Thursday, April 12, 2007

Midwife view on anti-D (shot for Rh)

After finding the article in my last post, I wanted to see other views. I figure the last article is based on blind trust of the medical system. Just about any research can be done with prejudice and an agenda.

I found this site (click here) with the article, "anti-d: exploring midwifery knowledge," where the research is from those who believe that a woman's body knows what it's doing. Here are a few quotes from it:

Anecdotally, a number of woman report short-term but unpleasant rashes,
flu-like symptoms and compromise to their immune systems for up to two years
following anti-D administration. (In regards to the side effects of the drug.)

"Why is there a chorion and an amnion? We need to ask - why does the
chorionic plate exist at all? Unless maternal and fetal circulations were not
meant to mix."

Table 1: Factors thought by participants to influence the likelihood of

While the 'received view' in the area is that women are naturally immuno-suppressed during pregnancy, which leaves them open to
isoimmunisation, it was suggested that one of 'nature's reasons' for
immunosuppression was to ensure that women did not produce antibodies to fetal blood.

The matthews-duncan method of placental separation may indicate FMH.

Table 2: Factors identified by participants which may give protection against isoimmunisation:

Optimal nutrition during pregnancy was cited as being of benefit in
strengthening the placental bed and reducing the chance of FMH. Midwives felt women should concentrate on eating whole foods, fresh, raw vegetables, pulses and seafood.

A number of natural substances are thought to strengthen the placenta and confer immune system protection; these include magnesium, iodine, vitamin C, bioflavinoids, red raspberry leaf, elderflower, echinacea, garlic and charcoal.

It was suggested that fluoride interferes with the formation of collagen in the placental wall, and that women should avoid fluoridated water and toothpaste before and during pregnancy.

The implication of this is that we are simply not able
to offer women enough information upon which they can base an informed
choice. (As a conclusion.)

As you'll read in the article, this is research done by 17 midwives in 8 countries. It seems like a discussion among them on their thoughts. BUT it gives hope that there are factors that play into the mixing of the mother and baby's blood which can be avoided, resulting in the lack of need for the anti-D shot.

Between this and the other article, I wonder if it's simply a matter of faith. I read about the side effects and have a hate/hate relationship with needles, which makes me want to avoid them at all costs. BUT if that means putting my babies at risk, is it worth it? The symptoms in the previous article, i.e. seizures, heart failure, etc., are extremely scary to hear about as a mother. I don't want to put my baby at risk because of a fear of needles.

Of course, this entire decision can be avoided by finding out my husband has Rh- blood as well. comes another major decision in the life of a pregnant woman - if my husband is Rh+, do I trust the medical research and get a couple shots and cut my baby's umbillical cord ASAP, OR do I rebuke the fear and trust God has it all in control and not get the shot? Does my love for my baby outweigh my trust in God? Is that even the question? I know that God gives doctors insight into how to heal people and that He uses them...
Lord, I need Your will in this situation. Help me not make decisions out
of fear, but out of knowing what You want and only after meditating on Your
word. Speak! Take away any pride in the way and give me ears to hear
You. Show me what is best and which path to take. Lord, I trust

1 comment:

Gombojav Tribe said...

I know several women who have this Rh factor who have chosen not to get the shot. I never pried too much into their reasons since I didn't have the problem myself. If you'd like I'll ask for you.