![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The lonely scientist rants.
"[Rh incompatibility] wasn't an issue for all of human history until interventions were performed, like episiotomy and early cord cutting or Cesarians. Again, what gives?"
Okay, I have to get this off my chest here, because if I say it in response to the actual post I'm quoting I'll probably be banned:
For God's sake, isn't some kind of basic education in logic and science required in the schools? Don't people listen to themselves when they talk?
(Okay, never mind, I know the answers to those questions: no, and no.)
Rh factor wasn't even discovered until 1939. For "all of human history until interventions were performed," in that golden age of medical-provider-free natural homebirths in which nothing ever went wrong and there was no maternal or perinatal mortality, there was NO WAY TO TELL if Rh incompatibility existed.
Sometimes your baby was stillborn. Sometimes your baby had heart failure shortly after birth. Sometimes your baby was incredibly weak and sickly, but pulled through. And that was ALL YOU KNEW. It's not like your fellow tribeswomen would've stood around nodding sadly and saying, "Yep, this baby has hemolytic disease of the newborn. Just look at these abnormal red blood cells, which you can clearly see through the microscope I made out of vines and bark."
And even after the invention of the microscope in the seventeenth century... even after the discovery of blood grouping at the turn of the 20th century... people still had no freaking idea why some newborns developed hemolytic disease and died. You could go from one end of the world to the other and never hear a single person utter the phrase "Rh incompatibility." THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT NO ONE EVER HAD IT.
I'll be the first to agree that there are plenty of screwed-up things about standard medical management of pregnancy and birth. However, I solemnly assue you: Rhogam for Rh incompatibility is not among them. If you are Rh- and your partner and baby are Rh+? Get. The. Freaking. Shot.
Okay, I have to get this off my chest here, because if I say it in response to the actual post I'm quoting I'll probably be banned:
For God's sake, isn't some kind of basic education in logic and science required in the schools? Don't people listen to themselves when they talk?
(Okay, never mind, I know the answers to those questions: no, and no.)
Rh factor wasn't even discovered until 1939. For "all of human history until interventions were performed," in that golden age of medical-provider-free natural homebirths in which nothing ever went wrong and there was no maternal or perinatal mortality, there was NO WAY TO TELL if Rh incompatibility existed.
Sometimes your baby was stillborn. Sometimes your baby had heart failure shortly after birth. Sometimes your baby was incredibly weak and sickly, but pulled through. And that was ALL YOU KNEW. It's not like your fellow tribeswomen would've stood around nodding sadly and saying, "Yep, this baby has hemolytic disease of the newborn. Just look at these abnormal red blood cells, which you can clearly see through the microscope I made out of vines and bark."
And even after the invention of the microscope in the seventeenth century... even after the discovery of blood grouping at the turn of the 20th century... people still had no freaking idea why some newborns developed hemolytic disease and died. You could go from one end of the world to the other and never hear a single person utter the phrase "Rh incompatibility." THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT NO ONE EVER HAD IT.
I'll be the first to agree that there are plenty of screwed-up things about standard medical management of pregnancy and birth. However, I solemnly assue you: Rhogam for Rh incompatibility is not among them. If you are Rh- and your partner and baby are Rh+? Get. The. Freaking. Shot.
no subject
Also, I find the mommyboard I read the most (Circle of Moms, on Facebook) to be utterly overrun by people with almost no practical parenting knowledge, by my standards -- and many of them have multiple kids. Maybe it's just that I'm a geek, and I process through information ... and that I've a scientific bent of mind, but most of these people throw vocab around with no idea what it actually MEANS or how to weigh evidence.
And then there's the sizable group on there that think both (a) if your kid's not on rice cereal before they're 2 months old you're deliberately, abusively stunting their growth, and (b) that six-month-old infants are capable of being manipulative, and must be ignored when they cry because 'they're only doing it to get attention.'
Both of which viewpoints I find incomprehensible, though for differing reasons ... I try to keep a small circle of experienced moms I trust around to toss stuff at for sanity checks.