Jump to content

childbearing age


lef5501

Recommended Posts

According to the Technical manual,you want to give Rh neg units to children and any women of childbearing age if their Rh is unknown or neg. Does anyone have a specific age for "childbearing years"? While setting up our computer system, we needed to choose an age to enter in our alternative Rh table.(so system would allow Rh pos units to be signed out to Rh neg, etc.) We decided to choose 65, I was just wondering if anyone used a specific age or is it more at the disgression of the medical director for each case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like we all went to the same seminar years ago- we use 50 as our cutoff for "child-bearing age." That is a reasonable assumption, and I am not willing to go higher at this time. We have had no one over age 45 give birth in our facility. When that 55 year-old-mom drops in, then I will reconsider.

BC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our age cutoff for childbearing age is < 50 for the purpose of giving Rh pos trauma blood. We are open to providing Rh pos for a younger female who is bleeding us out if we have limited Rh negs available.

My motto, being Rh neg myself, (and within childbearing age criteria above!), if that I'd rather be immunized than dead from lack of blood! ;)

MJ:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Technical manual,you want to give Rh neg units to children and any women of childbearing age if their Rh is unknown or neg. Does anyone have a specific age for "childbearing years"? While setting up our computer system, we needed to choose an age to enter in our alternative Rh table.(so system would allow Rh pos units to be signed out to Rh neg, etc.) We decided to choose 65, I was just wondering if anyone used a specific age or is it more at the disgression of the medical director for each case.

Our cut off is at 55 of age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In law we have a doctrine called the fertile octogenarian. Under this doctrine, which applies to the law of wills mainly, it is assumed that even an 80-year-old woman is fertile and capable of bearing children. It is a fiction that is used in applying another legal doctrine, the Rule Against Perpetuities, which is so complicated that no lawyer can be held liable for misapplying it. The RAP states, "No interest in property is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest."

All that said, the law is about reasonability, and it is quite reasonable to base a rule on the assumption that the childbearing age ends at age 50. You can not be expected to cover every single contingency. The likelihood that someone 60 years old would give birth is too remote to be a reasonable a assumption.

BC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think 50 is reasonable. While we are on this topic, if you set Rh positive red cells as an alternate Rh type for Rh negative recipients (male and "older females"), does your computer system just let you issue out the Rh positive blood without any warning? Does it allow electronic crossmatch of the Rh positive units if the patient otherwise qualifies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think 50 is reasonable. While we are on this topic, if you set Rh positive red cells as an alternate Rh type for Rh negative recipients (male and "older females"), does your computer system just let you issue out the Rh positive blood without any warning? Does it allow electronic crossmatch of the Rh positive units if the patient otherwise qualifies?

We had this very situation not long ago. Our computer will allow us to issue out Rh positive blood to an Rh negative patient irregardless of gender and age but it always gives a warning. It gives us a warning when we issue any blood that is not ABORh specific to the recipient, even if it is ABORh compatible. We then have to select a reason to override this warning, which is good, because it makes us double check ourselves and each other. And yes, it did allow us to do an electronic crossmatch...that is until the anti-D showed up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Advertisement

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.