Comments on: Has anyone been a conscientious objector to the anti d shot? http://versprill.com/410/has-anyone-been-a-conscientious-objector-to-the-anti-d-shot-2/ Exposing the Mercury Thimerosal link Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:07:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: TotalRecipeHound http://versprill.com/410/has-anyone-been-a-conscientious-objector-to-the-anti-d-shot-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3855 TotalRecipeHound Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:12:59 +0000 http://versprill.com/thimerosal/has-anyone-been-a-conscientious-objector-to-the-anti-d-shot-2#comment-3855 You do not have to have the injection given at 28 weeks. According to the studies, 2% of women developed sensitivity receiving the injection only after birth while less than 1% developed sensitivity receiving it also at 28 weeks. Quite a few women in the US refuse the 28 week shot, originally because it did contain Thimersol (the US one has not had Thimersol since 2003). Some women continue to refuse the 28 week shot because there have been rare instances of a lot being contaminated with hepatitis (documented in journals). The injection after birth is so effective that even religious groups that once opposed the injection now encourage their affected members to get it. RH disease is extremely devastating to the infant and can cost thousands to medically support that child. Unless you are already sensitized or have been tested and found to not have the big D antigen (there are several antigens, Rhogam only works on one), I just can't see any reason to refuse the injection after birth should your child be found to be RH pos. Unless you are getting your tubes tied or the baby is RH neg., I don't see any reasonable objection to it. Because I am sensitized, I wouldn't be getting the Rhogam shot at all. Had that not occurred, I still wouldn't get the 28 week one as it unnecessarily risks the fetus that doesn't even benefit. It is also my understanding that Australia discontinued giving the 28 week shot because of the Rhogam shortage there.<br><b>References : </b><br>I was not given Rhogam after birth and am now Rh sensitized. I've since met other mothers for whom Rhogam doesn't work and the medical care their newborns required. You do not have to have the injection given at 28 weeks. According to the studies, 2% of women developed sensitivity receiving the injection only after birth while less than 1% developed sensitivity receiving it also at 28 weeks. Quite a few women in the US refuse the 28 week shot, originally because it did contain Thimersol (the US one has not had Thimersol since 2003). Some women continue to refuse the 28 week shot because there have been rare instances of a lot being contaminated with hepatitis (documented in journals). The injection after birth is so effective that even religious groups that once opposed the injection now encourage their affected members to get it.

RH disease is extremely devastating to the infant and can cost thousands to medically support that child. Unless you are already sensitized or have been tested and found to not have the big D antigen (there are several antigens, Rhogam only works on one), I just can’t see any reason to refuse the injection after birth should your child be found to be RH pos. Unless you are getting your tubes tied or the baby is RH neg., I don’t see any reasonable objection to it.

Because I am sensitized, I wouldn’t be getting the Rhogam shot at all. Had that not occurred, I still wouldn’t get the 28 week one as it unnecessarily risks the fetus that doesn’t even benefit.

It is also my understanding that Australia discontinued giving the 28 week shot because of the Rhogam shortage there.
References :
I was not given Rhogam after birth and am now Rh sensitized. I’ve since met other mothers for whom Rhogam doesn’t work and the medical care their newborns required.

]]>