Premature Baby gives blood to Mother, CTV, Lloyd Robertson, October 2002

The human infant/neonate's placenta,  picture below, demonstrates one still apparently heavy with the infant's blood trapped inside it.  This is exactly my concern that infants born, today, are not having Charter Rights of security of person or equal protection that is given adults who can give informed consent if they give blood to another.  

During the month of October, 2002, The CTV news broadcaster, Lloyd Robertson, aired the story of an infant, a premature child, who obviously had early amputation of its pulsating umbilical cord.  This would be necessary to give sufficient blood to the child's unwell mother.  It was alleged there were no other options but to take the premature child's blood.  Such procedures deprive the child from 20 to 50 percent total blood volume (4 to 6 ounces, 180 ml).  

This procedure was done in Quebec.  A more recent Quebec story, as of January 30, 2003, is the link below..   While the public hears the word cord blood, suggesting little blood taken, that is a deception.  Cord blood simply means the blood was drained from the placenta, through the cord.  The placenta, the property of the infant,  is where the blood with all its nutrients are stored for transfusion into the infant's now expanding lungs, to do the gas exchanges, that were done by fetal circulation, in the placenta. The baby will best breathe through his own lungs "after" full volume perfusion in the lungs and heart. The foramen ovale and ductus arteriosus will soon seal with proper perfusion and pressure.   If interruption of his/her circulation is done, the lungs and heart (holes in the heart) are damaged, and any blood volume and pressure changed, can harm many of the cells, that will prematurely die by dehydration of oxygenated blood denied them.

Note, the placenta illustrated is Not the child's mentioned in the news story. It is an example of a hasty clamped cord, that generally leaves between 20 to 50 percent of blood trapped in the placenta.  That is 4 to 6 ounces of blood and a 9-pound infant only makes 10 ounces total blood.

Quebec:  PUBLIC UMBILICAL CORD BLOOD BANKS EXPAND CHANCES FOR MATCH

Canada's second public cord blood bank is set to offer free, life-saving cells for children who need it.

FULL STORY:   http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/29/cord_blood030129

The CTV story, October 2002,  did not give the whole story, such as the time after birth the umbilical cord was clamped, nor the amount of blood deprived the child for the benefit of the child's mother.

How much blood, even just the stem cells, was taken from the child? This vital information lacking failed to give the public a full picture if early cord clamping is in the best interest of any baby, particularly, a premature infant.  The babies are the legal owners of the blood in the placenta.  While they live, in most instances, they are not have security of person or equal protection, as could an adult make for informed consent.  The duty to give blood or have blood taken from its person, is not a duty of the child's.

The criteria for given blood, is the person must be 17 years of age, known to be in good health, over 110 pounds, and can give consent. Babies do not fit that criteria and all adults must not endanger a baby, no matter how worthy the cause.  

And, was the blood that was deprived the child, after it had been extracted of just the desired stem cells, then given back to the infant/owner?

Did the said baby have to have a blood transfusion, being premature, when not allowed to have full volume of blood transfused into her body. The blood in the placenta is not extra blood.  The blood is needed for the lungs, now expanding to do the gas exchanges, as this gas exchange was done by the placenta, using the mother's body to give fresh oxygen and take back the carbon dioxide gas.  

Again, the child that was required to give up its blood for the benefit of her mother was premature and while the child lived, the broadcast, in my opinion, was more of a free television commercial to promote stem cell value taken from living babies, or deceased.  

Stem cells are being taken from any baby, well, or impaired, small/premature, or full term. They have not been protected by our MLAs, MPs, or the Senate, and have not had equal protection of the Nation's Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms for security of person.  The duty of all parents and adults, are not to weaken the baby when the Supremacy of God asks the adults to make provision for the child, not the child making provision for the parent.  

Had the medical video demonstrated the pulsation cord allowed to stop pulsating, naturally, after all the blood was transfused into the baby, as to her means to stop the flow, when she was satisfied, there would be no problem. But the known procedure is to clamp the cord immediately.  

This causes the most blood possible to be trapped in the placenta, from 4 to 6 ounces of blood depending on the size of the baby. It is not wise to do this to a premature child, many not yet having full lung development.   Anemia, oxygen deprivation to cells, shortage of enzymes and proteins and hormones is to be the likely fate of the child, and the latent disorders unknown when and how they will show up.

The health of the children violated by early clamping cannot be determined at the time of hasty clamping.   What is desired by the medical community is the taking the child's stem cells. They also make use of all the other components of human blood.  

The generally accepted rules for taking donated blood is from those who are at least over the age of 17 years, fully grown, known to be in good health, and are at least 110 pounds.   Babies do not qualify nor have a duty to give up their blood.  Once born a living person, they come under full protection of the Constitution, Charter of Rights, Rule of Law, and civil and criminal codes of the Nation.

It means that the protection of the child is not now having the Court's protection , but is being subjected to will of the doctor and the mother's to determine the child's well-being.  This is whether the baby will or will not have its opportunity to be a blue-ribbon-baby as nature intended the child to be.  

That means the child's natural rights have been for him/her to have their own blood transfused from his/her own placenta organ into the baby's lungs for full perfusion of cells.  A blue-ribbon-baby is one child who has been given full opportunities to have all its components of blood that are naturally provided for his/her normal continued growth.  

I ask, what Judge would order a small child to be endangered or risked of latent iatrogenic caused disorders by 20 to 50 percent blood deprivation?  I ask, what truly informed mother would do that to her child?

The components of blood are rich in: enzymes, proteins, and hormones, and vitamins and minerals, and reserves of iron, so the child is not anemic.

There are other components of the blood such as platelets for clotting the blood, plasma (protein), white cells to fight infection(s), red cells to carry oxygen and dispel carbon dioxide, stem cells to promote new cell development in each cell and organ of the body, to name just a few of the other known and essential components.

In this method of deprivation of 20 to 50 percent total blood volume, which can be from 4 ounces to 6 ounces of blood, in some cases more, the baby may have more blood trapped in the placenta, then otherwise, ought to be in the infant/neonate.

It is grossly unfair and unconstitutional to take advantage of the infant by adults who have the first duty to provide the best possible care to the child's best interest and not to exploit the baby because of its lack of means by its mental and physical disadvantages to protect itself. All children are wholly dependent on the duty of the adult population to advocate on the child's behalf.

How Much Blood Does a Fetus Make?:

The facts of concern are found in the amount of blood a child will create for his/her own needs at the time of the child's birth. On page 324, Volume B, of the World Book Encyclopedia, 1979 edition, it states ". . . a 9-pound (4-kilogram) infant has only about 10 ounces (300 milliliters) of blood. That is total blood volume and there is no blood to spare by deprivation of a child 20 to 50 percent total blood volume by early cord clamping.

200 year past research and knowledge: The endangering trend has long known to be harmful. To quote the knowledge but the persistence of a medical hoax, early cord clamping, for whatever reasons, the warnings against it were written down by Dr. Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of Charles, the champion author of the survival of the fittest:

"Another thing very injurious to the child, is the tying and cutting of the

navel string too soon; which should always be left till the child has not

only repeatedly breathed but till all pulsation in the cord ceases. As

otherwise the child is much weaker than it ought to be, a portion of the

blood being left in the placenta, which ought to have been in the child."

Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia, 1801, Vol III, page 302.

The picture of the placenta gives a visual image, in my opinion, that this placenta contained at least one cup of blood. We do not know if the infant survived the assault/battery, or if any manslaughter charges were taken when the evidence of how much blood remained in the placenta were facts know by the hospital's lab.

In some cases, the doctor and the nurse put the placenta and cord in an environmental bag and they are picked-up for taking to drug companies and for research, and in some cases, burned. Hospitals may or may not get financial compensation for collection of the blood or giving the placentas up for research.  What they do say in defense, is that the placenta was simply, "discarded." Meaning what?

Since the beginning of time, natural process of no drugging the mother, and wrapping the baby in a clean warm cloth, to be followed with wrapping the placenta (afterbirth) in a clean warm cloth have been practiced and to this very day. In this way, nothing is being injected into the blood of the infant, nor is anything being deprived. By not cutting the child's umbilical cord no virus can get into the baby to cause sickness or fevers.  The super bug in hospitals can be a real threat to the newborn child, and his clamped and cut cord.

Today, many women, once informed, and who are NOT squeamish, or their spouses, are opting for a short period of inconvenience of keeping the placenta and cord attached, and untied. In two or three days time, the placenta and cord dry and fall off. The baby has had "all" benefits of no sudden interruption of the blood flow, and no pain.  

Many babies scream from the sudden interruption of their oxygen and blood supply, some go limp, then require oxygen and blood for revival, in fact 1 in 16 babies are being rived.  Naturally leaving the cord alone assures the infant has received all the blood its own individual/unique system determined was needed for his/her needs.  That is NOT determined by a clamp.  

There was no blood infections, no interruption of the infant's circulation system of oxygenated blood, and the naval healed perfectly.  No super bugs which was publicly stated a risk in the Vancouver Children's Hospital in 2002.  If the VCH stopped the early cord clamping, that problem would be non-existent, allowing for the mothers to deal with the cord at their own time schedule, if they remove the placenta/cord, at all.  They must be informed, cord and placenta removal is only a cosmetic procedure, in most instances.

Evidence of a doctor's Declaration,  (Dr. George M. Morley and Dr. Sarah Buckley) to be used, as is necessary, for a Judge's decision eventually, on the need to protect all baby's from medical malpractice, except where medical need of (1) a cord tore and/or (2) placenta previa were visual causes for early cord clamping.

 In such cases, the situation would likely call for immediate remedy of another source of oxygenated blood.  It is alleged the women accepting pitocin/oxytocin demands early cord clamping, but that is not proven in any facts of available research, opinion only, so far.  The allegations are the drug stops the further development of brain cells, this could lead to mental learning problems of the child, and stated as a fact in the Chapter, Time Bomb, in the book, Magical Child, pages 48-50, written by the educator, Joseph Chilton Pearce.  He remarks are from the research of Dr. W. B. Windle.  The book can be ordered from most libraries, and can be found at most Colleges and Universities, as required reading of educators.  

Educators must have known that this was going on since the 1960's.  Biology books continue to report drugging the birthing mother as safe and direct medical care of the child as to early cord clamping, on the new born child.  This they claim forces the baby to breathe.  It is breathe or else child, the child forced to use his/her lungs before they are fully filled with blood to do the gas exchange, formally done by the mother's body, through the placenta.

Where there has been willful negligence for all Senators, MLAs, and MPs, not to investigate the false policies directing immediate cord clamping found in Biology Books, Medical Manuals, and Policies put out by the Gynaecologists and Obstetricians, I say they should be required to state why at a Hearing.  In the same manner of the Blood Task Force, that is NOW charging doctors and a drug company for failing to provide a safe medical system.   Section 180 and Section 121 of the Canadian Criminal Code are being used.  Also failing to notify the Federal Food and Drug Agencies.

Most MPs and MLAs (in BC) and the Minister of Health and Wellness in Alberta, Gary Mar, QC (criminal law), were informed what the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons were allowing on the newborn baby, hasty clamping.  They knew this was going on, in most instances, without informed consent of the mother.  

All governments appoint their own agents to be on medical committees. Many have law degrees, too, to qualify for that appointment.  But who really represents the common folk, the trusting folk in the medical care system that their best interests are being served?

The Provincial governments and their Colleges of Medical associations were allowing the deprived blood to be used for research when it was knowingly deprived the child, hoping, most babies would not reveal evidence of being battered by being assaulted of endangering of even death, itself.  

NOT one elected person in Canada, upheld or took seriously the protection to the infant.  They have ignored in their tax-based institutions the failure to uphold Canada's ratifying no form of any discrimination to women and no form of cruel and unusual treatment to the child.  This is implied and expected to be upheld for security of person and equal protection by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Rule of Law, and Supremacy of God.  

All elected persons have taken some Oath to uphold such Statutes of Canada, and abide by the Criminal Codes, that are sufficient to protect the breathing living child, and to investigate their death for medical malpractice.  

Most medical malpractices are being concealed and covered up as to why children 1 in 16 are having to be revived after birth. That is not normal.  See References of resource material.   These studies were done by the doctors themselves, but who have not led to involvement of the politicians to have arrests made of doctors and nurses doing practices that are not natural, but allow them to take the newborn's deprived blood.  

And we wonder why the increase of sickness in our children and the increase costs of education to manage compromised children, many damaged that they cannot read, write or spell.  Many of the children, victims of drugs crossing their placenta, given to most women birthing with the governments trained medical agents, and were victims, too, of immediate cord clamping, complain they cannot remember, normally.  

What does the education system do?  Takes away grading in subjects and modifies the reading standards.  In the War years, the remedial readers, the Dick,  Jane, Sally, Spot and Puff were used from the 1930's to the 1950's, it replaced the phonetic system with the sight repetition read of the whole word.  It at least assured the greater part of the population a reading level of about grade 5.  Many of students today, graduate not at that level, not reading at all.

There are other criminal sections that deal with bodily harm, and even homicide and manslaughter when the infant dies of even 20 percent blood volume deprived. Many babies have suffered horribly, and yet lived, after interruption of their circulation system. Case-laws in Ontario, Canada are the Chow and Ing cases, handled by one firm, Sommers and Roth.

While these children living, blind, mute, and paralyzed, received millions of dollars for their on-going care, no investigation or cause to stop medical practice did not result.  The fine is not to the doctors, but to the insurance companies and all is ultimately paid by the tax-payers.  There is no personal liability on the doctor.  

There would be if criminal charges had been taken, for then the medical insurance companies can collect some of the personal assets of the medical person(s), when they have been negligent and lacking logical reasoning in medical practices.  In the Chow-case, his blood simply disappeared. There was no apparent inquiry of the Hospital's Administration's policy on dealing with the blood trapped in the placenta by a clamp.  

It would seem to me, that the pay off to the medical society was in the continuation of taking the deprived blood for current research in stem cells. The drug companies sell the separated blood components back to the sick. The placenta blood collections are worth billions of dollars, if not in the trillions, around the world.

Those receiving the stem cell blood collections are mostly operated by privatized blood banks, and the share holders, are likely doctors.  But the public and private hospitals may be keeping their blood collection from the placentas, likely, secret.  How long secret?

That is deplorable when our society lets our ethics go so low,  and we conceal truth to the birthing mothers, that we want the babies to be the providers of the aging population.

If we cannot protect our babies and the prevention of iatrogenic caused disorders, distress, disease, even death, that I call the 4 D's,  what good do we have in the future?

For references of no clamping or cutting of the cord, now called the Lotus Method, but was practiced by most pioneers prior to 1923, please consider sharing these websites: " http://www.lotusbirth.com ";   http://www.cordclamping.com  ; http://www.123-baby-birth.com .   References and source of information are available at this website  and I make comments about most of them.

Thank you if you promote and share best practice possible, least risk of endangering to mother or baby and for your own reporting of any child abuse you know is going on, medical, or otherwise.

If you wish to have a copy of the voice clip or a video, please send a $10.00 donation for the cost of handling and postage and for assistance in my continued research on harmful medical practices to fetus/neonates and their mothers, too.  (References below).

Sincerely,

Donna Young

Mother and Grandmother

Mailing address:

Box 504

Dawson Creek, BC

V1G 4H4

Canada

tel/fax: 250-782-9223

www.lotusbirth.com

_____________________

A few of the overwhelming references NOT to clamp the umbilical cord :

Cord Clamping
It is estimated that early clamping deprives nearly half of a baby’s total birth blood volume. clamping the cord before the infant’s first breath results in blood being scarified from other organs to establish pulmonary perfusion (blood supply to the lungs). (Morley 1997)

Early cord clamping also deprives baby with iron loses and can be linked to anemia. (Grajeda 1997;Michaelson 1995)

Babies who are born without trained medical assistance (arriving on time) . . .  thrive .  Argument for no clamping of the umbilical cord.  Reference: p.1280 of  Dr. Mavis Gunther, The transfer of blood between baby and placenta in the minutes after birth.  The Lancet, Original Articles, June 22, 1957, pages 1277 - 1280.  Dr. Gunther was one of the first to quote Dr. Eramus Darwin 1801 written warnings.  For two hundred years, internal debates have been concealed from the pregnant ladies deprived of choice of informed means to protect their baby from a clamp-wielding medical person(s).  How come?

This scripture is added for food for thought .   

We have our choices to cut the cord from harmful ways, or do not cut the cord of safety:

Biblical Quotation that give some evidence Joseph would not have tied and cut the cord of Jesus, otherwise, He would have likely died in the stable of tetanus, rather then on the cross for the enormity of our sins.  "In the beginning my navel was not cut."  Ezekiel 16:4.

     Not to take one line of scripture out of context , here is the rest of the scripture and interpretation, in any case, when to cut the cord from false
practices is demonstrated in these comments:
    By JB:  "Not cutting the cord . . . is an allegory on unfaithful Jerusalem and the non-cutting of the cord is lumped in with not washing the baby, rubbing it with salt or wrapping it in cloths. Verse five states these actions are akin to a lack of pity and compassion. From a scriptural point of view it would seem that I should cut that cord!!"

    I would think He reached out and healed the children.   Today, we know that many children bear the sin of the parents, thereafter.

    Where does the Idea come from Joseph NOT cutting the cord?  

    Simple, Joseph would observe nature and not interfere with it in intuitive wisdom.  Joseph was Mary's protector, he did a better job then Adam did for Eve.  Remember the story, and Adam was with Eve . . . He did not speak out, he watched in silence as Eve was tempted to allow herself to become the first experiment if something was harmful or not.  NOT one word of warning. Women and children, today, are still the most vulnerable to be exploited.  NOT one word of warning, by most doctors, midwives for the uneducated woman on this issue.

    The rest of the story:   Adam likely had thoughts of temptation, too.  Eve did not see any instant change, so Adam joined her. Adam, after all, would not want Eve to have more knowledge of right and wrong over Adam.  He willingly took of the fruit, too. Both were judged equally:  Consequences for our own choices:  Eve, was alleged to birth in pain/sorrow; Adam was to have pain in burdens of manual-labor.  We seek a remedy.

If you would like to have a Petition for a Commission of Inquiry on the treatment of the newborn infant why his/her security of person and equal protection have not been defended by the Senators, the MPs, the Prime Minister, the MLAs of each Province and the Territories, and their Premiers, please contact the author of this web site:   donna@123babybirth.com

Protect Babies and Mothers Too Petition :   www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814

(1)  References:    www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm   (Listed are just some of the books studied are listed. It is a start of information known for a very long time).

(2)  Home Page :   Table of Contents :   www.lotusbirth.com

Contact DONNA, MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER:   dyoung@pris.ca