Empirical Science, Medicine and Spirit of the Law.
Empirical Science, what is that? . . . It is not much different from the Spirit of the Law, by Donna Young
The way I perceive empirical science and medicine is that no injustice goes unopposed. This by what we can see as a visual constitutional violation to another and our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The current trend of taking an infant's placenta blood and taking it for research has not been debated by any politician, world wide. Most strange considering the epidemic on health care costs for the increased impaired children and increased costs to educate the compromised child. (see Autism in contents)
We can see the drained blood out of the placenta that it belonged to the child and was wrongfully deprived the owner/infant. Anemia to such children is caused by blood loss/deprivation, as hasty clamping deprives 20 to 50 percent of total blood volume to the child. This can be factually known and studied and research is available. A 9-pound baby only creates a total of 10 ounces (300 milliliters) of blood. (World Book, Vol, B, p 324, 1979).
That is the fact of medical science if the evidence is not being destroyed before
recording of such facts by the collusion of
doctor, nurse, and hospital board policies and the government who placed public representatives on all
steering committees and
Colleges of Midwifery and Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons to protect the public's best interest.
We can see healthy babies that did not have immediate cord clamping, healthy,
if there were no drugs and the mother was not
sick. These babies by those involved in a child's birth can compare these babies to those that
were weakened by early umbilical
cord clamping and drugs given their mothers. They would have duty to inform and report questionable
trends of not good medical
science.
The medical persons involved, those that did this to the mother and child, and
those who may be accomplices or witnesses
have no good excuse for their silence as a professional person. The duty of all professionals
is a duty to protect the public.
To the best of my understanding, even of the Registered Nurse or practical nurse
aiding a child's birth, their duty is to logically
see a compromised child, struggling after his/her cord was clamped while still pulsating. And
the children that are jaundiced after
the medical person(s) knowingly knew the mother was drugged during labor. Yet, when such research
was presented to be
followed as a directive, for hasty clamping they were using delayed clamping to be the cause of jaundice.
Perhaps, the researcher(s) were protecting the interest of drug companies who
were providing drugs for the birthing mother.
To mention the drugs used when jaudice was present would mean to cause a reduction in income to the
drug companies, if
women knew drugs, jaundice, and hasty clamping go together. That is not honest research and that is
exploiting of women and
children where conflict of interest may be involved.
(See the
World Health Organizations
references to changes of the blood associated with delayed clamping referred to by
Prendiville and Elbourne 1989)
There are many medical research reports that must be reviewed as to validity the experiments were with informed choices of least endangering and not information withheld as to no clamping and no drugs rather then one drug over another drug, or 30-second clamping compared to instant clamping for no clamping at all.
These choices are not evident in the most of the human experiments on the women
and children. I would think many of these
reports advocating drugging women and immediate cord clamping are intentionally flawed and misleading. The public cannot
protect itself if the researcher(s) had a conflict to do a study for drug companies and were not unbiased
in their reviews.
It amounts, perhaps, to human experimentation to promote drugs or taking the
infant's blood for research. And, if they were
doing hasty clamping by 20-second, 30-seconds, 45-second, rather than no clamping, this maybe about
exploiting the baby (for
stem cell blood) without bringing awareness of any deaths. Or, those babies needing after hasty
clamping oxygenated blood
revival from another source, this stated in reliable references to be 1 in 16 babies needed help
to live.
The nurses, inadequately trained on the fetus neonate circulation system are
alleged confused as to the reasons the doctor
did hasty clamping. Regardless, they are not watching what happens to the baby's blood trapped
in the placenta. Who picks
up? Where is it burned, or if burned? If not burned, who is taking the tissues?
We have questionable research being perhaps used to influence policies and what
the medical associations and Colleges will
permit a doctor to follow. But what of the law? Will the law and the Constitution allow
for the medical persons to get away in the
unnecessary clamping of a pulsating cord?
Even though the child tolerated the battery and lived? The practice(s) require questions and investigations by the mother, as
to any family doctor, or midwife, or surgeon (c-section doctors) using questionable policies or practices
that are outside of logical
practices, of the past known and approved and safe delayed clamping for all babies. This was waiting
until all pulsation ceased,
no matter if that took 15 minutes longer to have a blue-ribbon-baby or his/her rights to be the best
the baby could be, without
unnecessary interventions on the child's circulating lifeline.
Duty to report (Medical) any Abuse to Children or threat of endangering by "any" person:
There is a written duty to report medical malpractice of hasty clamping to all those children that was done to, intentionally or not. The duty is to the child to report the malpractice. Where there is no facts on record of need to stop a pulsating cord, it must be regarded as abuse to the child with destroying the evidence by those medical persons involved, or witnessing the child's care after birth. The threat to the child is present or future as to latent internal injuries. Even an anemic condition when it is known the child was hastily clamped and there is not inherited condition for anemia. The child's future is to the quality of his/her blood and volume and pressure, as is to any creature.
The duty of all medical persons, an this is by College Policies and the law,
is not to conceal such abuse to a helpless child.
The hasty clamping was not something the mother or father could prevent, as they had no knowledge of
the intentions of the
medical person, in most situations, as to the time the medical person imposed a clamp on the child's
lifeline. The cutting time
makes no difference.
Nor, did the parents know if hasty clamping was a medical directive if the
mother accepted drugs during labor. Nor, did the
parent(s) know the hospital, or doctor or lab would use the deprived blood trapped in the placenta for
research. They were led to
believe, in most instances, discarding meant burning of placenta and blood tissues. But the facts
today are the hospitals and
labs are using the organ and blood tissue, in research, or sending them out for research in bigger labs.
The placenta containing DNA facts of origins. This information can be
a risk of origins being known and the cells
experimented. This tissue taken without informed consent is a Constitutional violation to the
legal guardians means to protect
such matters as private, and not to be imposed on to take tissues for research without their informed
consent.
There is duty for compensation for any child whose Constitutional rights, as
well as Constitutional rights to the legal
guardian(s) of the child as to tissue of DNA in the hands of strangers.
This is all going on by the licensed medical agents of the governments. These
medical persons were not protecting the public
through their Professional Act or the Charter's security of persons and equal protection provided by
the Federal governments.
This is a provision that all persons are duty bound to uphold, particularly, those that are agents of
the government, even if deemed
self-regulating.
Their government licensing and approval of practices was to be in the best interest
of the public, according to law, which
includes the highest of all directives, not withstanding the inclusion of Criminal Law, Civil
involving the Constitution and Charter of
Rights and Freedoms to the individual.
The governments were not investigating the new trends of medical practices or
their duty to protect all persons equally, without
discrimination or endangering regardless of age, sex, color, race, or mental and/or physical condition
or disadvantage. As to my
letters, the government Federal and Provincial by their agents, and Ministries, intended to
continue to take advantage of the
uneducated women and exploit her baby, when it was born, and to take the child's stem cells trapped
in the placenta, and permit
that as being okay.
They intended to allow for missing information in the Biology textbooks and
in the prenatal classes so women were not
informed or warned or knew their legal rights as to hospital policies, and doctors policies that they
cannot deprive the woman of
saying no to endangering or questionable invasion of privacy regarding her baby, acting in the best
interest of the child, least
endangering. This being a duty of the adult to the helpless child.
The information of violations to the security of person and to equal protection
must come from the concerns brought forth by
even one member of society. I perceive when letters with information of past knowledge and research
are brought to any
Premier's or Senator's attention of any Province/State or their agents, or the Prime Minister or President
of a Nation, and/or their
agents, there is duty implied for investigation regarding protection to the public. This was not
done, only abandonment of implied
duty.
Generally, the protection to the people is a directive by the Federal Governments
of Democratic Nations, to all levels of
Provincial and community care of their people. Or, it is so deemed to be democratic and
that all those involved with government
Acts or licensing by the State are governed by the Constitutions, and Rule of Law, Declarations of Human
Rights, ratified by the
Nation, and according to law, that in their Nation ratifying duty to Universal Declarations are upheld. This is as to training,
education, and policies and practices to uphold those principles, laws, and implied to duties we have
to one another.
So far, by evidence of paper trails, all levels of government and investigations
of security of persons and endangering medical
policies have failed to be reviewed by those the governments put in charge to protect the public. This
is on discrimination to
women and the newborn infant as to treatment and care. And lack of informed choice and accurate
and truthful information made
necessary to the pregnant woman. Why is that? Do we not have democracy in Canada or the
States, for Rule of Law that those
of the upper ruling class are investigated, equally, what is implied to the common folk?
This is when need has been shared, the questionable policies and practices imposed
on the public be reviewed, quickly, to
reduce injury and costs to the Nation for compensation to past, present, and future victims where corrections
are not immediate.
All we have to do is look at the rising cost in education and medical costs
and the increase in sickness in children to know
something is not right. Has the increase and difficulties of educating children begun at conception,
of toxic bodies of the mother
and the father? What then happens to the lifestyle of the pregnant mothers?
And if neither are at fault, what happens during the labor of the mother and
to the treatment after birth to the child? I think we
must review the evidence that the higher cost to educate compromised and impaired children, now many
adults, and their drug
addictions, has need of review of this history.
I hope these comments are logical to the reader as to my past four year research. Actually, my research and re-education
actually began when I became a mother from the mid 1960's, and a Grandmother from 2000. Continued
education has always
been part of my daily life, that I call, Inquiry Into Life. There is actually a Biology book called,
Inquiry Into Life. This book is
improving with each new edition as to information on the fetus circulation system, and position of birth,
but is not clear on the
timing of the clamping of the infant's umbilical cord, as it might be.
Biology, like medicine, is about, empirical science -- the here and now, such
as an empirical knowledge of medicine.
Therefore, I hope being a mother has merits of value of all mothers, as to our personal experience in
child birth, our treatment,
what information was given, what was left out, and what was misinformation or blatant lies of the medical
person(s). These
persons we deemed competently and logically trained, and that is not so. Why?
It is imperative that the personal experiences of mothers be shared. These
are the mothers, anywhere, who are any now
attempting to raise damaged children, many with behavior problems without help, unless the child get
assessed and flagged for
that help.
We must also question the millions of children drugged to attend school, and
having to continue to be drugged as adults.
What were the beginnings that these children cannot cope without drugs or being drugged?
Many of the mothers, if they planned a healthy birth, but then put their care
and treatment of the child during and after birth to
licensed medical persons, will need to help in putting in legal civil applications to be heard before
a Judge. Why should any
constitutional violated child not be compensated just because the medical persons did the assault and
battery, without a medical
reason that clamping the pulsating cord was indeed a benefit to the owner of the blood circulating.
A doctor just using as his defense another's doctors opinion setting a policy
it was okay to do that to another's person's baby,
walking away from internal injuries, known and can be perceived in animals drugged and then hastily
clamped. The research
already done but ignored by the instructors of early clamping at the various University training hospitals,
across Canada. The
midwife Colleges, the Justice Institutes training ambulance medics --- all directing everyone get involved
in immediate cord
clamping on the unprotected baby.
And the support of medical and school records that may compare one child whose
mother knows which child was hastily
clamped; and the other child allowed protection from any deprivation of oxygenated blood flow. The
latter child who can more
easily cope and deal with the daily conflicts of life and learning.
What were the hospitals and doctors doing in common or the homebirth care of
a registered-nurse or midwife as to the
clamping of the umbilical cord while it still pulsated? Or, the common care by giving the
mother drugs alleged to be safe, stating
they were only natural hormones, when in truth these synthetic drugs had endangering ingredients or
preservatives, like the
oxytocins. See
cholorbutanol, Oxytocin, Toesen
.
What was the information, if any given, that the mother could actually make
an informed decision an in appropriate time to
review the information for a true informed decision? And to have a signed birth plan of best practice
possible least endangering,
and for legal protection of any procedure the mother has not, with informed consent, agreed to.
I would think a woman already in labor is not able to make an informed decision,
when perhaps the information should have
been provided or source of information to study during the pregnancy. Having signed she was informed
of her rights to have a
signed birth plan for the best practice and least endangering practice to herself and her child.
SUPPORTING MEDICAL RESEARCH:
I state that immediate umbilical cord clamping, supporting Dr. Morley's research and many others, is logical to cause injury to all children that is imposed on. Many of us are just survivors of the vicious clamp. Many of us have holes in the heart, detected years later, some as late as in our 30-s. Others have had heart murmurs. Dr. Morley associates holes in the heart to immediate cord clamping.
The research of current years testing, and questionably experimenting on babies,
was how little the medical person could
allow a child to remain on the pulsating cord, such as 30-seconds, depending the child's position at
birth or how held in a c-section. For some children that was sufficient to allow them not
to go into obvious shock, but anemia may not be considered for
testing and not tested until after 3 months or after a year from the child's birth.
Children losing 40 percent of total blood volume do not cope well. And
deprivation of 20 percent can lead to some children
going into shock. See chow-case-law,
www.123-baby-birth.com
. There is no perceivable justification to allow for all children to
be routinely early cord clamping, such as 30-second clamping when the child's cord may have pulsated
for 5 even up to 20
minutes.
How do the doctors and the nurses witnessing this assault, justify the decision? What are the facts per case? What is the
evidence the hospital and the doctors were involved in conflict of interest of compensation for sending
samples of blood to
research, or increased billings for doing so? If the criminal or civil investigation of billings
at the hospital are proven factual, is
that a decent way to earn income, exploiting others? Weakening other's babies? Prejudicing
their best chance to be the best
they can be in health, learning, and coping? Life is already difficult, no one needs added burdens by
unnecessary medical
policies directing endangering to any one's child.
The medical facts are that one in sixteen babies now must be revived after
their birth. There over 155,000 children getting out-patience services in the Vancouver
Children's Hospital. This is all shocking and it requires review how many of these babies
were drugged during labor and then followed with immediate clamped cords.
More shocking is the dead babies, in British Columbia, and across Canada, and
in the States, too, who are not investigated
for medical malpractice, criminal and/or civil. What is to be investigated, but the drugs used in the
birth of the child and the timing
of the clamping of the infant's lifeline.
A CHILD HAS CIVIL RIGHTS UNTIL 27 YEARS OF AGE, AND LONGER, DEPENDING ON THE COURT'S PERMISSION
LIVING CHILDREN STILL OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND RIGHTS TO HAVE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF CARE THEIR CARE DURING AND AFTER BIRTH:
Surviving an assault does not mean a violation has not happened. The
living children have had their legal rights violated as to
security of person or equal protection. If teenagers, forced to walk home after being picked up
by the police then put on the
streets, in the dark, can get $10,000 for their security of person violated and lack of equal protection,
and they were not harmed,
how much so for actual physical endangering by an unnecessary medical procedure of hasty clamping, imposed
on the child
simply because the medical person was following a hoax in some medical book, all for his convenience
of cutting down the length
of third stages of labor, or wanting to gain access to placenta blood for stem cells?
In most cases, that clamp was imposed without informed consent, of awareness
that would happen by the mother or the child.
Or, it means of the mother and father could not stop the assault/battery, or to be truthfully informed
in the biology textbooks. My
studies include the
schools' and colleges' biology books and library books
. The current books, and some of the old textbooks,
have false information or and misleading information or no information provided for a future mother's
and her spouse's informed
options.
What Dr. Morley is stating in facts of research is logical. In addition
I say, that many infants are damaged at birth not only by
hasty umbilical cord clamping, but by the drugs given to the mother, during labor, with or without her
informed consent.
NOT ONE DRUG IS GIVEN A WOMAN IN LABOR, BUT COMBINATIONS OF INDUCTIONS:
A variety sort of drugs are given to her. Many of these babies go into distress and are found to then have meconium and cords around their neck.
Even the unnecessary scans of the developing embryo and fetus can be factors
that 1 in 16 babies have defects. Why do we
have so many unnatural interventions of the child's care and treatment and without review whenever a
child has had such prenatal
treatments.
I would think to try to conceal which drug damaged the child or the mother is
a shared probabilities and to list all the drugs and
drug companies and let the Judge decide the percent of cause of damage to a child, rather then many
being all excused for a
compromised child and its cost of care and education. Many of these unnecessary interventions
end the baby's right to be a blue-ribbon-baby.
Also, many hospitals are operating on no-policy policies. They are
simply trying to skirt around duty to the consumer of
medical services, trying no directives to medical persons providing services on their premises, including
emergency care
providers and ambulance person providing services from their hospital. Having no policy
is not providing for best practice
possible and known and least endangering, by past and present informaiton.
WORLD-WIDE POLICIES:
The directives to doctors giving drugs, specifically, oxytocins, is immediate cord clamping, set by two organizations: The World Health Organizations, funded by hundreds of countries. Other directives by policies are in each individual country by the organizations, who are organized for the protection of the public, are the policies from the Obstetrician and Gynecologists. Some by the Pediatricians who work with the Heart and Stroke Foundation on Emergency revival policies.
Those revival policies are directing immediate cord clamping to take the child
to equipment rather then equipment being
taken to the child, and the revival done in-between-the-woman's legs, where the child is, how is. If
they can operate on a child in
the womb, yet on the cord, revival of a born child can be done where is how is. See Miracle
Child, at
www.123-baby-birth.com
Some of their organizations in emergency training manuals and in general policies
and manuals and educational bulletins
have directed early and immediate cord clamping. Policy #21, November 1995, ACOG. Policy
#71, December 1998,
SOGC and Policy #89 May 2000 SOGC.
Directing early umbilical cord clamping, following drugging the mother is the
World Health Organization (WHO)
in their 1996 to
1998 review on the timing of the clamping of the umbilical cord. WHO stated ICC for when the mother
was given oxytocins.
However, WHO did not alert the medical person to inform the mother of that directive, as a duty
of medical practice and to direct
her to warm water births to avoid hasty clamping of her baby's umbilical cord.
This is so the mother had a choice to be able to avoid drugs for discomfort
and not have her baby's cord clamped quickly and
the blood taken for research. The statement of drugging for causing hasty clamping may be a deception
for a dishonest purpose
even to have consent, or implied consent for benefit to the child.
The child may have been actually being exploited for his /her blood but alleged
to be a benefit for the child, which is yet to be
confirmed drugs need the child to be deprived of 4 ounces to 6 ounces of placenta blood.
Weakening the baby of his/her quality of life, if not life itself, particularly,
for the premature babies. The premature babies
most sought after because they have a higher quality of stem cells. The baby making blood quickly
and more blood cells dying
quickly.
These oxytocins, offered, are varied in brand names, all with a variety of trace elements
and preservatives. Oxytocin,
Toesen/:Pitocin, Syntocinon. Those not classified as oxytocins but used also to terminate
the pregnancy as inductions are:
misoprostol/cytotec, Cervidil / Gemeprost p. 1458-3 cervical dilation, Martindale.
There are many creams and gels, apply to the mothers cervic, alleged to be an
incompetent cervic, or the mother is failing to
progress, all imposed on the women, and not discussed long before she is anxious and wanting to be having
a child. She is
faced with decisions often the last minute, her health not good, with choices of injections, power,
pills, drip administration.
They all are designed to terminate the pregnancy before nature was terminating
the child's own comfort in the womb, in most
instances. The medical persons influencing and dictating inductions on the woman, mostly uneducated,
inexperienced and being
what many who have had this procedure and manipulation, conned.
The facts of empirical science are that when nature is in control the mother's
and the baby's enzymes and hormones work
together and the mother has an easier birth. Those are blessing for the mother and the blessing for
the child is their right to be
that blue-ribbon-baby, nature intended the child to be.
This is, of course, there was nothing the mother and father failed to do to
have drug free and healthy nourished bodies at the
time they planned a conception to have a blue-ribbon-baby. And they conceived when the amounts
of environmental pollution
was the lowest in their area. The environment at the time of conception may be out of the parent's
control. But if everything is
done decently and in order, nature provides for us all to be a blue ribbon child. I would hope
the Court would agree.
See DDD's Distress, Disorder, Disease .
____________________
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 ; pH
receptors ; References ; Canadian Criminal Codes and when a baby is a person; and any other subject
you may be interested in
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 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 medical persons 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: dyoung@pris.ca
Home Page: www.lotusbirth.com
A medical web site to visit:
A Petition to Protect Canadian Babies and Mothers, Too:
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814
