Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be broody when I have RH negative status?

109 replies

FortifiedWine · 11/03/2016 20:41

Hi all. Looking from advice from any RH negative mothers who have had more than one pregnancy.

Had a baby in 2011, after finding out I was rhesus B negative, received two anti-D vaccinations during pregnancy to protect the next pregnancy. in 2012, 11 months after my first birth, I found out I was expecting again. I refused the anti-D this time, as (stupidly) I was convinced I'd never have any more children, had a REALLY hard time with hyperemisis to the point I was sleeping on the bathroom floor near the toilet. Plus wasn't too keen on a blood product with whatever else in it being injected into me.

When I'd received this shot the first time, I developed PUPPS straight away, which is basically an unbearable intensely itchy skin condition where you are scratching your skin off 24 hours a day and nothing relieves it except giving birth - so rare that my consultant was the only person who had heard of it - I knew what it was beforehand though as I'd trawled the internet wondering WTH was going on with my body. But consultant agreed that's what it was after a test for choleastasis(sp?) But imagine being SO itchy all over that you literally cannot leave your house, get out of bed, do ANYTHING... at that time I was scratching myself with anything that was around, a pine cone, hairbrush, and at one point a pair of tweezers until I was bleeding. I was admitted to hospital at 39 weeks pregnant because I couldn't bare it anymore. I was awake day and night scratching, making my skin bleed, not knowing what to do. I couldn't focus on my upcoming birth as my entire body ITCHED like crazy. It really was something else.

At that point, they kept me in and gave me a sweep and some anti histamines. Whilst they helped me sleep, I still itched. I was crazy angry with everyone and everything at that point, it's bad enough going through late pregnancy without that! However, another sweep later and I gave birth on my due date. Itching went instantly.

So in 2012, upon discovering I was pregnant again I was TERRIFIED. However, I didn't get it second time, amazingly! I was so happy. But as I'd refused the anti-D, believing that had caused it and I wanted no more children, I am now (four years later) thinking of having another child. I am getting towards my 30s and (if it makes a difference) the father would be different to the first two. Am I able to have another baby? The doctors and midwife said I would be high risk as I haven't had the shot in my second pregnancy and there's nothing they can do except monitor my antibodies. Worst case scenario... the baby is stillborn. Best case... it needs a blood transfusion in the womb and will be in special care after with jaundice and other problems. I have also been told that if I was impregnated by a RH negative donor, there would be no issue as blood wouldn't mix.

So I am now looking at sperm donation, which is obviously expensive especially if it doesn't work. I've also been told that the blood mixing rarely occurs anyway, even if I got pregnant by RH positive partner. Not sure what to think. Don't want to risk it obviously, but also don't want to spend thousands on sperm donation in a clinic that may not work?!

OP posts:
FortifiedWine · 12/03/2016 20:13

I've already said I wouldn't refuse anti-d in my next pregnancy... so not sure how you've come to that conclusion.

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 12/03/2016 20:53

^Yes medicine has moved on - with anti-d!

Yes, and better testing, monitoring, scanning, care for sick babies etc etc etc. or is Anti-D the only medical advancement in the last 48 years?

SoupDragon · 12/03/2016 20:55

You are a health care professional and you are listening to a homeopath who claims to be able to change your baby's blood with magic water?

I want to cry.

No, you want to read the whole thread instead.

Bogeyface · 12/03/2016 21:45

I don't think advising the OP to get a blood test for antibodies is particularly wise counsel. If she doesn't have detectable antibodies she'll doubtless just think she's 'got away with it' and go on to have anther pregnancy, refusing anti-d.

And what if she did? Thats her decison to make, not yours. Many women refuse Anti D as it is a blood product, its one of the reasons I refused it. Certain religions simply dont allow it.

Just because Anti D is available does not mean that every Rh neg woman has to take it and not taking it doesnt mean that any baby born to a mother who refused it will automatically die.

It is a choice, and the OP made a choice that she thought was right at the time, as did I. But things change, pregnancies happen even when precautions are taken against them, and the fact is that only approximately ten percent of Rh neg women who give birth to Rh Pos babies will develop antibodies. That means that the figures are on the OPs side.

Scaremongering is hardly going to help her, it isnt like she can do anything about it now!

sashh · 13/03/2016 06:04

OP

What is the Rh status of your children? If they are both Rh -ve then there isn't a problem with another pregnancy.

Do you know how Anti-D works?

DropYourSword · 13/03/2016 06:30

There is SO MUCH misunderstanding here of anti D and antibodies it's not even funny.

OP, ignore those saying not to even bother getting tested. Of course you should. Firstly there needs to be a sensitising event (your babies blood needs to mix with yours) for you to even produce antibodies. This may have never happened, and so you may never even have been at risk of producing antibodies. Secondly, if it was so pointless to test for them, why would we bother doing it. Honestly, if you have no antibodies you are fine. I'm fairly sure once you make them they will always be present and detectable. So not detectable = fine.

Even WITH antibodies present you'd have to have a sensitising event during your pregnancy (your blood getting into babies blood stream) for them to affect the baby. It is serious if it happens, but your 'best case' scenario is actually a well healthy unaffected baby.

Some pp seem very gleeful to use your previous decisions as a stick to beat you with. You were clearly uniformed or didn't understand properly at the time, or even now. Don't rely on any information on this thread, go speak to a Dr.

BTW Even if you had accepted the anti D, the dose might not have been enough (very rare, but it can happen).

Bungleboggs · 13/03/2016 08:21

My hospital forgot to give me my anti-d jabs when I had my twins, thankfully they are negative babies like me. Must be worrying for you.

VagueIdeas · 13/03/2016 10:32

Are you sure they forgot Bungle, or did they test the babies' cord blood after the birth, found they were RH-, and therefore didn't need to administer anti-D?

After both of my children were born, I've had a MW come to my bedside to say the baby is RH+ so I'm here with anti-D. In fact, one was so apologetic because she hated having to do them (apparently it's quite viscous and it's supposed to hurt loads more than a normal jab?) it was hilarious Grin

Bungleboggs · 13/03/2016 12:51

Yes, they only gave me them two days later when I asked. But as the twins were in Nicu their blood had probably been checked.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page