blood rh(d) - or +

[em..]

hi, i have just found out i am A- think hubby is A+ and was wondering weither this will cause may probs/issues
have sort of looked about for info but was just wondering if any of you guys are in the same boat..

liz

[Artechim]

I think it mainly affects future pregnancies, they will give you a shot of Anti-D after the baby is born to make sure you don't have any antibodies that can affect future babies.

Here is a bit of stuff I found on the net:

If a Rh- woman has a Rh+ partner, it's very likely that their baby will be Rh+. This means that if her blood comes into contact with her baby's, she'll develop antibodies to it. This is unlikely to happen during a first pregnancy, but can happen when the baby is being born, when some of its blood may get into her circulation. It can also happen if she has a miscarriage or a termination or, occasionally, after an amniocentesis or CVS test. If it does happen, the woman will produce antibodies to the Rh+ blood. They won't affect her first baby at all, but they'll stay in her blood and if she becomes pregnant again, problems can arise.

If a Rh- woman who has antibodies in her blood is pregnant with a Rh+ baby, it's possible for her antibodies to pass through to the baby and damage or even destroy the baby's red blood cells. This can lead to the baby becoming anaemic or developing jaundice, or occasionally to more serious complications

Fortunately, Rhesus factor problems are almost entirely preventable. Women who are Rh- are routinely given an injection of a substance called Anti-D shortly after the baby is born (or after a miscarriage or termination). This destroys any Rh+ cells that may have got into the bloodstream so that they won't produce any more antibodies.

[Fee]

I am A Negative. You should be given an Anti-D injection at 28 and 34 weeks. Then you will get it again at the birth of your baby if your baby is positive.

I've just had my 28 week injection.

[BellyBelly]

Article on the main site https://www.bellybelly.com.au/pregnancy

You do not need any injections unless your blood has mixed with the baby's from bleeding in pregnancy, to amnio, to CVS etc - other than that we are pretty much funding greedy pharmaceutical companies It is a blood product so worth thinking twice about. My Ob screened me for antibodies throughout pregnancy (blood test) but never gave me injections as I had no antibodies and no bleeding of any kind. I had the injection after the birth.

[Antheia]

If you are not positive on your DH's blood group get him to get a blood test to see. If he is + then you'll need to have an anti-d injection either during the pregnancy or at birth. If he is -, like you are, then you won't need it.

[Bubseykel]

I'm A- and have had the injections. I did have a m/c before this one so I guess that's why they are monitoring it a bit more. I've had the injection at 28 weeks like Fee and I know I'll be due for another before this pregnancy is over and maybe another after birth depending on the baby's blood type. I think even if you haven't had any previous pregnancy, m/c, etc, they'll give you the injection anyway. You'll have blood tests to check for antibodies too. That's what the injection prevents.

That's the only issue I think you will have but it's not really a big one.

[BellyBelly]

If you've had no bleeding, there is no chance of antibodies mixing - the baby's blood circulation is separate to that of the mother. There is a book written by Sara Wickham about this topic:

Anti-D in Midwifery: Panacea or Paradox?

"A well researched and thought provoking theory, which must make every midwife ensure that their practice is based on evidence and not just tradition" Contemporary Nurse, Volume 10 Issue 1 2, March 2001

Book Description

Over the last 30 years, Anti-D, or Rhogam as it is known in the USA, has become accepted as being routinely advisable for rhesus negative women. Yet 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? This book explores the paradox between physiological birth and the routine 'need' for anti-D and highlights some interesting evidence which may throw light on this paradox. Are women's bodies really fallible, or could some women's need for anti-D be caused by medical intervention in childbirth? Do women being offered anti-D know that this is a blood product which may carry attendent risks? What information do women need in order to decide whether or not they will have anti-D?

Wickham does not argue the case for no anti-D to be administered. Rather, her chief concern is that routine prescribing of anti-D to all Rh. Neg. women with a Rh. Pos baby has its own inherent risks and that it should only be given to women who need it and indeed those who choose to have it.

[BellyBelly]

It's likely that he's not negative Emma, as only around 15% of the population are and it's recessive, no-one in my family apart from me is negative, so we have no idea where it's come from. But it's a good idea for him to find out, he can just go to the GP and ask for a blood test for it.

[Fee]

If you are not positive on your DH's blood group get him to get a blood test to see. If he is + then you'll need to have an anti-d injection either during the pregnancy or at birth. If he is -, like you are, then you won't need it.

My OB does not care what blood type DH is. He may very well be Negative like me (and then I wouldn't need the injections) ... but you know why the OB doesn't care? Because he can't be sure that DH is the father! Can you believe that?! It makes sense though I suppose. I could be lying to DH and the OB. Too bad if DH tested as Negative like me but the father of the baby was someone who was Positive. I guess the OBs need to cover themselves.

So all they care about is if the mother is Negative. If so, she will need the injections.

[Fee]

I'm A- and have had the injections. I did have a m/c before this one so I guess that's why they are monitoring it a bit more. I've had the injection at 28 weeks like Fee and I know I'll be due for another before this pregnancy is over and maybe another after birth depending on the baby's blood type. I think even if you haven't had any previous pregnancy, m/c, etc, they'll give you the injection anyway. You'll have blood tests to check for antibodies too. That's what the injection prevents.

I haven't had a miscarriage before or any probs. But like you said they just give it anyway. My OB gives it to all Negative patients at both 28 and 34 weeks. Most people I know who are Negative have this done.

[BellyBelly]

Yep and ultimately it's a decision you have to make, just like the many other things from conception to parenthood! Do your research though If we don't have information, we have no power and if we don't question these things what chance do we have when our doctors tell us we might need something

A midwife once said this though:

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.

And another:

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....