Emma I am not surprised they haven't given you any, because you have such a great maternity system in NZ - many midwives come to Australia and are shocked at the rates of intervention And I have to say, I have seen stats from your health system and the outcomes for birth have improved dramatically (including mortality) since NZ adopted the systems.

I never had any jabs during pregnancy and my Ob was a very, very experienced IVF/Infertility specialist who I would actually class as fairly intervention happy LOL. Instead, he gave me two blood tests at the times you are having your jabs, to see if there is a need to have the injection. He is the same with Step B - he doesn't test for it as he believes there is no need and will administer antibiotics only in the instance where infection is evident - e.g. mum getting a fever, membranes ruptured for a long time, baby prem etc - in the risk group but not routinely.

If you have no bleeding or opportunity for the blood to mix (i.e amnio, miscarriage, termination) then there is no reason to suspect the blood can mix - mothers and babies have VERY seperate circulatory systems. Think about it - not only is it a blood product (like you would accept blood for a blood transfusion) but also, antibodies form fairly quickly - after the birth they want to give you the jab within 72 hours to stop the anti-bodies. So, by giving two routine jabs - it kinda defeats the purpose. Who knows when the anti-bodies had the chance to form? Could have been a month ago, could have been two weeks ago. But if you don't have that injection within 72 hours, it will be too late. So I think the idea of routine anti-d in preg is just $$ for pharmaceuticals who spend big money entertaining doctors