Drugging Mothers, Umbilical cord clamping, it seldom, if ever, needs to be done.  WHO'S PROTECTING BABY, THE NEWBORN CITIZEN? by Donna Young, President, Natural Birth Education.  (Revised, February 20, 2004).  ( www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-0.htm ) Table of Contents for easier reading is available at: www.lotusbirth.com/_cont260.htm

WHEN WE PROTECT THE BABY , AT BIRTH,THE FAMILY'S PRIVACY TO THEIR DNA GENETIC CODE IS PROTECTED, TOO.

        This web site allows you to learn about and consider the Pioneer's Secret of Child Birth now called the Lotus Birth for the only assurance your baby is protected from unnecessary placental blood deprivation that is caused by immediate and early umbilical cord clamping, the latter is about 30-seconds clamping. It is not uncommon for a drugged babies cord to pulsate up to 20 minutes or a child with a compressed cord to pulsate that long.  A normal pulsation can be 5 minutes and longer.  Wise and competently trained doctors do not clamp the cord whether pulsating or not for a good 12 minutes.  

    Can c-section babies be removed from the womb intact with their umbilical cords and placenta not clamped?  Yes.  It is the legal right for the parents to contract that this be done.  Otherwise, there may be endangering of their baby.  If the doctor premeditates to persist, this may be a criminal act of using policies and training to alibi endangering the child.  This is true for any child where a doctor has been trained to endanger a child by early umbilical cord clamping.  Policies should be reported as dangerous to those that made the policies, in the first place. Generally, it is the Obstetricians and Gyncologists that have made endangering policies directing immediate cord clamping on all babies.

    The medical facts of science and medicine are only if the cord tore or for placenta previa is there an immediate medical need and urgency to interfere with the baby's cord being clamped.  In rare incidence, such as these, the remedy is quick correction to minimize deprived oxygenated blood, volume and pressure.  (See Chow-case-law, this web site).  

        Any clamped umbilical cord that was still pulsating is an early clamped cord. Or, if the cord is seen drained white it may be medical malpractice of the doctor holding the baby too high, as in a c-section, holding the baby chest high to the surgeon; or holding the drugged and baby too low of the birth canal.  This can cause hardship of the heart to pump the blood back into the placenta for the gas exchange of carbon dioxide for fresh oxygen.  

     Any child not breathing can be revived where is, how is, yet attached to their umbilical cord.  If the heart beats again, so will the flow of the blood through the cord continue.  Leave it alone.  When in doubt go with Natural birth.  Just keep the mother and the child warm and dry.

OPINIONS VERSE OBSERVABLE MEDICAL FACTS AND SCIENCE FOR ANY PLACENTA BIRTH MAMMAL:

        Many medical persons say they are confused about the timing of the clamping of the cord. Or, that there are many opinions. The facts can be seen by weighing the placenta and extracting the blood from it that was deprived the child.  Justification must be made why a functioning organ was stopped by a clamp or hand holding or tying off the cord before the placenta was naturally born, the completion of the child's birth.  Fears of this happening or such and such a fear are not facts of medical need.  Only if the cord tore or for placenta previa need a cord be clamped for the benefit of the child, with immediate correction of anemic conditions caused the child.

MOTIVES IN FALSE MEDICAL P0LICIES TO TRAIN DOCTORS TO DO EARLY UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING:

        The motive in the training of current doctors is probably linked to harvesting the placenta for valuable nutrients and hormones and stem cells trapped in the placenta.  The early umbilical cord clamping is highly unethical, if not criminal to harvest the nutrients and hormones and sell them to the highest bidder. The duty is to protect the baby who cannot give informed consent. The placenta blood belongs inside the baby and should not be given to others.  The baby is too small and unprotected to donate blood to another's cause or need.

        The selling of the baby's placenta and the placenta blood trapped in it has been done mostly without informed parental consent. The institutions have parents sign a form for appropriate discarding of the placenta.  What does that mean?! That is not informed consent to give up the hormones and the genetic information in any one cell.  Doctors may think if they send home a living mother and child, they did their duty.  Not so if there was a breach of trust in the performance of their duty. This applies to the duty of the hospital's administration, ethics committees and the nurses and their profession of best practice possible, least risk of harm.

CONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CODE VIOLATIONS:

         It is a violation of duty if the child was not properly protected and truth in the recording of the facts was not placed in the child's own medical files.  All treatment and drugs, including brand and amount of dosage should be placed in the mother's files. The facts are important as all drugs cross the placenta and residual and trace ingredients and metals can be found in the placenta tissues, if checked for, and in the urine samples and pH testings of both the mother and the child.

        There may be concealed motive for missing information on the birth of the child and care of the child's placenta and umbilical cord clamping, as well as the other services given and tests taken.  Civil actions may be necessary if the information is not placed immediately in the child's own medical files and copies given the mother before she leaves the birth center.  It is a criminal offense to destroy evidence by any person or persons. This duty not to destroy evidence does not exclude medical persons, and even the nurses.

        The motive of harvesting the placenta and the nutrients of blood trapped in the placenta unknown by most parents have endangered their baby or babies to internal injuries that will be in most cases, latent in discovery.  It is imperative to keep all details of the child's birth and the obligation of the hospital and its administration is to assure of the rights of the mother and the child as to their duty to them both.

NATURAL BIRTH VERSE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT:

          No baby is safe in active management, not the premature, the c-section or the full term baby.  All babies can benefit from a a natural birth and a birth contract what cannot be done to the mother or to the child.  All mothers can contract not to clamp or cut the cord at all.  This is the Lotus Birth. In the olden days, the placenta was simply put in a diaper and allowed to fall off in a day or two after birth.  There were "no cord infections and the baby got all the blood from the placenta and had healthy immunities.  Not so today. Why not?  Think about it.  Would you rather have a healthy baby, not one harvested for its precious components of blood, particularly the stem cells and to have the child umbilical cord off naturally in two days?  Or, would you prefer to nurse back a medically caused sick baby, often injected with "stuff" soon after birth, while the child was blood deprived, anemic and with low immunities by that fact?  The sick baby will needs its mother to fight cord infections from five days to up to 15 days by a cut cord?

    There is also a Petition  link provided that rejects "active management" in favor of natural birth education and practice.  

Note: PETITION

www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814

Please ask this site to have a Medical Alert Petition Site: petitions@earth.case2.com

We need support, Internationally, to help Canada correct or investigate present training of all medical persons who will or intend to be at a mother's birth.

We need support for informed choices, of both parents, that our babies are not being harvested by methods of Active Management.

MOTIVE OF EARLY UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING:

        The babies who are being blood volume and pressure deprived, thus hormone and nutrient harvested by early umbilical cord clamping are more vulnerable to have low immunities. That is logical. The babies are frequently sick with ear infections, colds and other disorders. The internal disorders are often latent in discovery. They are internal injuries and the degree of injury will be like a roll of the dice.  All internal injuries to the child caused by hasty clamping and drug related are preventable. Premature babies have more stem cells then do a full term, so are prime to be selected for early cord clamping.  C-section babies are larger babies and will survive the assault of early cord clamping and most full term babies...but all early clamped babies were made weaker.  This is when they were intended by natural design to have had full blood transfused from the placenta by their heart (the throbbing of the cord is the heart beat) into the expanding lungs.  All babies so early clamped are endangered to lung problems for lack of blood absorbing the water fluid in the lungs and to carry the oxygen by the red (iron-rich) blood cells. They are subjected to other internal disorders, including the number one cause of a 900 percent increase in autistic children and those with holes in their heart.  It is just logical low blood volume and pressured babies will have problems of some nature - and it "is" known to be linked to doctors trained to accommodate blood harvesting by doing early umbilical cord clamping. The policies are there to give the doctors an alibi not to be charged with criminal assault and the nurses from aiding in failing to put in a fault report on the doctors.  They make no report on the condition of the cord when clamped and the amount of blood later drained from the placenta.  Why not.  That takes cooperation of concealment, too, by the hospitals lab and the administration and ethics board of most hospitals.

CHECK OUT THE INCREASE OF INTERNAL DISORDERS AND THE YOUNG AGES OF THE AFFLICTED:

    Some babies are being discovered with muscle disorders, as young as 13 months, diagnosed with MS. Some children, as young as 13, have thyroid problems. Often the thyroid problems are related to the drugs given the mother during labor, such as oxytocin.  Oxytocin is often given without informed consent on the pretense it stops bleeding.  Oxytocin frequently contains an ingredient chlorobutanol that is alleged to cause the latent thyroid problems in either the mother or the child, or both.

     Many babies have been wrongfully deprived of their fullest genius potential. The children are now average to below average achieving children. They struggle to learn.  Learning is longer and harder for them.  It is a fact of research and studies of reduced abilities in American children.  A concern was raised back in the 1960's, and shared publicly, in the book, The Magical Child, written in the 1970's, by an educator, Joseph Chilton Pearce.

         In 1997, more concerns were taken to developing nations. This was an appeal for them NOT to copy the maternity practices of North American, by Doris Haire.  She identified drugs and and early cord clamping, as did the study by Dr. W. B. Windle, mentioned by Pearce.  Doris Haire's appeal to the developing nations, Birth Without Borders, 1997,  link is www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-499.htm .

         The present is the key to the past  of the trends and traditions kept from most of the knowledge of the masses.  But likely the harvesting of babies has gone back to the discovery of the blood typing, 1901. But it took until the modern state of art of access to information on the internet for the masses to be able to communicate and share information.

        It took generations to destroy values ethics of religion, and desensitize many of our medical doctors for them to now be in the majority of harvesting babies by policies. These policies, put out by the experts, (ACOG and SOGC) were and some still are boldly directing, without good cause, immediate umbilical cord clamping on "all" babies.  

        Only the wise could prevent it, the planned assault, done voluntarily by the doctor and/or the nurse wielding the weapon. Those with inside information, who did not have blind trust of their medical person(s) attending their baby's birth, could request they not do that.  Most were honoured by that request, if they knew to ask no clamping on the pulsating and functioning umbilical cord. Others, though they requested, had their directives ignored for frivolous reasons, the medical person lying of a made-up excuse to clamp a pulsating cord, like "fear of the mother bleeding."  Why the false reason to justify a clamping of the cord.  

    The reason is an alibi, to tell in the Courts, if they must. They had to have an excuse, so they made up a fear that something terrible was likely to happen to the mother. The alibi is then the cure was clamping the functioning umbilical cord, at the risk to the child going into shock.  Of course they have their oxygen tanks.  But oxygen alone will not revive a child shy of 20 to 50 percent total blood volume. The facts of that were stated in the damages of the Chow-case-law, Ontario, Canada, handled by Sommers and Roth.

    The child not having immediate blood volume and pressure replaced, did survive, but only after the transfusion of blood was adequate.The child lives, who was caused to be anemic, as being blind, deaf, and paralyzed.  His anemia was caused by his blood being trapped in the placenta,  His cost of care, so not to be institutionalized or given up to the Province to raise, and to stay with his mother, will be to the taxpayers in higher medical fees for services. This is logical to be passed on, in medical civil suits,  this one netting over $8 million dollars.  

    Another child with his circulation interrupted, too, the Ing-Case-Law, cost $14 million dollars, also of the Ontario Province. Neither of these Court Awards stopped the incompetent training of doctors. As to hasty clamping, a common practice, Ontario has two cord stem cell blood banks. They also have the highest budget sought for autistic children, $500 Million. The Province also had their students tested, and found over 65 percent could not pass a standard achievement test.    In British Columbia, there is one cord stem cell blood bank. Alberta University also has a private stem cell blood bank that operates from its campus.

FEARS OF THE MOTHER BLEEDING, IS IT A LOGICAL EXCUSE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS, AS JUSTIFIED?

    The excuse is not justified by lack of evidence. Was the mother bleeding?  No.  Was there any danger if you clamped the pulsating cord, leaving the placenta full of blood, caused a possible danger to the mother?  Yes.  Was that danger the risk of the placenta then leaking with pressure of continued contractions on the womb?  Yes.  Then how did early clamping for a fear, not present, improve the situation, rather then allow nature to take its course, and the child have all the blood being transfused into their expanding lungs?  "It could not improve either the mother's situation, if true a risk of bleeding was factual; the placenta, yet in the womb.  Bleeding is generally "after" the placenta is expelled.

    The removal of the baby from his/her lifeline jeopardized both. Where the situation was in home birth, the baby was at risk of the medical person not able to do a vein to vein transfusion from the cut vein back into the baby through. What transfusions skills does a midwife have, or registered nurse, or medic if they are told to clamp the pulsating cord?  Giving back an anemic child back his her blood because of 50 percent blood deprivation is the only way to prevent shock or disease..  Oxygen alone will not keep the child alive. Anemia  can be caused by blood loss or deprivation, as this would be the case. This would be by threat to the child of up to 50 percent total blood volume deprivation. (Facts of that possibility are in the reasons for judgement in the Chow case-law , Ontario, Canada, by Sommers and Roth).

    Judges nor juries are stupid.  This under-the-table directives, being used in Canada and in the United States were being used by a Medical female Doctor in Florida, May 2003; and by two midwives in Ontario, Canada, in the month of June 2003, plus a student.

    The author or teacher of directing immediate cord clamping by a false fear has not been, identified, so far. Nor, has any clinical study to make this a standard of policy and care imposed been found.  This was a surprise pressure placed on the women to consent on early clamping for the fear put on her, her life was in danger, when that was not a fact.  

    What consent was given was not informed consent.  This is falsehood one might expect an element of surprise assault to be used by an Terrorist. They are sweet to you as they are plotting to deceive you and exploit you.  Terrorists pull surprise assaults that gives their victims no means of being prepared to defend themselves.  

    So do we have terrorists or those not truly dealing fairly that our Canadian children can be the best that they can be?  Or, is the motive simply injury for personal profit, and the hope to hit the jackpot that this child's blood is valued for one single unit of stem cell blood to fetch $30,000, or at the most another $150.00 extra billing fee, for just plain ordinary "white" blood?

        You be the judge as you begin your own quest and questions on this issue of secrecy on the timing of the clamping of the cord. The place to start is asking about the storage of the placentas at each hospital. Who picks them up?  Are they being sold or burned?   

NEW INEXPERIENCED PARENTS, NAIVE, AND TRUSTING, ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE TO THEIR BABY EXPLOITED:

        The only true way an inexperienced mother and father can protect their child without the medical persons taking vengeance by getting even if the parents don't play along with donating their baby's blood is to birth unassisted in the safety and the security of their own home, wisely, unassisted.  Why?

         Because too many breaches of trust have been involved registered-nurse-midwives as well as doctors. This is whether this has been a home birth or at a medical center. More serious, the medical persons can "accidently" do harm to the mother during the birth of the child. One recent example Oct-November 2003, happened to an inexperienced  mother. She was birthing on the lower coast of Vancouver and was wise to the clamping, and refused early clamping to her baby.

        The medical persons had the baby pushed back into her womb for a face up birth presentation. This is not a method of clinical practice to twist and shove the baby back into the womb for a mere face up birth position. The mother is now fighting for her life of infections to the womb. She has already had to have a colotomy.

        This is not the first situation of militancy for power of control over the mother birthing and the control of the quality of life of the child or the mother. The militancy of the medical doctors, today, is compliance, and no questions, blind trust.  The organization of no information is right into the prenatal classes run by the nurses, who are told they cannot have guest speakers, nor can add or subtract from their information. When mothers speak about early clamping and the right to not having that, the nurses pretend they have never heard of not clamping the cord.

        In many situations, after "active management" the mother and the newborn child are lucky to be spared their lives.  Many women think that revival to them both, after drugs were used on them, they would surely have died had they not had an expert attend their birth.  The facts, are to the contrary.  The evidence for least interventions are to natural births, when babies come of their own time, the mother rested in her own home, babies coming after the mother is rested, usually in the early morning hours.

        Surely, the women if educated on natural birth, and knows how to avoid active management as her right to contract against, can do less risk for going with nature care -- warm water births, and she or her spouse catch their own baby.

        This is because it is known without intervention, 93 to 95 percent of births are without incident.  Interventions do cause most of the mishaps: drugs, false birth position, and fear of the mother in a environment she does not know the people or their intent to her or her baby.

        The system is not trust worthy. It never was. It has always been based around drugs, which manipulate the birth to the staff and/or the doctors busy time schedule.  Inductions of labor are unsafe.  

        The research I have read on experiments of birth would, in most cases, I doubt that one could find the mothers available to question them what information they had to make an informed decision.  And if they would make a difference decision, today, with more information?

        The truth of informed consent of what is done to her person or her baby's is not based on all information given. For example women asked if they want 30 second cord clamping or immediate and never told about no clamping of the cord at all.  (See Judith S. Mercers clinical study -- this was believed a controlled clinical study to find the least amount of time a child may survive if early clamped without revival of blood transfusion or oxygen.  Judith was NOT allowed to even suggest full delayed or no clamping. That is a biased and controlled clinical study, which was contrary to Judith's own principles that natural is best, no interventions by man in the timing of the clamping of the cord.

        Evidence-based clinical studies need unbiased questioning of those who had agreed to be in the study.  Did they have all risks known and all options known?  Most it is believed did not. What we have is medical persons agreeing to alibi the study and make a report, that is controlled and not released to the public, in most instances, or copies researched by the Health Care services governing the Nation.  The trouble is the clinical studies are done in one Country then used as a clinical study and practice imposed as a policy on the members of the public, at large.  The studies are used as alibis for any medical person using the study as a defense.  Not necessary the training he or she received to become a licensed person in the State, Province or Territory, they became licensed in.  The studies are made available as alibis and defense, and are used to prevent the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate a trend imposed on the public, and for dubious reasons.

        An example of a opinion, or study put into a Data base, is MDConsult, an American Medical site, and used by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia.  There, is a report by Dr. Gabbes, that directed it was okay for the convenience of the doctor to clamp the child's lifeline, as his/her own convenience.  He boldly stated, the amount of blood, in most instances, was not of importance.  Tell that to the Michael Chow, living blind, deaf, and paralyzed, after immediate cord clamping caused him to be anemic by 50 percent.

     When a medical doctor was reported for doing immediate cord clamping on all c-sectioned babies, the CPS-BC would not investigate the training of the doctor, stating he had a defense in this data base of this American doctor's opinion, not important, doctors own choice of convenience.

    No where was the well-being of the child mentioned; nor the right of the parents to have been informed no clamping of the cord is necessary, and not a medical need, unless the cord tore or for placenta previa. The cord, again, need not be clamped at all, ever.  That is the "pioneer" Lotus Birth - a right of choice to all mothers, and best put into a written and Signed Contract.

     No baby has to donate blood and cannot legally be forced to do so. The duty is to protect the child's legal rights of equal security and protection by our Nation's Laws.  Policies of the hospitals, medical persons cannot usurp the Nation's laws of duty of care to another.

     The sacrifice of blood was done once and for all.  You want sacrificed blood, then go to the Cross, if you believe in the Christian faith.  That blood was voluntarily given...not so the baby's blood.  The policy for who can donate blood is:  The person must be age 17,  over 110 pounds, and known to be in good health.  Immediate cord clamping does not allow for examination of the baby for good health.

    So do not allow any doctor or nurse or midwife to clamp a baby's pulsating cord for dubious reasons, other then the cord tore or for placenta previa.  And do have a video of your child's birth if having a licensed medical person in attendance. They cannot stop a birth witness or a photographer being present.  

    This is because educational films are in the policy of the medical professions.  And birth is natural and the medical persons are not needed, again in 93 to 95 percent of most births.  Be in control for a gentle birth of natural birth.  Become alert and aware of your rights and protect yourself and your baby.  

    What do you know about your doctor?  Ask for recommendations if you can.  Ask about the most recent birth of the doctor you are now going to.  

     What recommendations can the medical person get from the mother who he / she just delivered their child, on the care and treatment and the use of :  drugs, position of birth, and the timing of the clamping of the cord.

    If they cannot answer a question directly and only say, they follow policy...ask him what right you have to say no to that policy, and what is it?  

    It is best to read the directions he learned, or the textbook he studied from or refers to.  Most libraries can bring the book in, at no charge.  Have the medical person give you the references and passage of care and treatment to the child's umbilical cord, and does that sound logical to you. Would it sound reasonable to a judge if you requested there were no interventions?

    This discussion on the cord issue should be well in advance, of the child's birth. This is so you can find another doctor, or make provisions to birth unassisted,  with another  professional person.  But if none can be found to put you at ease, they will avoid active management, then trust in yourself to become informed and to know most births are without events, 93 to 95 percent of normal births.  

      Do not believe the medical person(s), if they say , "Well, I wouldn't clamp the cord on your baby."

     If they did it to others, they will treat you the same and without respect. They look and expect naive women who busy career persons, too busy to do research.  They expect the first time mother to be so excited at being pregnant and in fear, they will listen without independent research, everything they say, and will do it blindly.  And, this  is true of their spouses, equally uneducated on birth matters.

    Sharing this information, when it ought to have explained, appropriately, when you were knee high, is like trying to prevent rapes to women, who do not understand the lurking dangers forewarned by the women, who have had such an attack.  

    Active management "is" in most instances an attack on the woman's body and the child's.  In fact, Active Management is described as the Rape of the Twentieth Century, by Leilah McCracken. (See her web site at Birthlove.com).  But warning women to research on natural birth education, warm water births, no drugs and no clamping of the cord is like meeting, by the women, themselves, a political blockage...hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil of the sacred Docs.

    The facts are women who have never been raped find it hard to understand what others feel, who have. It is the same in the experience of child birth.  Those not experience birth, will listen until they themselves experience the breach of trust of "active management" not having the best information available what natural birth is, and what it is NOT.   The simple message is, you do not need doctors, or midwives, for natural birth, in most instances.  You can have them available, in another room, but you, CAN contract for a Hand's Off birth.  The contract, signed is a waiver.  And, only you the mother can change your mind for something offered, or can refuse it.  It is as simple as that. It is confirmed in Law, such as in the UK, where a woman sued for a c-section imposed on her.  The Supreme court ruled NOT even the Judge could rule over her body, and direct a woman have her body cut to give birth.  It was also won in Dublin, Ireland, the medical persons could not impose genetic testing of PKU on the baby, particular, against the parents right to reject it.  If PKU is done, no blood sample need be taken by an insertion of a needle in the child's heel, risking infection.  Urine tests can be done at any time, this test is not necessary to be done on the day of birth.

    It is hard to prevent a bad birth experiences.  Most women on the internet, have had one bad active management where they had no control...wiser, they birth in their own homes, where they are in control. They birth with those they have confidence, either a professional or another birth-experienced mother.  

    The medical persons and the hospitals all do billings, some regular and some extra billings.  They make their money on extra money for extra interventions.  It is like going into a store, they always try to sell you more.  Same with active management.  They sell you on this drug and that, that in 26 percent of the time, is leading to a c-section. The cost of birthing in the USA is now reaching a business intake of $20 billion dollars.  If women said no to institutional births, they would only make 3 to 5 percent of that budget.  Think about it...you are big business to them, and the business is better spent on your baby, in education, the arts. The baby then might be a genius, if you keep the child out of the grips of active management, the policies of the hospital and the medical persons.

    Motive.  Think about it:  Why would they want to take extra care, patience, for a hand's off birth, if there is no pay off for extra time for what insurance pays for a flat fee for service.  They also pay extra for collection of organs and packaging them, so if clamping the cord is without fee, and the collection of the organ, as a waste product now sent to others, sold, the taking of the placenta and the baby's blood trapped in it, has extra billing potential.  In doing this, early clamping gives the most trapped blood for selling. The doctor, too, will want to be in and out of the delivery room. To do that, they use drugs, oxytocin.  They are making more money and in the next ten minutes, you are finished business.  You will have experienced the rip-off, morphine-oxytocin active management program, designed by those who do not communicate with those they serve, the child[bearing women.  You will be the sicker for agreeing to be managed, you will nurture an internally injured baby the rest of your life.  

    You can count on intervention with active management. This is more so, if there is announcement of organs of a special type of blood announcement.  If your  baby is unlucky to have that type of blood, any arrangement to cause the baby to be the next victim, is easily arranged by Active Management, even the death of the child. Then the whole of the organs are taken, not just the blood. That seemed to be the fate of the Yurko Project.  Impaired premature birth, was dead within 2 1/2 months later, the whole of the baby taken at that time, but first immediately cord clamped, after oxytocin induced birth, 5-weeks premature.

     There will be no safety net without a signed birth contract that the medical person(s) cannot clamp the cord for any reason, other then the cord tore.  And a cord tearing is likely medical negligence, like they dropped the baby.  If they bulk at the "pioneer" Lotus birth, or raise an eye to the request...that is not a safe hospital,, to birth your baby. They are judging your right to that request.  They are likely, if you check their coolers, harvesting the placentas. They are likely first drained by their labs.  If they do consent, to lotus birth, they will likely attempt to immediately remove the baby from your sight, on the pretense to do a test. You do not have to agree to tests on your baby, they have no right to impose a test. They will syringe out the placenta blood...and let you think you took home a baby, that received all of its own blood -- but the lab got the blood...by the syringe-out method.

     Even midwives have done that to naive first time birthing mothers, syringed out the placenta's blood through the vein. There was a picture on the internet, when I first began my study. I regret I did not save it to a disk. The new mother, trying the Lotus Birth did not know about leaving the baby in a warm towel, and the placenta too, and to not take the blood out...as the placenta "will" pulsate for up to 20 minutes, in some instances.  Compressed cord is one reason, the baby is making up deprived blood.  A drugged baby is another reason, slow beating heart.

     The baby is taking its time in transfusing blood.  Leave nature alone.  No harm of the baby deciding for herself / himself on how much blood they will receive and need.  All babies different, that we cannot perceive their needs.  The baby will decide, that is their right.  And,  not another's guess.

    If after the baby has received all his her own quota of blood, and the baby has trouble...in a few days, then blood-letting can be done. In just the same way, anemic babies received a top up.  It works in reverse, but taking out blood from a baby, is safer then adding another's blood to your baby blood stream.  Or ringer's lactate to keep the vessels from collapsing, for low blood volume and pressure.

    Very few babies have to have blood letting after birth.  Generally, they are anemic after hasty cord clamping. Anemia is the reason our babies are so sickly, this can last until they are school age, which can result in mental retardation.  Other disorders associated with low blood volume are autism, cancers, brain tumors, leukemias, liver, kidney, holes in the heart, hormone deficiencies, imbalance of enzymes...all are associated with blood deprivation at the child's birth. The baby's system was put into distress to survive.

     Check the sick babies by the parents organization bringing the facts out before the public, and not so the government and its secrecy at their hospitals, keeping such matters closed away from the scrutiny of the public.

FALSE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO CLAMP A BABY'S LIFELINE, WHILE IT IS STILL PULSATING:

    Medical persons are determined persons.  If they want your baby's blood, or the twin's, they will clamp the cord for any reason, they can think of: Short cord, fear of bleeding, fear of thick blood, fear of fast flowing blood, and some of these may be caused by IV's of Oxytocin, changing the pH of your baby.  It can be dealt with after the baby receives all the blood inside their body. If the drugs are toxic, the baby's body is already exposed the toxins in the drugs permeating all cells and brain and nervous cells too.  

    The excuses, really, are endless, and novel, just made up. They most always are given in a panic statement.  Always the manipulation of a panic, they must act quickly.  Most births in institutions have a circus of panic, and a well practiced fire-drill, that they repeat, over and over again, for almost all births.  An example of fire drill of nurses walking the fast pace carrying a baby cut form his lifeline, and taking down to the equipment in the ICU, is in the book, A Child is Born, issue 1993.  

    So if all efforts to protect your baby fails, and the cord is clamped against your will, it is assault, battery and attempted murder, not approved or done with informed consent. So if the cord is clamped outside of the cord tore or for placenta previa, have the medical persons explain it in detail before a Judge.  

     File a Writ in the child's name for assault, battery, attempted murder, in civil application, for compensation.  If the child died of shock of complications, investigate Laying of Information to have the matter set for trial for criminal prosecution.

    If the child lives, as was the Ing and Chow boys case, then the Judge, after hearing the case, if criminal negligence, after compensation of civil compensation to the child, for endangering, can turn it over to criminal prosecution, too, for disciplining of the doctor, with a jail sentence.

     Again, read the Michael Chow story, written up as a Reason for Judgement. The summary of the Chow-case-law was failure to provide and perceive the child was anemic requiring immediate returning of the blood deprived by immediate cord clamping. The reason given was for a cord around the neck. However, there are options to following directions to clamp and cut a cord around the neck.  Common sense.  A prudent doctor would have put a finger between the cord and the neck, and allowed the baby to be held, until the rest of the birth was completed, the baby wrapped in a warm towel.  Patience is then what is required, not speed.  When the placenta was born, empty of blood, because the blood would have transfused, by the child's steady heart beat, into the baby's body, then, the cord could have been safely unwound, and not clamped and cut. All babies, including c-section babies can have no clamping of the cord, the Lotus Birth. All babies means premature babies too.  

    If you are reading this as a parent, already having had your baby violated, if they are under two or six years after becoming an adult in our area, you can file for a Civil Writ in our child's name.  You may go for a Class action if two or more of you have the same complaint, against the same medical person(s) or Hospital that violated their duty of best practice possible least risk of harm was not upheld on this issue.

    If you are a victim over the legal age, and you find out from a reliable source, your mother or birth witness, you were a immediate clamped baby and experienced any kind of internal problems, not proven by fact it is a genetic disorder, you can file Criminal Charges, for discipline of violation to your person.  Criminal assault to victims may have compensation, if time limits have expired, or by new information released on this issue, now on the Internet, the Judge may feel, in the sake of no injustices going unopposed, the Court will allow a trial, for compensation, in the Civil.  All applications to the Court for a reasoned decision, and a trial, or settlement, are protected by the filing of the Writ. It is a simple statement, you as the plaintiff, and you identify the defendant, and simply state the problem.  You give no evidence in the Writ, for the evidence is what is presented at the Trial. Sometimes there is a mini-trial, a Discovery.  Many times the Discovery results in a out-of-court settlement.

    Had the Chow and Ing-case-laws been settled out of court, rather than a trial, the information would not be available for public review and information.  The settlements are generally, a no fault, keep silent agreement.  No changes of policies result or protection to the public at large, result in most out-of-court settlements.  The John Moore Case-law,  first denied him compensation for a breach of trust, on appeal was going back to the court of origin.  The issue was taking John Moore's spleen and blood tissues, and used in a development of tissues cells, called the MorLine.  He found out the tissues were not burned, but used without his consent.  The doctor and the lab shared $3 Billion dollars within three months of exploiting him to use a special clinic for tests.  It was rumored, likely by a bank deposit, he settled out of court for one-half million dollars, a far cry from $3 billion...but when you are sick, as John Moore was, you settle, after 6 years of the court's system.

HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION AND ETHICS BOARDS SOUGHT PLACENTAS AND PLACENTA BLOOD WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT:

        At present time, the medical persons seemed pressured.  Perhaps, it is the policies and threat of their jobs by the hospitals they work in or the birth centers. Whatever the reasons, the medical persons, and this is around the world, are being solicited to seek the collection of placenta blood, and even the placenta itself.

        The Administration Board of each Hospital, by their ethics committee, many having legal advisers on the board, approved that once the organ was detached from the owner/infant, they were free to do as they willed with it, and without parental consent.

        The hospital, the doctor or the lab, sold the placentas and the placenta blood. This is confirmed in the latest edition of Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, 10th Edition 2003, page 1076. It was also confirmed in Edmonton, Alberta, the Royal Alexander Hospital, and not denied by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Minister of Health, Gary Mar.

         In order for the medical societies to harvest the babies, they need the continued ignorance of the general public on this issue.  Or, the fear of society not to challenge the medical persons in a court of law. Should the good the medical persons do in society, outside of this issue, allow them to escape Rule of Law?  I do not think so. This is if our Charter and Rights and Freedoms and Divine Rule of God , or man's Rule of Law, means anything, at all.

MOTIVES FOR IMMEDIATE UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING -- VALUE OF ONE UNIT OF STEM CELL PLACENTA BLOOD CAN BE AS HIGH AS $30,000

        There is a jackpot to be had by the collection of some types of human blood sought for transplants. This is the search for particular ethnic mix background.  The postings of blood matches desired are available to all medical persons and their institutions and labs.  This knowledge, known by the medical persons, but not known to the expecting mother, can make her baby most vulnerable, from the time she is known to be pregnant. Multiple birth babies are most at risk of harvesting.  

        Early clamped infants will be made weaker, some mothers have two babies compromised, both victims of drugs and immediate cord clamping, and early vaccination.  Ethnic blood sought, for example, may be a mix marriage of  Russian and Italian couple. Or, even Oriental blood can be in demand.  Or, a mix of the colored races with others and with white blood.  When medical societies post blood for matches in stem cells, like they did for bone marrow transplants, they want to be as close to the person's heritage, for the best possible transplant, for stem cell experimentation.

        The experimental work is expensive, costing about $130,000, the $30,000 for the payment of the finder of the specific blood match, found.  That is the payoff and we, the public, can be exploited, if we do not know the facts of what is going on; or protected, by ethical practices required and the highest standards in all hospitals and by all doctors.  None escaping investigation, as is needed, to keep our standard and trust in the medical services, for consumer protection.

        There has been paid $30,000 for one single unit of cord blood. This was oversea's blood paid for by Australia .  I have that story on this web site. This was paid before Australia began harvesting their "own" babies.  So there is implied motives for the changes of training and the ethics of our trusted medical persons, that the confidence of trust is zero.  (See Contents, Australia, pays $30,000).

        There is implied motives to the trends of teaching all medical persons to clamping a functioning and pulsating organ, even to cause added distress in the infant's delivery, by the use of drugs.  All this causes the child to release hormones into the blood, and the mother, and this is captured by early clamping of the umbilical cord.  The trapped blood is then, in most instances, secretly drained by the doctor, or nurse or the lab technicians.  Not a word of the volume of blood taken and, in most instances, without informed consent.

         It is an assured bet your baby will be left a living child, by early clamping. This is because of the skills and the state of the art of infant revival.  Even premature babies can be kept alive for a week, as they are blood-let for samples of newly created stem cells, from 10 to 15 percent total blood volume, done every 2nd and 3rd day. If they die, there is no investigation, at all, as long as this procedure was done by a licensed person and in an approved institution that practices this harvesting of human babies.

         The question is to the parents , is do you want a compromised revived baby, that has done its imposed duty to give blood to the State?  Or, do you wish to protect your baby that the baby, by God's Design is that blue ribbon baby that you planned from the start?

ODE TO MY PLACENTA

    ODE TO MY PLACENTA, is a poem that says it best.  This poem is appropriate to be shared as an educational learning for children who can then learn birth from their mother's lap respect for all creatures. They will learn to respect both human and animals lifeline. These children then will be ethical future medical persons, who will do no harm.  All creatures have a right to be born equal to be the strongest and healthiest babies -- this is God Ordained.  All natural birth provides for this care and duty.

    The poem, "Ode to My Placenta" was written by Dr. Sarah Buckley, Link, please go to: www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-524.htm   Dr. Buckley's own last three children had the Lotus Birth.  Dr. Buckley learned the art of natural birth education, during her second pregnancy. Like most of us, she did not know about the pioneer's method of child birth, for her first baby, regrettably. Most of us living today, have been harvested survival babies.

     I ask:  What might have we done or accomplished had we not be compromised, at, birth? Or, how much more the ease to learn or to be doing whatever it is we are doing today, with a whole lot less stress. How many of those who have drug addictions were the babies heavily drugged during birth?

    Accomplishments are to the "will of the individual."  Whatever our condition, even after being victimized by the clamp, let us always remember we are 100 percent human beings. Some of us may be less than whole by accident or by birth interventions of drugs. But, we remain, 100 percent human. Therefore, each and everyone of us, must be respected and our duty is to respect others. This is so all humans are born equal, in the future - Do no harm.

    This is accomplished by our knowledge of natural birth education and practice. To know this is to know that to be the best that we possible could be, by the Design of Nature...we leave the natural alone . . . leave the pulsating umbilical cord, untouched. Unless, of course, the cord tore or for placenta previa, which occur, rarely.  Leaving well enough alone provides for all creatures to be blue ribbon babies, regardless, if we are human babies or animal. Our moral duty is to protect them all -- all who cannot protect themselves, being so little.  The strong do not pick on the weak.

         Please sign the Petition Against Active Management and Harvesting of Babies.  

   www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814

(References used in research of some four years:   www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm

Search Lotusbirth  (Just add the word or phrase to search this web site, such as:  Ethnic groups blood most desired ; Canadian Criminal Code when a baby is a human being, AAP Policy, SOGC Policy, AGOG Policy, No Policy, Midwives collect blood, Codes for collection of blood; Tri Council Policies, to name a few).

OTHER INFORMATION:

IMMEDIATE AND EARLY UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING:

        The ICC and ECC method are a false but a common trend taught most medical persons, today. Motives must be sought. Blood deprivation is causing oxygen debts to key internal organs (brain, heart, lungs) and even the muscles of the child -- ICC and ECC logically weakens the child and the damages are like a roll of the dice.  No one can guess where the problems will show up, many health and behavior problems are latent in discovery.  

        Diagnosis may take up until the child is 7 and 9 years of age and the care and treatment of the child, during labor and following birth long forgotten. Universally, the medical persons do not respect the neonate and record the condition of the umbilical cord when clamped, or the position of the child's body when clamped.

        That is not by accident. The medical persons do not want to leave an account for review or comparison of why the delayed clamped child progresses well and the other ICC and ECC cannot tie his/her shoe laces until age 10, if then.  The metabolic disorders are tried to be excused as genetic. This stops all investigation and review of bad medical science and practice at birth.  There is no investigation on "active management" and why not "natural birth education and practice" instead.

        The hidden motives for ICC and ECC were concealing the hospitals and the medical lab involved in selling the placenta and the placenta blood.  Allowance of the practice have been done by the smooth talking medical persons convincing the mothers that what they did or intend to do, was a benefit for them or the child.  Not so, and if so, prove it in a court of law.  

        There is no need to clamp a red, firm and pulsating functioning organ, unless, for some needed to be investigated reason, the cord tore or for placenta previa.  Otherwise, the medical persons are using policies, clinical studies to escape liability of criminal assault, battery, and attempted murder.  That they revive one in sixteen babies, seldom a baby dying is no good excuse for endangering in the first place.  Nor, should it go without a criminal investigation, and certainly compensated in civil court to the child's trust fund.

HARVESTING FOR FEES FOR SERVICES AND PROFITS:

        The medical persons are likely harvesting components of the placenta's whole blood and taking the baby's blood without informed consent, for personal profit. This is shocking! All medical persons have access to posted and wanted types of blood wanted and tissues.  A requested match may well have a child target at the hospital, waiting for the child's birth to take place there.  There will be a reason given the parents why the child just had to have early clamping, the most recent one used by the registered-nurse-midwives and the doctors is the fear of the mother bleeding.  See Compensation Codes for Collection of Blood, organs.

        There is a natural buffer of increased blood to the mother that starts three months before the baby is born.  It is natural for all mammals to bleed at birth, and for the human mother, four cups are considered normal in blood loss.  A full placenta in her womb is at risk of leakage, causing her distress of two types of blood mixing. This creates problems to the next babies she may have. The threat to the baby is obvious to any cell endangered of dehydration of deprived oxygenated blood to it, for any moment of time.

DO MEDICAL PERSONS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, OR THE INTERNAL HARM OF RISK TO ANY CHILD EARLY CORD CLAMPED?

         I wonder if doctors, midwives, and doulas, ambulance medics really realize what is really going on? Have they thought this out?  And, what of the deceit and deception to the members of the public, and the police, and the law courts? How is the public's interest best served when we have class actions of $500 Million sought in Ontario, alone for autistic children; over 200,000 Canadian children are taking Ritalin , and over 155,000 children seeking medical care and treatment in the Vancouver Children's Hospital, and over 300,000 in Alberta; and likely so, at all major cities of Canada.  We should be alarmed seeking an Official Inquiry on Maternity Matters and the care of the neonate, why this is so.

        If you are concerned, or do you have a mysteriously caused learning or behavior problematic child, and early clamping was likely involved, plus drugs, a false and harmful birth position, supine; and vaccinations while the child was yet anemic, at two months of age, then, please sign our Petition against unnecessary medical Intervention that are organized harmful birth care and treatment, called "Active Management"  

        The Active Management training benefits busy schedules of most hospitals and their drugs manipulate the baby's birth. Drugs cause distress. Distress causes more stem cell to be released. So is there motive to distressing the fetus? The early clamping takes the trapped blood in the placenta, of the released stem cells.  The babies, live, yes, but are compromised, and this is assault and battery.

        This concern had been sent to the former Hon. Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, who alleged, in Canada, the Federal Ministry of Health and Health Canada or the Justice System have no duties of what the Provinces or Two Territories are doing to others,  nor of the medical training and practice, across Canada. The present Hon Paul Martin, sworn in as Prime Minister, December 12, 3003, has been advised of this issue.

        The Federal Government, is directly or indirectly involved in the health care of the Nation.  They have set up grants by the Policies of the Tri-Council, who did not protect the newborn citizen from harvesting of its stem cells.  

        All levels of governments are involved in this research and participation of it, knowing they have been harvesting babies, the newborn citizen, who must have equal security of person. Yet, this issue is not yet before the courts. Why not?  Or, an investigation of the training of most medical persons involved in early clamping of the child's lifeline, and quality of life hopes.

         If you disagree, with our Prime Minister of Canada, and the Senators, and those of special health committees, please send a personal letter to the Prime Minister.   

        Please Email to the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada:   pm@pm.gc.ca       

                    The current Prime Minister of Canada now is, The Hon. Paul Martin , as of December 12, 2003.

        Please share with others, too, all past mothers, and those to be yet the mothers of the future. Let this be the last generation of harvested babies, as the last three and four generations of Western Societies women have been deceived.  There is no good excuse for continued early clamping of a pulsating cord because the evidence is in the placenta, that is drained secretly away from the natural parent's awareness.  That has been what I call a conspiracy of secrecy organized by those who had a duty of trust to do no harm.  

    Let your Religious Organization know, so they can create their own petition against false training and practice now in our medical care services, and in each community, at every hospital.  

    You may also want to check out euthanasia going on in your small rural hospitals.  Increased dosages of medicine are putting persons down, against their will. Those picked on are the smaller then 5-pound babies, those on disabilities, and the aged.  We seem to have a blend of the philosophies, including survival of the fittest that does not tolerate the weak.

    There is evidence of the medical decisions that if they have determined someone to have a fatal disease, whether true or not, that person is going to likely die within three weeks of diagnoses, if treating them is in a hospital.

    The changes for euthanasia has come through the changes of the Provincial and Territorial Health Care Agreements. Euthanasia was turned down at the Federal Level, and of particular interest was the Tracy Latimer Trial, whose father put her down, when she was entering womanhood, at the age of 12. The means to protect a person intended to be put down, by family and the doctors working as a team, have through the provinces stopped third party or Next Friend's appeal to court, in an expedient time to prevent death by over-dosages of drugs, to the alleged sick.  

    We need support, Internationally, to help Canada correct or investigate present training of all medical persons who will or intend to be at a mother's birth.

    We need support for informed choices, of both parents, that our babies are not being harvested by methods of Active Management.

    The only way to stop that is to return to natural birth education and practice. This allows the woman to have control over the position of her

body, during birth, no drugs, and no tying off the infant's circulation system.  This allows for stronger babies, no risk of invasion of viruses by

injections, and by the babies not having early clamping, they are getting full immunities by full blood transfusion from the placenta into the

expanding lungs.  Lungs take a considerable amount of blood.  Very little blood is left in the placenta by allowing God's Design to be completed, naturally.

    We must ask why the medical persons concerned about these issues have not discussed this issue with the politicians and protected our youth, or dealt appropriately with the false education now evident in Biology textbooks, K-12, and in Secondary Education.  One current textbook, 2003, " Principles of Anatomy and Physiology , 10th Edition, by Gerard J. Tortora and Sandra Reynolds Grabowski, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., reveals the placenta harvested for the selling to pharmaceutical companies, page 1076.  Pharmaceutical companies also have a conflict of interest in the educating of our medical persons. See the Merck Manual on the Internet.

     I have attempted to reach all levels of government but they would not deal with the medical professionals involved. Why would a billion dollar business be challenged of its ethics, when the government gets it cut? How many of our politicians have shares in these pharmaceutical companies who are doing the training with harmful birth positions, harmful drugs, cutting of the woman's body are all directed by pretense it is in the woman's or child's best interest.  Now, they allow for the living baby, but they have been harvested of essential nutrition at birth.  The woman and child are just to be grateful for life.  

    Most hospitals can revive a baby they caused to be compromised in the first place, and the woman harmed by practices of "active management" when natural birth education and practice is not being supported, at all.   Please do what you can to investigate the false information in all biology textbooks, K-12 and in Secondary Education in your schools. The index is the place to look for umbilical cord, and fetal to neonate circulations system. If you must use the courts for an Injunction the false pages are stricken through as harmfully false, please do that.

     It has been known by common sense not to interrupt the infant's circulation system, for any newborn, human or animal. Research dates before 1801.  We have no good excuse for the deception going on within the medical professional groups and that the public was not informed how to protect their babies, our future, our youth.

    The side effect, by early umbilical cord clamping, if the baby lives, not dying of shock, is that the baby is anemic from anywhere from 6 weeks to 6 months*. The babies are often not checked for this anemic condition, and thus vaccinated in this weakened condition at birth. The baby takes this long*, if not longer to replace the red blood cells deprived him/her at birth.  (* Reference as to interpretation to Policy #71, December 1998, of The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC)

    The baby cannot be known to be in good health, when the firm, red pulsating cord is being clamped, sometimes instantly at birth or during birth.  The baby is not age 17, cannot give informed consent, is not 110 pounds, and has not finished growing. Babies, by law, must be equally protected.

    The baby needs the hormones and enzymes for proper growth and development.  But the baby is deprived these essential nutrients and components of blood by needless hasty clamping.  The medical person made this decision without permission or consent, in most instances, or evidence of need this was a benefit to the baby/owner of the placenta blood, deprived, the infant/neonate, with full protection, deemed in law for security of person.

    It is most unfair and unusual punishment, even if the child lives.  But because the baby sleeps 22 of 24 hours, the parents are not aware of the child's predicament of being weakened, in most instances.  Any internal damages (many latent) to the child are most often passed off as inherited bad genes.  

    The trend towards the State of the Art practices of today are seldom investigated for the one in sixteen babies with internal defects.  Some of these internal defects, holes in the heart, brains lesions, may be the result of scanning, needlessly.  

SCANS ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE IN SIXTEEN BABIES HAVING DEFECTS?

    What do scans offer, in most instances, but likely fearful parents who may not have a perfect child, or the fear of it, an abortion, and thus the fetus is taken for research, as well. The blood used in research that is trapped in the placenta, the organs used as well. If the baby is allowed to continue his/her development, unknown internal damages may lurk from the scan, and how many and the strength of the scanning machine, and the skill used.  We have mysterious sick children, world wide.  

    Or, to the internal damages, it is logical that the infant's cells were damaged by the insufficient oxygenated blood volume and pressure by the unhealthy practices of most medical persons who are involved in the training and actually participation of early clamping the infant's functioning and pulsating umbilical cord.  

EMERGENCY MANUALS WERE DIRECTING EARLY UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING:

    Those being falsely trained, and research indicates these associations, knowingly or not, the Workman's Compensation and the Canadian Red Cross have provided false information in emergency manuals, biology and reproduction textbooks.  Those using this information are then being trained through their Emergency Manuals and textbooks, including the 9-1-1 medics and emergency aids.  Sadly, they are being trained in this risk taking practice for clamping a pulsating cord.  

    The emergency medics are the least able, as in homebirths, to do vein to vein transfusion, if the baby goes limp for the shock or insufficient blood volume, after hasty cord clamping.  In a hospital, if it becomes obvious the baby is struggling to survive, oxygen and blood expanders can be given. But any revived baby is going to be compromised, internally, somewhat.

    The degree of internal injury may be subtle to serious.  The deprived placenta blood is, in any case, sent to research.  The family none-the-wiser of how much blood "their" baby was deprived by the medical person(s) involved in hasty clamping.   The baby, in most cases, was not transfused with his/her own placenta blood, if more blood was needed to stabilize the child so he/she could live.  (See the Chow-case-law, Ontario, Canada).  

THOSE LACKING HORMONES OR ENZYMES, WAS THE PROBLEM GENETIC OR THE VOLUME OF BLOOD DEPRIVED THE CHILD WITH THOSE IN THE BLOOD AND NOT TO BE DENIED THE OWNER/INFANT?

    The internal deprivation of hormones, enzymes, vitamins, and minerals and other components of blood of white cells, mature blood cells, stem cells, platelets, plasma is never sought out and investigated by proper authorities.  Nor, by Coroners, in most instances, if the baby dies, after care and treatment by a medical person.  

    No investigation for checking out for medical malpractice, even if there is a policy directing it, are done, in most deaths of babies.  The false policies needing correction and addressing in a Court room setting. The amount of the blood drained from the placenta, are the available facts, or ought to be, and should be on the baby's medical charts.This then would be for review for when the baby is frequently sick and fails to progress as those babies who were not drugged or early cord clamped, at birth.

CLAMPING AND CUTTING OF THE CORD IS 'NOT' A MEDICAL NEED:

    Unless the cord tore or for placenta previa, the umbilical cord need not have been clamped or removed.  All reasons the medical person gave must be investigated before a proper procedure. This can be the option of the legal guardians or Next Friend of the child, to be fact finders of the care and treatment given a vulnerable and helpless child. All children require proper investigation if they are suspected of not having their legal constitutional rights of security of person or equal protection given them, during and after birth.

    The early removal of the umbilical cord was not routinely done by the pioneers prior to 1923 in Canada or the United States. That is the secret of longevity of many of the persons, living today, born prior to 1923. Today, we are seeing a medical bias controlled and evident on the movies of a Hollywood version of a custom of cutting off the pulsating cord from the placenta, yet in the womb, and  when the baby is not breathing.    

    The pioneers, by common sense, did no invasive handling of the umbilical cord or the placenta. The placenta was put, equally, in a warm towel and kept close to the baby.  A warm placenta allows the continuation of the blood flow into the baby. The internal vessels of the baby's own system shuts down when their needs are fulfilled.Other placenta birthing creatures, leave their offspring placenta and cord alone, until all pulsation ceases, or the placenta pulls off naturally.  

    Dogs eat the placenta only after the pulsation has ceased to pulsate. That has been observed, and cats do the same.  That is natural instinct, and the mother of the human child would do that, too, if she, too, birthed unassisted and protected her baby, until the placenta was naturally out from her own body.  But the doctors are taking over the control and doing that hasty clamping, before the completion of the birth, to another's baby, and without informed consent.  

    These medical persons, women and men, are pretending early clamping as a medical need, and that is a lie.  The biology textbooks are directing a medical need for hasty clamping and that is a lie, telling "human babies" have to have their umbilical cord immediately cord clamped.  That is common nuisance in directing a harmful practice and deceiving the public, at large, even if only one baby was violated.  But the case is millions of babies are being exploited, and the reason, logically, the medical professionals are selling the placenta blood and the placenta, to research companies, cosmetic companies, and drug companies.  

    Almost every medical professional would enjoy a spin off by the causing of internal damages, that most lawyers would fear to bring to a court, to say, an unncessary procedure caused the hole in the heart, lung problems, brain lesions, but that is evident on animals so treated, with such unnecessary treatment.

    Other creatures, what do they do?: Monkeys leave the placenta alone and it falls off naturally.  Colts stand up, and stretch and break off the placenta.  In all cases of unassisted births of all other mammals, there is no rush to do immediate detaching of the cord. The blood in the placenta was made for the baby's needs, not another's.The truth about the birth in the pioneer's home birth was simple.They birthed in the warmest and cleanest room in the house. Most family members were present or available. They didn't do unnecessary fire drills of weighing the baby, measuring as though it was medical need. They left the cord alone, until the placenta was detached, and not all pioneers cut off the cord.  

    When the placenta was expelled, many of the pioneers simply put it in a diaper, and it and the cord fell off in a day or two's time, for a perfect and non-infected navel. Today, the pioneer method has been called the Lotus Birth, named after person who revived this healthy and natural state of care of the newborn child. This person, Claire Lotus Day, questioned hasty umbilical cord clamping. She revived this no clamping in a hospital, for her own child. She did so without the apparent knowledge it was a custom practiced by pioneers, and never abandoned in small villages of Third World Countries, where no Western trends taught them to remove the cord.  

    The World Health Organization knows of and states, no harm done to leave the placenta and cord alone, no clamping or cutting need be done, not even for cosmetic reasons. They did warn about the use of the common drug, Oyxtocin, stating this drug must be followed with early cord clamping, to prevent "brain" injury to the child.  So are the mother's given the medical research of this fact?  No.

    Western societies are the ones most at risk of dangerous medical malpractices. Why? The motive has got to be our use of blood components, and organ transplants, and the babies are fair game, apparently, and endangered, in most instances, without informed choice or protection by their real legal guardian(s) the mother and the father of the child, if known.

MEDICAL EXPERTS WHO SAY "DON'T CLAMP THE CORD.

See what the medical experts (links below) have to say. EXPERT TESTIMONY:

• Many medical professionals are trying to reach the mother-to-be for safer birth experiences, to both the mother and the child.  I recommend they read Dr. Sarah Buckley's Sworn Declaration , please see the List of Contents, this website.

• A retired obstetrician, Dr. George M. Morley, who had delivered some 10,000 babies, states there are only two reasons to justify early cord clamping, (1) cord tore and (2) placenta previa.  The other alleged reasons are not good excuses to endanger the child and have the child nutrient deficient, dehydrated, and injuries resulting internally, like holes in the heart. www.cordclamping.com

• The two visual reasons for early cord clamping would require the means for correction to the child, if serious injury is to be avoided.  At present, studies reveal one in sixteen children are having to be revived at birth.  That is unnatural. (See, in the list of contents, the cost to raise an Autistic Child, British Columbia, paying $60,000, annually, per child. Dr. Morley associates autism and attention deficit disorders, and many internal problems, with early cord clamping, too).

• One in four persons, today, are having heart problems*. That is unnatural. Most common heart problems in children are the holes in the heart. That is caused, after birth, by lack of proper blood volume and pressure for the foreman ovale to close and the ductus arteriosus to seal.  (See the hole in heart babies that died, most of them needlessly, in Winnipeg, Man, list of contents) (*See also list of references and resources in the list of contents).

• Some holes in the heart are not detected or reported for a long time. Adults in their thirties are discovering they have a hole in the heart, the doctor alleging it was there since birth.  

• The dangers of early cord clamping has been known but concealed within the medical community for a long time, in fact since 1801.   One of the best research and reports is available through the Lancet.  It is dated 1957 and was done in London, Uk, by Dr. Mavis Gunther.  Dr. Gunther proved how long a cord would pulsate if left alone, over 14-minutes for drugged babies.  She also stated evidence for no clamping the cord is that for unassisted births, the child thrives.  

• Best educated and most ethical doctors and other medical persons do not clamp a pulsating umbilical cord, except as stated above for the only two visual reasons.  Even these exceptions require to be prepared to give the child oxygenated blood as to his her needs if early deprivation weakens the child. Anemia must be checked for routinely.

• Serious consequences may happen to a parent, who had no signed birth plan, taking home a sick child after immediate cord clamping and drugging the child by giving the mother drugs during labor, as induction of a premature child.  

Is Sick Baby's Blood Used in Research and Transplants?:

     If the blood in the placenta is drugged, is it not used?  No, it seems drugged blood does not disqualify the neonate's blood from use in research, in fact, the blood drained into the tubes and plastic bags for research are treated with rat poison, known as Heparin , to keep the blood from clotting too quickly. Heparin is used to kill rodents by causing hemorrhages. The same disorder is likely true to any site in the human body. This, logically would be particularly true, also, to a baby already anemic, and since birth.

    Even a sick baby's blood is used, and as evident of that fact, check out the Yurko Project.   http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/albayati1.html

    This child was very sick, at birth.  It is not known if he was given a blood transfusion. It is likely his placenta blood was taken for research.  Mr. Alan Yurko, the father of the deceased child, wrote me that his child was early cord clamped. Hasty clamping is alleged needed to be done if Oxytocin was used in the birth, and Pitocin was used to induce labor, 5-weeks prematurely. The reason given was low amniotic fluids. The mother was not apparently informed, sometimes, the amniotic fluid will replenish itself, with care.

    Then when the child died two and one half months later, still sick, but then vaccinated, the child's organs were also taken by Translife .  This story is how the Florida father, in jail for alleging assault and battery to the child, serving life plus ten years for a Shaken Baby Conviction, is attempting for a new trial.  He did not have the information he now has on the birth of his child. Alan Yurko alleges his innocence, that the child died of complications after being injected with six vaccinations.  The child was still anemic when injected. The child appeared to be, what I think he had, a diabetic coma and misdiagnosed in the care and treatment when Alan Yurko took his child in when not breathing.  It will take several readings of the website, and a further study on the nature of diabetes, and how it can be started by viruses.

REPRODUCTION BOOKS REVEAL SELLING OF THE PLACENTAS THAT WERE DETACHED BY THE MEDICAL PERSON(S) AND WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT:

        The facts of the placenta and its trapped blood properties being in a conflict of interest of doctors and the hospitals they work in, or birth centers, and that of midwives are found in the selling of the placenta for research and to drug companies. This fact was stated back in 1982, in the Reproduction books. The evidence of using the placenta for research and drug companies was found in this Middle School's Library resources:

        To quote from Reproduction,The Cycle of Life, p 98:

      ". . .Once the head and shoulders have emerged the rest of the birth proceeds rapidly.  the baby's body is finally free of its nine-month-long home.  the pearly blue umbilical cord still links child to womb, sending him blood from the placenta.  The doctor will wait until the cord has stopped pulsating before clamping it above the baby's abdomen and severing it."  

    P 98, "After the placenta is delivered, the doctor will examine it to make sure it is intact.   It is then discarded or sold to companies for use in research or beauty products."

    Reproduction, The Cycle of Life, by Karen Jensen and the Editors of U.S. News Books, page 98.  ISBN 0-89193-606-8, ISBN 0-89193-666-1 (school ed.)  The Middle School has used these books since 1983.

WHEN DID I LEARN OF NO CLAMPING OR CUTTING OF THE CORD BY OUR GRANDMOTHER'S GENERATION:

    I first learned of no clamping/tying off or cutting off the umbilical cord, when I was age fifteen, in 1957.  But like most mothers of today, I was not factually informed of the risk taking of the trends of clamping off a pulsating cord, (disease entering the cut cord), and blood deprivation and nutrients deprived the child and immunities, if the cord was clamped even if the cord was pulsating, just a tad.

    I thought it was gross to be leaving the cord and placenta with the child.  Not so.  Leaving the placenta with the child is most logical, if you take the time to rethink the benefits:  no cord infections, no trauma of too soon clamping interrupting the circulation system, the baby gets all the blood in the placenta; the privacy of the families are kept, as the placenta and genetic codes are buried beneath a shrub.

    On rethinking the practice, as gross as it may sound, no clamping or cutting the cord is most logical and a benefit to the child. By getting familiar with the logic and health benefit to the child sets aside quickly grossness of leaving the child with the placenta in a diaper or cheese cloth (for airing and faster drying).  See Dr. Sarah Buckley's Declaration, the original Declaration is in my files.  A video on the Lotus Birth, will be available to view on Canadian video machines, is soon, on its way.

    By requesting this no-clamping procedure puts the mother to-be to have the control, as it should be and her being informed and educated on child birth.  Ideally, this education takes place before she plans a family. It is the mother's legal right to have a signed birth plan that the doctors, not for any reason, unless the cord tore or for placenta previa, can touch her baby's lifeline/hopeline. Nor drug her, thus her baby.  Nor cut her body to birth her baby, thus risk her and her baby to blood toxins.

SIGNED BIRTH CONTRACTS:

    The mother's best protection for a natural birth is having a signed birth CONTRACT.  It is as simple as that. Are they recommended by experts?  Yes, the good in Policy #71, December 1998, does show a "signed" birth plan as the expecting mother's legal right.  A birth plan is only wishes, a contract signed is more definite of what the doctor or midwife or nurse or hospital, by their policies, cannot do to the woman's body or her baby's.  

    Nothing in a medical policy can usurp the rights of the individual to maintain control over their own body, and the parents God given law the parents are the legal guardians over their child, and are to protect their infant over endangering practices as are injections at birth and early umbilical cord clamping before the placenta is expelled, for c-section or vaginal birthed babies.

    Please, do risk yourself or your baby by going to any hospital or doctor not willing to sign her care and treatment consented to, birth "contract",  or not consented to treatment, as to what is being rejected, if the mother is saying no to any cutting of her body and no to drugs, and no to clamping off her baby's lifeline/hopeline. It is not when the cord is cut that does the damage, remember it is the clamping off the circulation system.  Some tools now clamp and cut the cord instantly. They are being used by the ambulance medics.

    The legal right of the mother is to inform publicly, the doctor who will not sign a birth plan, and wants dominating control over her body and that of the child's, or the hospital, to allow that care, if their birth premises are to be used. The mother may then feel safer to birth unassisted in her own home, and make do, with the best she can get for an observed witnessed birth, and minimal help, if requested.

DOUBLE STANDARD OF INFORMED MEDICAL CONSENT:

    The public must be made aware of the double standard of no informed choice given to the pregnant mother and her right to have least invasive practices and a natural or unassisted birth even in a hospital.  Is a mother crazy, if she is pregnant, to loose her right of informed choice?  Well, some medical persons treat as though she were, and not of her right mind to make an informed decision.  Take the case of a mother imposed on in the United Kingdom, to have an c-section.

     On her appeal, it was ruled a doctor was out of place to determine the mother could not make an informed decision to have refused the c-section.  The Appeal court ruled this was not a right of the doctor to do an operation without consent of the pregnant mother.  (See BMJ for the full story).

    Informed choice and rejection of medical services is a right given to all others. This then, if policies are different for a pregnant woman, is a discrimination to a group of persons, and a sex, the pregnant mother and her right as the legal guardian to determine best practice possible least risk of harm to herself and/or her baby.  

    Natural unassisted birth may be also a factor for women who have little or no medical services.  They do not have to agree to cutting of their bodies or drugs used to give birth to a child.  Even if the doctor alleges a benefit. All risk factors must be known in an appropriate time for the mother to make an informed decision. Doctors are not doing this during prenatal visits or classes given and controlled by the registered nurses associations, like the Reproduction Care Services.  

NATURAL BIRTH MEANS THE FETUS AND MOTHER'S NATURAL HORMONES WORK AS A TEAM, IF NOT INTERFERED WITH BY DRUGS:

    Nature has provided for hormones, like ' relaxin"  to widen the birth canal, expand the hip joints to allow for the birth of the child in a gravity position, or side-ways birth.  So why are doctors doing episiotomies routinely, and again on women who have had an episiotomy?

     Hormones work best if not interfered with by drugs, like natural oxytocin , and prolactin, to name a few.  What drugs the mothers are given are artificially made and with questionable preservatives in them, like chlorobutanol often in put in synthetic oxytocin. The latter is alleged to cause, eventually, thyroid problems. And what doctor or medical person can guess the allergic reactions to any drug given a pregnant mother and her child? There is a risk that both can react, even die from drugs given to a birthing mother.

NO HARM DONE BY NOT DOING A MEDICAL TREND/PROCEDURE:

    Leaving the umbilical cord alone, is not harmful to the child. The right to do that means even if the baby must be operated on, or for a c-section birth, the baby remains with her/his placenta and cord, untouched, not clamped, until it naturally falls off or the mother and father remove the cord, at their own place and convenience.  

    A home will have less chance of staph infections and viruses then most hospitals, have, naturally in their air and surroundings, today, or the risk of them. The parents do not need to be a surgeon to remove the cord. Boiled scissors or a sharp knife and iodine are the methods some pioneers used to cut the cord, if done at all.  

    Warnings abound on unnecessary medical operations of a circumcision, too, the right of the mother to know it is not a medical need or a benefit to the child. It endangers the child, may even cause the child his life, or quality of life, as is the same of hasty cord clamping.

    Most parents, the legal guardian of the child, have not given informed consent for any medical person to stop the placenta oxygenated blood circulation into the baby.   

    The placenta blood is designed to go into the baby's expanding lungs. Placenta blood is not excess blood. To leave the cord alone will be to prevent the risk of lung disorders, and holes in the heart, and brain malfunctions and disorders to the nervous system and many other internal organs. The decision of interruption of the circulation system, in most instances, was often a matter of the medical person imposing the clamp without telling the parents no clamping of the cord or detachment need be done at all.  

    The hospital, or the medical staff or the doctor(s) or surgeon(s) did not tell the parents, beforehand, of their allowance of the doctor's intent, when they knew no clamping or cutting of the cord is legally done by some doctors. Or, failed to inform the birthing mother that the procedure of care on the umbilical cord is merely the whims and decision and the guess of the person taking control of the quality of life that child will have in the future. Or, failed to tell the parent(s) that the hospital had a conflict of interest and intended to use the deprived blood trapped in the placenta for their own experiments of the day.  This fact was confirmed in the Canadian Hospital, the Royal Alexander Hospital in Edmonton.  

    The knowledge of no consent and use of placenta blood was acknowledged by the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Health Wellness Minister, Gary Mar. No changes, to date, have been made, knowing violations of parental rights of informed choice and no risk taking of their babies born in the RAH. If this is permitted at the RAH, it is likely true in all hospitals across Canada. If true in Canada, then true world wide. That is to how policies are organized and shared world wide to all medical associations, and apparently to the biology teachers for reprinting in most biology textbooks. See list of references and materials in the contents.

    Any child who has even momentarily interruption of the circulation system and/or has to be revived is an impaired and compromised child. The child will look apparently normally, but the latent internal damages will surface at sometime during the child's life, if they live from hasty cord clamping.  

     What may be factors to a child's early cord clamping:   Size of the child.  A premature babies have the most stem cells, so they are targeted not to be allowed full transfusion of blood into their lungs.   Color, and mixed races blood is most desired and posted for stem cell transplants.  Sex, race and even marital status or social status of the mother/family of the child are not ruled out as factors of the decision and power of the person wielding a tool, that is a weapon, not necessary, in most practical care and treatment  in a natural child birth.  

    The child will be weakened by the degree of nutrients and oxygen of blood deprived even one cell (one cell can direct 10,000 other cells, if not impaired) by early clamping on a functioning organ.  

TRAINING OF MEDICAL PERSONS, WERE TO BE LICENSED TO BE COMPETENT AND ETHICAL -- DO NO HARM :

    The Registered Nurses must be questioned if they were working in maternity wards and not sufficiently or adequately trained on the fetus to neonate circulation system. Or, the fact that all drugs given the mother during labor cross the placenta, and side effects to both mother and child.  

    They are following hospital and doctors policies but they have no apparent duty to have the mother give informed consent, and they are trusting in the prenatal classes, that are also taught by registered nurses. The registered nurses and their trainers must be part of the investigation of care and treatment to the mother and child. A Commission Inquiry on the training and services to maternity matters and care of the child is long over due.

    My research revealed that most RNs have only been trained on the adult circulation system and do not fulfill their Standard of Care of best practice possible, and filling out what they witnessed or participated in the timing and condition of the cord, when clamped, then cut. The information by implied duty, including the duty of the doctor, even for a hospital birth, was to report all care and treatment and condition and reasons of treatment.  

    This medical recording is not being done when clamping a pulsating umbilical cord. Why not? This is true of both the doctor and the nurse.  Why is that?  And this apparently is world wide. It prejudices the right of the child for legal compensation for wrongful and/or needless interference of his/her lifeline, the pulsating umbilical cord.  

    A revived child is best revived while yet sill attached to the cord and the placenta, that yet maybe inside the mother birth canal, the blood in it yet warm, and able to be transfused into the revived child. Least harm of endangering is to revive the child, where is, how is. That is logical, and removing the child to take the child to another area and then give the child artificial means of blood and oxygen, does not make much sense. Moments allowing for impairments to the child's abilities were risked, and not so, or limited risks, if revived, where is, how is.

    If the nurses are not being properly trained, then are the doctors or the medics? Are the criminal codes and ethics being taught them, regarding informed choice, and unnecessary medical practices that endanger being done in many hospitals today? And those being trained in revival of a neonate, why are they taking the baby off the placenta's cord, instead of revival where is how is?  

    They are saying they are doing that for the benefit of the mother, did she ask the baby be revived by taking it off its own means of oxygenated blood and volume of blood, of his/her own kind, from his/her own organ, the placenta? If not, why did they assume they could do that for their own convenience of a more pleasant spot to revive the child.  All births are not without blood and a mess. That is why they have warm towels, and means to place the child still close to the mother, but not off the pulsating cord, or will be pulsating again, with some aid.

    If the nurses, today, are not as adequately trained as to some evidence of logic, many years ago, why are they not now properly trained?   If they failed to make out a separate care and treatment report on the child's on medical chart as to care and treatment, why?  Why are there no reports on the clamping and the cutting of the cord, and the condition of the cord when clamped, and to the birth of the child, or part of the body born, when the cord was tied off, hand-squeezed off, or clamped? Where is the evidence of the drug being in the baby's blood system or placenta?  

    Why is there no medical lab report of the amount of blood drained from the placenta, and used in lab research or in testing of the child made known to the legal guardian(s) of the child? That is, the parents legal right to know, if breach of trust, is not involved. Informed consent, means that the parents were told no clamping of the cord need be done, at all. They could elect that care, could they not?  But, if done, they had a legal right to know the hospital drained the blood, trapped in the placenta. And they had a legal right to know how much blood was drained from the placenta, early clamped and "where" it went?  Who had possession of the genetic information in organ tissue and blood?

    Why was not the facts of where or how the placenta and the blood were discarded done with informed consent, if sent to research and for stem cell transplants and done with informed consent, making the liability and the accountability of that care to the duty of the child, when he or she is able to check out the facts of care, until they are of at least 27 years of age.  

    Age 27, for a civil action, is generally the legal time a child is considered an adult, plus seven years to make a civil claim of bodily harm done without just cause and outside of natural child birth or proven fact of need the procedure was a benefit to the child, if the mother was not in any danger of life and death situation, that the child was sacrificed in care and treatment, rendering the child impaired or compromised, to live that life with less quality normally that would be there, if born outside of medical care services, in most instances of a natural birth.

DUTY TO THE CHILD:

    What parent would knowingly deprive her baby from 20 to 50 percent total blood volume, ( 4 to 6 ounces of blood out of a possible 10 ounces of blood for a 9-pound baby), that would make the difference of her baby being a blue-ribbon-baby and just a "living baby?"  

    The facts of doctors clamping the cord before all pulsation had ceased, if done at all, is the evidence in the placenta, yet trapped in the mother's womb. This fact of evidence is seldom investigated at the time of the child's birth, the parents distracted now to the care and attention to the newborn child.