Good news

"aml" wrote in message
om...
Ran over to my doctor's office for my Rhogam shot after they called
with the results. Heh, heh, I forgot how much those sting. ;O

aml
EDD 8/27/04
DS 7/19/01

Don't they just? I couldn't sit down for a week after giving birth. I had
one shot of pethidine, one ecbolic shot to deliver the placenta, then the
Rhogam. I'm going to avoid pethidine & the ecbolic this time so at least
there's _part_ of my a$$ that doesn't hurt.
As far as I know though, we only get Rhogam postnatally here in NZ, except
in cases of threatened m/c where there's a chance of sensitisation. Was
there a reason you had yours early, or is it routine over there?

Amy wrote:

Don't they just? I couldn't sit down for a week after giving birth. I had
one shot of pethidine, one ecbolic shot to deliver the placenta, then the
Rhogam. I'm going to avoid pethidine & the ecbolic this time so at least
there's _part_ of my a$$ that doesn't hurt.

Hey, this last time I got my anti-D (WinRho, in my case)
shots in the arm. I was pleasantly surprised, though it still
stung.

As far as I know though, we only get Rhogam postnatally here in NZ, except
in cases of threatened m/c where there's a chance of sensitisation. Was
there a reason you had yours early, or is it routine over there?

Yes, it's pretty much routine to have one around 28
weeks in the US. In fact, it's so routine that although I
successfully got out of it my first two pregnancies, it
ended up being one of the things I caved on in my third
because the midwives were so pushy about it. (Actually,
they were willing to forego the prenatal anti-D shot, but
if I chose that, they wanted to draw blood every month
afterwards to check for sensitization. Now that there is
no thimerosol in it, I went for one poke over several.)
The prenatal shot does lower the risk of sensitization
slightly (from very low with just the postnatal shot to
very very low with both--something like from 1.7 percent
chance of sensitization with just the postnatal shot
to something like 0.2 percent with both). I was willing
to take the risk, though, especially with what I
expect to be my last pregnancy (in which case it is
likely that future sensitization won't ever be a
problem in the unlikely event that it should happen).

Best wishes,
Ericka

Congratulations! That is happy news.

Leslie, who agrees that Rhogam shots are evil

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Amy wrote:

Don't they just? I couldn't sit down for a week after giving birth. I
had
one shot of pethidine, one ecbolic shot to deliver the placenta, then
the
Rhogam. I'm going to avoid pethidine & the ecbolic this time so at least
there's _part_ of my a$$ that doesn't hurt.

Hey, this last time I got my anti-D (WinRho, in my case)
shots in the arm. I was pleasantly surprised, though it still
stung.

I've begun to realise my midwife, much as I like her, is not the most
gentle. She thinks she's playing darts while holding a syringe. It hit home
yesterday when I saw an OB I don't normally see, and he wanted to feel for
head position, which when my midwife does it leaves me wincing in
discomfort. I thought, "Great, if it hurts with her little hands, how is it
going to feel having him pushing down on my abdomen?" But surprisingly I
didn't feel a thing.

As far as I know though, we only get Rhogam postnatally here in NZ,
except
in cases of threatened m/c where there's a chance of sensitisation. Was
there a reason you had yours early, or is it routine over there?

Yes, it's pretty much routine to have one around 28
weeks in the US. In fact, it's so routine that although I
successfully got out of it my first two pregnancies, it
ended up being one of the things I caved on in my third
because the midwives were so pushy about it. (Actually,
they were willing to forego the prenatal anti-D shot, but
if I chose that, they wanted to draw blood every month
afterwards to check for sensitization. Now that there is
no thimerosol in it, I went for one poke over several.)
The prenatal shot does lower the risk of sensitization
slightly (from very low with just the postnatal shot to
very very low with both--something like from 1.7 percent
chance of sensitization with just the postnatal shot
to something like 0.2 percent with both). I was willing
to take the risk, though, especially with what I
expect to be my last pregnancy (in which case it is
likely that future sensitization won't ever be a
problem in the unlikely event that it should happen).

They don't bother over here, I've heard the rates of sensitisation like you
say are very low prenatally. And as the effects of RH sensitization get
worse with each pregnancy, even if you were unfortunate enough to be
sensitized you'd probably have to have a couple of subsequent children
before you noticed any serious effects. There was evidence that prenatal
anti-D was harmful to the foetus, but I'm guessing maybe that's because of
the thimerosol.

Amy wrote:


There was evidence that prenatal
anti-D was harmful to the foetus, but I'm guessing maybe that's because of
the thimerosol.

I wouldn't go that far, unless it's very recent
evidence. I searched very hard and couldn't find evidence
it was harmful (aside from concerns about thimerosol, which
has since been removed). I would say, rather, that ther was
a *lack* of evidence that it was *safe*. To some extent
that's always true, because it's impossible to prove a
negative, but I couldn't find the sort of well done studies
I'd have liked to see to show safety, which I why I refused
the prenatal RhoGam the first two times (back when it still
had thimerosol).

Best wishes,
Ericka