bullet1 Question   Are Medical Services Safe?

ARE MEDICAL SERVICES SAFE? By Donna Young  This url for reference is:  www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-125.htm  The message is medical students do not have to accept or follow unethical teaching of their medical instructor. They also can report false and misleading information in biology textbooks and in medical textbooks, and they morally should. (Revised May 5, 2004).


"A Globe and Mail article, by Anne McIlroy and Paul Taylor, March 23, 2001, informed us that 60 percent of the medical students watched a doctor training them to act unethically; 47 per cent of 103 students interviews reported they feel pressure to act unethically very frequently, frequently or occasionally. Perhaps we should be concerned of the 53 percent who did not complain? Did they not know what was ethical or unethical practice?


McIlroy and Taylor reported this survey, started three years ago at the University of Toronto*, indicated 60 percent of the graduating students were required and/or expected to: perform pelvic examinations on women under general anesthesia who had not given their consent; perform unnecessary procedures on unwary patients, including those who were:

  •     comatose or unconscious;
  •     closed wounds when they didn't know how;
  •     gave psychotherapy sessions without supervision;
  •      completed post delivery visits with patients who hadn't seen a doctor since giving birth;
  •     and were asked to have patients return for follow-up visits that were purely for teaching purposes.
  •     added a narcotic to a woman hooked up to an IV.
  •          Note:  IV's have a Ringer's solution in them.  But, the IV may be changed or switched to have morphine and oxytocin put in place of the Ringer's solution.  This then is a breach of trust when done without informed choice and risks and the right to refuse. This is drugging women without their informed consent or risk taking or telling the women this will distress her body and her fetus.  
  •         The distress can be a motive for harvesting the baby's released hormones, interferon and stem cells.  Often distressed births are followed with immediate umbilical cord clamping, that is how the babies placenta blood is being harvested and it is very deceptive and unethical practices.  It leads to the doctor or hospital selling the placenta, the cord, and the placenta blood by methods of harvesting them.  In most cases IV's are not necessary but are wrongfully used and influenced for pregnant women to accept on the pretense the solution is used to stop dehydration.
  •         The prevention of dehydration is for the woman to do as she would if at home.  It is best that women move around and have normal beverages and food to maintain her strength.  To refuse drugs and IV hook-ups are for a primal birth right, and no disturbance (take a door stop) is likely to result in the woman's safer and happier birth birth experience for herself and her child.  
  •         Women are also deceived on the use of oxytocin, during or following the baby's birth to expel the placenta.  First, the umbilical cord should not be clamped or cut, until the placenta is naturally expelled 15 to 20 minutes after the birth of the child.  This is even if the aid must hold a child for that time period in a nice warm blanket, and not too farm from the womb, this is for multiple births, too.
  •         The child should NOT be held too high or too low, as this is unnatural.  If the cord is clamped early, the child will be deprived from 20 to 50 percent total blood volume.  A nine-pound baby only creates a total of 10 ounces of blood (300 ml).  
  •         The stem cell blood banks, like Cells for Life in Ontario, acknowledges getting on the average 60 ml to 180 ml of babies who are early umbilical clamped.  The early umbilical cord clamping policies, risking all babies this is done to, is a trend approved and allowed  by most Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons across Canada and by most Colleges of Midwives, where applicable.
  •         The policy to impose early umbilical cord clamping on the newborn citizen, depriving the child of security of person was also allowed by no dissent by most Associations of Nurses, who have no policies on this issue.  However, this is contrary to previous Nurses Manuals.  See www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm.
  •         I perceive these trends or lack of policies as all being in collaboration of each other. The motive is perceived to be that the medical professions thrive on  blood and tissues, taken from babies.  Yet, this harvesting of the children  which is perceived to be a criminal offense against a person, is happening, in an unethical manner, of no true informed consent by the legal guardians of the child, the parents.
  •         The parents have not had a chance from K-12 or in continuing education, or a paid-for prenatal classes to be factually educated that they can reject and refuse policies and/or to say no to harvesting of any of their babies.
  •         Those that set the trend across Canada, from doulas to the surgeon, including ambulance medics provided with a clamping and cutting weapon/tool (depending how it is used, if used), were by policies allowed and set by the experts.  The Society of Obstetricians and Gyncologists of Canada, Policy #71, December 1998 and Policy #89, May 2000 are what are governing the endangering of all babies born in the past.  I do not know what influence they had to endanger the babies of the past 3 and 4 generations, but these are the policies I have read that direct early (30-second clamping) and immediate cord clamping, and for bogus reasons, I perceive and are outside of visual science and good medicine.   To my knowledge SOGC, as of May 5, 2004,  have not cancelled these bogus policies, on this issue of cord clamping, as did ACOG in the USA, cancelling their bogus educational bulletin #71, November 1995.  ACOGS's bogus police directing all USA babies be clamped immediately was silently cancelled, with no public announces, on January 2002.  They did not write the other International experts following their bogus policies like Canada's Policy #89 May 2000, referenced to ACOG.


What more did the Globe and Mail state:


    The Globe and mail stated that the students complained they had little help from the doctors in assessing patients.


    Students felt they were providing substandard care, which included being instructed by a doctor to repair a child.s scalp with inappropriate supplies and being part of a team that secretly administered intravenous drugs to a woman who had requested a narcotic-free vaginal delivery of her baby.


    Dr. Richard Frecker, the U of T's associate dean of undergraduate medical education, said the data was compiled to let students know they don't have to comply with requests to act in a way they feel is unethical .


    Dr. Frecker implied that if unethical practices were happening at the U of T, it is happening across Canada and the US. He was sure of that. No truer words were spoken . . . The New York Times, March 27, 2001: Doctors punished are still prized by hospitals.


* The University of Toronto have graduates who were trained only in immediate umbilical cord clamping.  They do not know about primal birth rights of no clamping or cutting of the umbilical cord, which was the ways of preventing navel hernia, blood infections, and preventing blood loss to home birth babies, prior to the 1920's.  This primal birth choice and rights of women was taken away after the discover of the blood types, and rH factors and keeping of blood, after the 1920's.  It is a right of primal traditional birth of all women and to know the cosmetic removal of the child's umbilical cord is a choice and not a duty to do to any child, unless a cord tore or for placenta previa.

______________________


PROTECT BABIES AND MOTHERS, TOO  -- PETITION:


  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.


Search this www.lotusbirth.com web site for :  AAP policy, SOGC policy, ACOG policy; Placenta; Fetus to Neonate Circulation; 30-second clamping; World Health Organization and Dupont ; Circumcision ; Dr. Sarah Buckley's Declaration ; Canadian Criminal Codes and when a baby is a person; and any other subject you may be interested on child birth.  Search Lotusbirth


(Reference from Protect Babies http://www.123-baby-birth.com)   Search at Google this web site for the " No Policies " on equal protection to babies at from the various government officials who appointed representatives to protect the public on medical policies and practices; also the "No policies" of the various medical associations, societies, and colleges did not live up to no form of discrimination to women or the child of any kind.  It is believed they had a duty to have a policy of equal protection and security of person, regardless of:  age, mental or physical disadvantages ; race, color, social or marital status of the pregnant lady ; or belief or faith of the family, or genetic type of blood sought for by medical researchers, for stem cell matching, and use of white cells, mature red cells, platelets, enzymes, hormones, and plasma.


contact:   Donna Young, Mother and Grandmother

Home:   www.lotusbirth.com

References of research:   www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm

A medical web site to visit:  

  www.cordclamping.com