Rhesus Negative

Ever since I was little, I've known that I would have to get a shot when my baby is born because of the risk that my body will develop anti-bodies against its positive blood.

About 85% of the population have the positive blood type, which is tolerant to a negative blood type baby so that this isn't an issue for you if you are positive.

I didn't know that it is becoming increasingly common to give women one of these shots around the 28th week in case the mother's and baby's blood comes in contact. My midwife was very forceful in her opinion that I should get this shot and was appalled with me for not being aware of this procedure.

I have since done some research on the subject and spoken to a non-practicing gynecologist friend who herself has 5 children, all through homebirth. According to her and the Encyclopedia of Nursing and Allied Health, a woman has a 45 in 10,000 chance that blood contact will be made and antibodies formed. So less than 0.5%. The injection reduces a woman's risk by 0.1%. Hmmm. These points alone started getting me thinking. One of the reasons why this shot is pushed so strongly onto woman is that it is expensive and pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money off it. So that's why I'm being called irresponsible by my midwife...but I also wanted to know what is in it. It is apparently made from donor blood which puts you at risk for blood borne illnesses like AIDS and Mad Cow Disease. My husband was outraged and asked, "Don't they test that stuff??" Well, how many medical forms have you filled out where they ask you if have received a blood transfusion? It is known that blood from blood banks is not sterile. I remember one case in particular where people were getting AIDS from blood transfusions because although new donors were now being screened for HIV and AIDS, old blood that they had already collected was not being tested...too expensive for them. So, there is a risk that you might get a deadly disease from this shot and possibly transfer it on to your baby. Then there is the risk that the preservative Thimerisol is in the Rhogam injection. Thimersol is a known neurotoxin and there are no studies which document the permanent affects of it on infants. Most manufacturers have eliminated it but there is still the possibility that you might get "one of the bad ones."

With all of that information, I have to ask...are my risks of getting a blood borne illness and possibly poisoning my child with Thimersol, worth the 0.1% benefit the shot offers me?

I personally cannot agree with getting the shot now. There are obviously cases when it is recommended, where a woman's risk to develop antibodies is much higher than my 0.45% chance, and in that case the shot is a good idea because it will also provide more protection.

Needless to say I am a little frustrated with my midwife for making me feel like I am endangering my child, when she didn't even provide those statistics so that I could make an informed decision. Maybe she isn't even aware of the practically non-existent risk.

I will be getting the shot after the baby's birth so that I don't develop antibodies when our blood potentially mixes. I've heard scary stories that once antibodies have developed, the risk for miscarriage, etc. increase and my body will continue to try and kill any positive blood typed baby. I would need to be constantly monitored if that happens. Therefore I am only receiving the shot after birth, to prevent that from happening.

And for now, for my baby, I don't need unnecessary nonsense.