogam and RH status apparently it is possible although rare.
post #88 of 116
Okay so I have read the whole thread at last and this is where I currently am: : More from my own mental sluggishness in trying to understand these different scientific terms and conditions than anything-- I feel like I'm rereading a difficult passage of my college science textbook, . I guess I have a lot more careful reading to do to decide about this.

My mom keeps telling me to double check b/c she's RH- but has the Du/ffy factor, so it was never an issue for her. I would NOT put it past my old OB's office to have completely missed this point. Also, I have GOT to get heel-dragging DH to finally get his stupid blood type from his old doctor or get tested, so we know where we stand!

Thanks so much to those who have posted here-- I've learned so much already about this thing I didn't understand at all (beyond what the drug co pamphlet-- not insert, just propaganda papers--told me).
post #89 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebirthbaby View Post
Is it possible to have a + baby if both parents are -?
my MW gave me this link when I asked the same question

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=114
post #90 of 116
bump
post #91 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spy View Post
I am curious what people used to do before any sort of Rhogam. Rh negative women are not exactly rare.
True and before Rhogam, their babies died. My greeat aunt had this. One baby who was largely healthy, one still birth, 3 mischarages, 2 more still births, one healthy baby, 4 miscarriages. She also needed a blood transfusion after an accident and almost died.

I had two doses with ds (0+) and I will have a dose at 28 weeks (2 more weeks).
post #92 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by trini View Post
Can I jump on this thread and ask a related question?

Is it necessary to do it during the pg AND at delivery? Would it be effective to just do it at delivery, therefore preventing it from affecting the baby in any way?
Routine immunisation during pregnancy reduces the rate from around 1.5% to around 0.7%. This is even with immunisation after bleeds/trauma. The theory is that micro bleeds cause sensitisation and no-one is any the wiser.

Routiine prenatal Rhogam jabs were started in the UK. The NHS is reknowned for thorough cost-benefit analyses. No "wow, the drug companies are sellign something, it must be useful" from them. And Rhogam is in drastically short supply, due to the difficulty in finding sensitised people these days. There's hardly a need to drum up business.

It IS a nasty jab, in that its derived from human blood products, but it's necessary. I had it.

And I'm another example of immunisation during pregnancy. At birth of my first pregnancy, with no known bleeds, my baby had anti-A antibodies from me. I was sensitised to her blood with absolutely no symptoms. Luckily we're both Rh- (ABO sensitisation is less serious).
post #93 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabe View Post
Routiine prenatal Rhogam jabs were started in the UK.
i'm not rh- but my friend is which is why I clicked this thread...and I thought I read earlier in the thread that the UK DOESN'T do antenatal Rhogam shots?
post #94 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSAX View Post
True and before Rhogam, their babies died.
If Rh- women are so common, then it seems like it would've affected the population more over the years of evolution. If all their babies died . . . non-reproducing individuals get bred out because their genes aren't reproduced to the next generation. Maybe it's still around because it's recessive, but it still seems rather odd that the shot hasn't been around that long but Rh- women and their kids have been around evolving for years.
Sorry I guess I'm just rambling. I really don't believe the shot is necessary.
post #95 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneKnight View Post
If Rh- women are so common, then it seems like it would've affected the population more over the years of evolution. If all their babies died . . . non-reproducing individuals get bred out because their genes aren't reproduced to the next generation. Maybe it's still around because it's recessive, but it still seems rather odd that the shot hasn't been around that long but Rh- women and their kids have been around evolving for years.
Sorry I guess I'm just rambling. I really don't believe the shot is necessary.
What you are saying it only partially true, though. The issue is not Rh- women per se ONLY Rh- women who have Rh+ partners and only when they produce an Rh+ baby. Rh- is not nearly as common as Rh+ and it varies among populations (such that historically in a group with high Rh- you would also have a height change of having an Rh- breeding partner and in groups with low rh- the likelihood of an rh- woman and an rh+ man with an rh+ baby would be much, much lower). Rh- people continue to reproduce with out problems, passing rh- traits in hetero and homo forms onto their children and their children and so forth. My grandfather is rh-, his wife + and they had 2 rh- chilren. Their rh- son's both had kids (4 total) and of those kids one (me) is rh-. Had I choosen as rh- mating partner, I would not have any issues, but I have a partner who is rh+, and a child now who is also rh+ (although he likely carries rh- as a recessive in the hetero form).

So, the shot is not necessary per se. The species (and even rh negativity) would survive without its. But, there is no arguing with the fact that many, many women, my great aunt included, had multiple miscarriages and stillbirths before the shot was available.
post #96 of 116
post #97 of 116
Bump
Great info here, though I am still reeling from it all.
post #98 of 116
I'm glad this was in the Birth forum, as I don't go over to Vax that often anymore (now that we've quit). I've been going back and forth on prenatal Rhogam and have now decided to wait and only get it if this baby is + after birth.
post #99 of 116

Get Rhogam!

I became sensitized just 11 weeks into my first pregnancy after being involved in a roll-over accident. They had preformed an ultrasound at the hospital but they hadn't noticed any bleeding so I was let go. Then I notified my doctor and he said since the hospital had discharged me, that I was fine. I didn't know anything about rhogam at that point, so I didn't know to ask for it. At 28 weeks they discovered their error. I was sent to a high risk doctor and monitored very closely. However at 38 weeks my daughter was born severely anemic. After a few weeks in the NICU she was finally sent home. My second daughter was also affected but by only one of my anti-bodies so she only stayed 3 weeks in the NICU. Then I became pregnant again. At 18 weeks my son was allready severely anemic and had to have a PUBS/transfusion. Then another a week later, followed by two more 2 weeks apart. On the last transfusion, something went wrong and my son was born at 28 weeks. Now he is 34 weeks and he is still having transfusions and of course still in the NICU.

So the moral behind this story...get the shot! I wish that I had been able to get it.
post #100 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by chanderann View Post
I became sensitized just 11 weeks into my first pregnancy after being involved in a roll-over accident. They had preformed an ultrasound at the hospital but they hadn't noticed any bleeding so I was let go. Then I notified my doctor and he said since the hospital had discharged me, that I was fine. I didn't know anything about rhogam at that point, so I didn't know to ask for it. At 28 weeks they discovered their error. I was sent to a high risk doctor and monitored very closely. However at 38 weeks my daughter was born severely anemic. After a few weeks in the NICU she was finally sent home. My second daughter was also affected but by only one of my anti-bodies so she only stayed 3 weeks in the NICU. Then I became pregnant again. At 18 weeks my son was allready severely anemic and had to have a PUBS/transfusion. Then another a week later, followed by two more 2 weeks apart. On the last transfusion, something went wrong and my son was born at 28 weeks. Now he is 34 weeks and he is still having transfusions and of course still in the NICU.

So the moral behind this story...get the shot! I wish that I had been able to get it.

I am so sorry this happened to you mama. Really!! The moral of that story though is educate yourself so you can get the shot it needed. You needed the shot at 11 weeks, and would have been affected by the 28 week one already anyway. It wouldn't have helped. I am so sorry mama. They should have done it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Birth and Beyond