Blood type changed during pregnancy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

DP. "Meant" is a term that comes with connotation as well as denotation. It implies intent or design.

I had my aortic heart valve replaced when I was 17, because the bicuspid, malformed valve had calcified and I was in critical heart failure. I wasn't "meant" to live. I think there is nothing wrong with using modern medicine to live anyway.

A three year old with acute lymphoblastic leukemia isn't "meant" to live by your rhetoric.
1. Do you think it's okay for him to get chemotherapy and live a normal life?
2. He was preprogrammed to die before puberty, so would you say he wasn't "meant" to live until reproductive age and have children? Or do you think he wasn't "meant" to have children, and if so, what does that mean?

!. Yes.
2. I need to stop using the word meant because that is not the message that I'm trying to convey. I cannot determine what is meant to happen. I can only infer based on what I know from looking at the facts.

Here's my question for you. Would you agree that Rh incompatibility (without the intervention of modern medicine) is disadvantageous to the survival and wellness of offspring?

Sure, but ... we're not without the invention of modern medicine. You know that, right?

Other things that are disadventageous to the survival and wellness of offspring, but for which (hooray!) we now can deal with easily:

1. Near-sightedness
2. Allergy to strawberries
3. Propensity to get strep throat
4. Asthma
5. Imperforate hymen
6. Hernias

Any of these literally could lead to death in the 1300s. Guess what? They don't have to, and there isn't some magic intentionality we can appease by discouraging people with a propensity to developing strep throat from reproducing.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

If there was a definitive way to eliminate or reduce the risk of all of the things that you have listed BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention, then I'd be all for it. Until then, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

When do you suggest I find out a person's Rh factor to see if we are incompatible? Is the 3rd date too late? I feel it's a little awkward to bring up before. Should I offer to pay for testing? Also, what if he's compatible RH wise but has a family history of mental illness. Is it ok to have a kid with him then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people are CF carriers I think they might want to know before TTC. At the very least, they can get a baby tested and treated early. My neighbors did not know for years their son had CF, just that he was sick a lot.

hey let me introduce you to the wonders of the standard newborn screen (heel poke)

Good they were not doing this in 1991. Or 1994 when 2nd CF kid was born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

DP. "Meant" is a term that comes with connotation as well as denotation. It implies intent or design.

I had my aortic heart valve replaced when I was 17, because the bicuspid, malformed valve had calcified and I was in critical heart failure. I wasn't "meant" to live. I think there is nothing wrong with using modern medicine to live anyway.

A three year old with acute lymphoblastic leukemia isn't "meant" to live by your rhetoric.
1. Do you think it's okay for him to get chemotherapy and live a normal life?
2. He was preprogrammed to die before puberty, so would you say he wasn't "meant" to live until reproductive age and have children? Or do you think he wasn't "meant" to have children, and if so, what does that mean?

!. Yes.
2. I need to stop using the word meant because that is not the message that I'm trying to convey. I cannot determine what is meant to happen. I can only infer based on what I know from looking at the facts.

Here's my question for you. Would you agree that Rh incompatibility (without the intervention of modern medicine) is disadvantageous to the survival and wellness of offspring?

Sure, but ... we're not without the invention of modern medicine. You know that, right?

Other things that are disadventageous to the survival and wellness of offspring, but for which (hooray!) we now can deal with easily:

1. Near-sightedness
2. Allergy to strawberries
3. Propensity to get strep throat
4. Asthma
5. Imperforate hymen
6. Hernias

Any of these literally could lead to death in the 1300s. Guess what? They don't have to, and there isn't some magic intentionality we can appease by discouraging people with a propensity to developing strep throat from reproducing.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

If there was a definitive way to eliminate or reduce the risk of all of the things that you have listed BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention, then I'd be all for it. Until then, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

"Yeah, hey, you don't know me, but I just met your son while we were at the grocery store. He asked me out, but I wanted to check with you first, because I gotta know if he had a lot of strep throat infections as a child."
...
"No, I have to know. The La Jolla Institute for Immunology is pretty clear on their website that a combination of genetic and immunological factors makes some children susceptible to the bacteria that cause strep throat, and I had quite a few as a child."
...
"It's not a joke!"
...
"No, I am not crazy. I'm just well aware of my societal duty and take seriously my responsibility eliminate or reduce the risk of all of the things -- EVEN IF KIND OF BATS&*T TIDDLYWINKS IN THE MODERN ERA -- before it gets to the point where my future children might needANY MEDICAL INTERVENTION AT ALL, even if inconsequential."
...
"What? Hello? ... Hello? Did you hang up?"


https://www.lji.org/news-events/news/post/why-your-kids-strep-throat-keeps-coming-back/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

It's a theoretical risk, but hey, let's talk about exactly how many infectious diseases have been transmitted through the Rhogam shot since it was introduced as a part of standard pregnancy care 40 years ago in 1985.

That's about 40,000 doses per year in the UK, about 20,000 doses per year in Canada, and about 200,000 in the US.

Any guesses as to how many documented transmissions of any infectious disease at all over the last 40 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

It's a theoretical risk, but hey, let's talk about exactly how many infectious diseases have been transmitted through the Rhogam shot since it was introduced as a part of standard pregnancy care 40 years ago in 1985.

That's about 40,000 doses per year in the UK, about 20,000 doses per year in Canada, and about 200,000 in the US.

Any guesses as to how many documented transmissions of any infectious disease at all over the last 40 years?

This is all I needed to read. Do you see how many years it took for them to realize that batches were contaminated?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

First, that's not Rhogam. Rhogam is a specific brand with specific processing, not any generic anti-D immunoglobulin. There has also never been any infectious transmission with HyperRHO, Rhophylac, or WinRho, which are less commonly used in the US. As to what the screening and processing protocols were in Ireland in 1977 and 1978 (about 50 years ago), I can't say -- but I doubt you are pointing at anything else from Ireland at 50 years ago and calling it relevant for today. In the 1970s we also had lawn darts and no infant carseat restraints in the US.

Second, of course you get to decline for yourself. Who cares? But why the criticism of other women making a different choice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

There are people who only will consent to blood donations from those who never received a COVID vaccine, so, you know. There's a lot of interesting opinions out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

It's a theoretical risk, but hey, let's talk about exactly how many infectious diseases have been transmitted through the Rhogam shot since it was introduced as a part of standard pregnancy care 40 years ago in 1985.

That's about 40,000 doses per year in the UK, about 20,000 doses per year in Canada, and about 200,000 in the US.

Any guesses as to how many documented transmissions of any infectious disease at all over the last 40 years?

This is all I needed to read. Do you see how many years it took for them to realize that batches were contaminated?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

That was not Rhogam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

First, that's not Rhogam. Rhogam is a specific brand with specific processing, not any generic anti-D immunoglobulin. There has also never been any infectious transmission with HyperRHO, Rhophylac, or WinRho, which are less commonly used in the US. As to what the screening and processing protocols were in Ireland in 1977 and 1978 (about 50 years ago), I can't say -- but I doubt you are pointing at anything else from Ireland at 50 years ago and calling it relevant for today. In the 1970s we also had lawn darts and no infant carseat restraints in the US.

Second, of course you get to decline for yourself. Who cares? But why the criticism of other women making a different choice?

It is the exact same type of injection. It is made from human blood. I'm sure the women that received those injections fully trusted it.

My point is that if it happened once then it can happen again. It took them 20 years to realize that batch was contaminated. There was also another case of contamination in Germany.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

First, that's not Rhogam. Rhogam is a specific brand with specific processing, not any generic anti-D immunoglobulin. There has also never been any infectious transmission with HyperRHO, Rhophylac, or WinRho, which are less commonly used in the US. As to what the screening and processing protocols were in Ireland in 1977 and 1978 (about 50 years ago), I can't say -- but I doubt you are pointing at anything else from Ireland at 50 years ago and calling it relevant for today. In the 1970s we also had lawn darts and no infant carseat restraints in the US.

Second, of course you get to decline for yourself. Who cares? But why the criticism of other women making a different choice?

It is the exact same type of injection. It is made from human blood. I'm sure the women that received those injections fully trusted it.

My point is that if it happened once then it can happen again. It took them 20 years to realize that batch was contaminated. There was also another case of contamination in Germany.

The single other case of this, back in the late 70s? It was also not Rhogam, and also in 1978-1979, before the modern standardization of blood product screening was put into place.

You should have noted that I clarified 1985 (when Rhogam became a part of stand care) in my first post on this, but I guess details don't matter.

You probably want to know that in 1975, there was a Staph aureus food outbreak on an airplane because the food was kept at room temperature for 14 and 1/2 hours, before regulations were put into place to prevent that. Let's get right on judging people who eat Biscoff cookies on their flights now.