How to Post

[Malcolm Needs]

Doubtful you are thick Malcolm . Looking back at my post I jumbled thoughts. The reactions were indicative of a weak D and I referred to a partial D in the second half of my post (doing too many things at once again ). Apologies if any confusion resulted.

We would still stay with a conservative approach here especially considering the status of the patient.

Thanks Deny; now I undertsand (I think - but I was being a bit thick)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Advertisement]

[Deny Morlino]

After jumbling my thoughts I went to the technical manual to "set myself straight" so to speak. In the discussion of clinical considerations of weak and partial D the discussion indicates some weak D types (1, 2, and 3) are "unlikely to make anti-D and can receive D positive blood." Other weak-D types (11 and 15 are mentioned) while rarer have made anti-D. As there is not yet a cost effective way to determine the specific type of weak D to ascertain the risk of anti-D production, a conservative approach might be prudent. Granted, the statistics indicate that hospitalized patients receiving D positive blood had a lower chance of forming anti-D and the patient in discussion is probably immunosuppressed considering the chemo. I would still play it conservative. (OK I think I have beaten this topic into submission now...I will leave it alone )