President Bush to limit Medical Malpractice to $250,000 compensation. It will likely protect shareholders in the medical corporations, July 5, 2003

The facts of changes to limit compensation of current medical malpractice victims are in the wind.  If the States does this, the World will too.  The story is revealed in the New York Times, (NYTimes.com) Washington, story below, July 5, 2003.  The full story follows the concerns and comments and four year research for those views gained, by Donna Young:

    Note also the Reader's Digest quotations of "The Doctor Who Killed His Patients, Sept, 2001.  This is a true story about an American doctor, Dr. Michael Swango.  

Limitations on Medical Malpractice by politicians may have motives.  It prevents disaster to the share holders involved in medical corporations.  Large suits that will not happen will not deter false medical practices from continuing in the dealing in human organs and tissues for transplants.   What is a mere drop in the bucket of $250,000 if the medical corporations will make trillions to carry on harmful practices, such as exploiting the baby for the harvesting of stem cells trapped in a placenta by early umbilical cord clamping?  

The medical professionals did research without telling the mothers no clamping or cutting the cord is necessary and they found out the babies will live with as little blood of 40 or 50 percent left in their body, after they are victimized to 30-second umbilical cord clamping.  This is now considered full delayed clamping, so delayed clamping and 30-second clamping has no difference in opinion of what the doctors will impose on the child.  The difference in reality is 30-second and instant clamping provides for 20 to 50 percent total blood volume to be left in the placenta for harvesting by the medical professionals.  

This is shocking because so many persons, the general public do not realize that.  And the babies are being endangered in almost every hospital or home birth, where the medical persons can syringe out the placenta and send to a stem cell research lab, and many do so undetected, and some are doing so at the request of the parents, and when they do that they are not leaving a full report of the amount of blood they deprived the owner/infant on his / her own medical chart.  There is much deception going on in the perceived adult's duty to protect the child.  

This placenta blood harvesting, in most cases, imposed on the babies and many of the parents are none the wiser of their legal rights to have a signed birth contract..  The birth contract for no clamping off the cord, for any reason, unless the cord tore or for placenta previa, where the c-section surgeon cut the cord or into the placenta, a medical error, is a legal right of the parent (s) to contract for.  If the medical person or the hospital will not sign a legally drawn up birth contract, the parents are wiser to birth unassisted in their home, away from the medical persons who are presently, by medical policies, inadequately or improperly trained.  

Policies of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG) directing immediate cord clamping on all babies, for a fact of inadequate trained medical persons under the influence of this educational bulletin was Policy #216, November 1995.  This policy, influenced to make other policies in other countries, like Canada's Policy #89 May 2000, by SOGC.  

Policy #216, did endanger babies until January 2002.  At that time ACOG quietly cancelled the policy, but not with a public apology or retraining of all medical persons. Many persons, like those living in Canada, are still being trained to endanger the child for the mere reason to take a pH testing of the child's blood of the blood going into the baby, though the umbilical vein.  

The total pulsating umbilical cord, today, is being clamped off, endangering the child where medical doctors did do that, and they did not record on the child's medical chart the amount of blood trapped in the placenta. Most, in fact, then quickly destroyed the evidence, and they did not make any comments on the child's chart, of the condition cord when clamped, and the time of the clamping of the cord, or position of the child's body when the clamping was imposed.   

Why is hasty clamping happening to many of these victimized babies, who do live, in most instances, the larger babies, that is?  The medical doctor or midwife have given a believed and perceived need to do hasty clamping, for a variety of reasons, and mostly based outside of empirical medical evidence, but done by their own fears or taught fears.  In most cases those fears or intentions were never discussed in prenatal sessions with the mother.  

While the babies live, and the medical person did not kill the baby, we ask, so why should the parents complain or report assault and battery on their baby.  This is because they have gone home, in most instances, with a living baby, but a weakened baby who may take a turn for the worse, and the parent(s) held accountable.  The medical persons may state, and the mother lived, didn't she?  So why all the fuss? It is because the mother is likely to have latent internal injuries that may even risk her abilities to carry another child, full term.

It is also about adequate training in medicine and science, ethics, law which is both criminal, Constitutional meaning civil common rights and principles that persons were being endangered of risked an quality of life that causes them more struggles when life is already difficult.

It is this reasoning, the living person was not harmed physically, as they live, that this issue is not in the courts, so far.  What happened was the internal interruption of the infant's blood supply endangering its heart, lungs, and other internal organs, and many of these internal damages are latent in revealing themselves.  It may take hours, months, years before they do.  Being internal injuries it, therefore, does not go into criminal court because the parents are not filing, so far, criminal assault and battery and risk taking done on their child.  The court, seeing a living child may think this is a frivolous reasons of risk taking on their baby, looking fine and apparently healthy, so don't say anything.   

Have any parents raised a medical issue in the courts?

Yes, in Dublin, Ireland, parents objecting to mandatory genetic testing by doing PKU tests were upheld by the court, that if the medical person had imposed that testing on their baby, it would have been a constitutional violation and constituted battery.  That is merely a prick of the heel for a blood sampling, and the parents said, "no." The courts upheld the legal guardianship of the natural parents to make that informed decision.  That is one example.

Have Women had the Right to Control the birth of their babies and what is done to their body to birth a child?

Yes, in the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court ruled in an appeal, that a woman cannot be forced to have her body cut, such as in a c-section to birth a baby, this is even with her informed knowledge she may die, or the child or both.  It is her risk to say yes or no as to what is done or not done in child birth.  She always has a right to change her mind at any given moment.  She may likely give a waiver she has been informed and her decision given.  But no doctor can assume a pregnant women is not in control of her decision making powers.

WHOSE CHILD IS BEING ENDANGERED MAY MAKE THE DIFFERENCE OF PROTECTION GIVEN:

When the risk taking, now imposed on many babies, happens to a lawyer's child or a politicians or another medical person's child, well, then things might change.  So far, doctors may be wise to know whose baby they might select for harvesting, with no questions asked, and for what reason they did hasty clamping and how the evidence, if any, was a benefit to the child or done to spare the mother's life, and at her request as to the information given to her to make an informed decision.  

The average lay person's babies are being the most likely to be victimized. They are least educated or are under educated on the risk to the mother and the child, during child birth.  What are the medical risks to the mother to have a full placenta in her womb?  It is logical that it may break.  This is particular true of when there has been the use of oxytocins causing hard and long contractions of her womb to expel the placenta.  It is true, too, if the medical person presses on her stomach and pulls on the umbilical cord to cause the placenta to be pulled from the womb, and in some cases causing an inversion of the womb.  The blood of the baby's then is risked to mixing with her own blood.  The mother may never have a normal birth experience or her future babies will not be carried full term, even still born, if any of these things have happened to her.  It is very important to allow for the whole completion of the child's birth, the normal expulsion of the placenta without interventions.

Evidence of Endangering to the Neonate:

The risk to the early clamped baby is obvious, jaundiced by too much iron in the reserves by dead red blood cells, killed likely by drugs, and the too little blood volume to deal with the excess iron.  The normal reproduction of the red cells may take longer then two weeks for the baby to make up the deprived red blood cells.

The baby will be anemic of nutrients. Its ability to make new red cells to carry the oxygen, may be risked.  The baby's blood volume and pressure will be low to carry oxygen to the brain, and brain damage is a possibility.  Those are perceivable threats of bodily harm to the child, and an illegal medical practice to so put a child in.  There will be many organs deprived of nutrients because of the blood trapped in the placenta like hormones and enzymes essential for the normal continued growth of the baby.  

Who is to say the persons not knowing if they are male or female, as to sex orientation and so many, today, were given this problem caused by early cord clamping, and as I see them as possible victims.  What is their birth record?  And, do they know for a fact what was done to them as a baby?  It is their right to know.  

The care and treatment of the child from conception to birth can be the long-term results of drugs given a pregnant mother and the baby deprived of full volume of blood transfusion, rich in nutrients, needed for optimal health and growth. Those nutrients rich in hormones for the blood per each cell were meant to feed the emotional make up of the individual, too, as to their sex. So we have food for thought on those persons we often condemn if they seem same sex couples.

EXCUSES FOR HASTY CLAMPING ARE OFTEN NOT EXAMINED OR INVESTIGATED FOR MEDICAL FACTS OF EVIDENCE:

The medical persons must always give some kind of reason for interrupting the child's lifeline, the circulation system.  This is to try and prevent a criminal investigation by the police if they say they were following a policy.  It is the policy that must be part of the investigation if it left out the facts of a perceived threat to the child or mother if followed, as stated.  Most of the policies I have read and the research left out important details for the mother to be able to make an informed decision.

So far the medical persons are following questionable policies thate are put out by medical experts.  The policies by medical law, are using two or more agreeing to make the policies to be imposed on others without informed consent or means to opt for safer options.  Many of these policies have not been challenged in the civil and or a criminal court of law on this particular issue of hasty clamping, and drugs that endanger, both mother and child, like the synthetic oxytocins.  

Fears Medical Persons have Used to Deprive an neonate of full placenta blood transfusion into his her body:

Some fears given to clamp a cord early are short cord, mother may bleed excessively, too much blood, too thick of blood, too many red cells, too fast of flow of the blood, and so forth.  What is the facts of those fears, and where was the research done to endanger the child with fears, customs, habits, traditions, trends, and whims of power and control of the medical person (s)?  

CRIMINAL CODE VIOLATIONS DO NOT EXEMPT ANY PERSON FROM DUTY OF NO HARM DONE TO ANOTHER:

Exploiting babies for their blood is implied in the criminal and civil codes of human rights for equal security of person.  The International laws are there, and local and national, too.  The laws were meant to protect the newborn citizen for equal protection and security of persons. But the medical executives making the medical policies were leading all their medical members to believe they would not be personally held accountable if they followed a negligent policy, outside of empirical and observable science / medicine.

Again, the medical policy in small print states, in most cases:  "Not intended for standard of care."  And they state the policy or education bulletin does not need to be followed and to write the association of the policy being quoted.  All hospitable boards can decline to have the policy allowed on their premises, or not allow doctors with that training to practice there, until retrained.  

The individual doctor, unless they state a third party liability forcing them to do this action, stands alone to their decision making at the time of the situation and the facts to support their decision, or the lack of the evidence to stop a functioning organ.  The medical person may stand alone for a practice done with only fears, outside of empirical science and medicine.  

You do not cut a person's arm off, for the fear it may get an infection.  What is the facts at the time of amputation, it was infected and the cure was amputation? Was organ diseased or not? A pulsating organ of a child is a functioning organ. So what were the facts an interruption of a functioning organ was for the benefit of the person it was done to.  What were the corrections of no benefit but a benefit to the mother, if the mother was being spared a life and death situation by the management of the child's lifeline being clamped and cut?

Procedures Skillfully Done but only for Cosmetic Reasons, not medical need, must be questioned:

If the medical procedure, regardless it was skillfully done, was not for the benefit of the person the procedure was done to, it must be questioned.  A trail may be required, civil or criminal.  

The known facts are that there is no harm in not clamping or cutting off the cord from the placenta.   The facts are the Western Society's pioneers did not do this prior to 1923, nor do small villagers in third world countries today.  These unassisted birthing women had healthy babies with no cord infections.  

The babies were strong at birth, alert and healthy by the fact the babies got all the placenta blood inside their persons.  They had all immunities too, and were not continuously sick babies, as many babies in the West are today, and without a known cause, other then hasty clamping and their immunities down with the likely drugs given the mother during the birth process.

There are many facts of evidence missing in the hasty clamping on most babies today, that the doctor did not have patience to wait until all pulsation ceased, even if that took up to 14 minutes.  That length of time for a pulsation of cord to stop is evident in the research of Dr. Mavis Gunther, back in 1957, UK, reported in the Lancet.  She reported on how long pulsation cords do pulsate and this is confirmed on videos today, on many babies born in the homes, and by unassisted births.    

OLDER DOCTORS CHANGING TO HARMFUL ENDANGERING PRACTICES TRAINED TO THE YOUNGER DOCTORS:

Many of the older doctors and nurses are alleged to be sought to change their ways and some are changing to hasty umbilical cord clamping. They may be seeing the younger doctors and midwives, heavily in debt as to their current cost of education and training, obtaining financial compensation by their participation in the collection of blood samples and organs (the placenta) and selling off and the placenta blood.

Older medical persons could use the extra money too, if the government was not going to protect babies, anyway, and allow the harvesting of the baby's blood by early cord clamping.  This is apparently so by the Tri-Council of Canada, that allowed payment for cord stem cell research and did not protect that the stem cells did not come from the newborn child by the interruption of his or her umbilical cord.  How many years this has been secretly done, may be to the conscience of doctors and midwives.  

We know since 1801, the doctors were advised to leave the pulsating umbilical cord alone.  This was recorded in the Lancet original publications, the reference to Dr. Erasmus Darwin.  I also have the letter from the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons that up to 1999, all doctors were trained competently, to leave the umbilical cord alone, until "all pulsation ceased."  They believed that to be as to the general testing of the child by the Apgar Tests, to be a maximum of 3 to 5 -minutes, but documentation is actually up to 14 minutes and longer for the drugged babies.  

The British Columbia, Canada's Physicians and Surgeons College had misinformed me for already the experts within the Society of the Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGA) were already directing and allowing hasty clamping, early clamping, now described, by some, as 30-second clamping, reflected in their Policy #71, December 1998.  

No objections of this questionable policy and directives came from the Ministry of Health, Federal, Provincial or by Territories in Canada.  No one questioned the endangering policy; or, the implied duty to protect the security of the child.  Nor did protection come to the babies by the  the self-governing of the medical groups, including the Colleges of Midwives and the Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians and from their Royal Colleges.

Such policies would be made would be made and followed world wide the self-governing medical persons and those involved in medical research using tissues, and organs and blood coming from the babies.  Such were the questionable policies that did not have checks and balances for security of person to the newborn citizen.  And what of the Law Societies and their duty to not allow any person to have an injustice imposed on them and their oath not to assist by loyalty to another professional status group.

But the absence of lawyers to assist in bringing this endangering to the babies, must be questioned, too.  For law firms were contacted for their help, and they would not deal with such a violations done on the babies on such a wide scale, mostly, because the victims lived, and the Coroner's did not investigate the babies that died of shock of blood deprivation.

 It was all put down to natural causes, when the baby's death was likely a medical homicide if the facts were investigated if drugs were in the baby's system and placenta and that early clamping was able to be found in the evidence of the blood deprived the child, trapped in the placenta.  We must question the professionals and their means to organize and block injustices to those who cannot help themselves.  

IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE MEDICAL PERSONS CLAMPING A FUNCTIONING ORGAN:

Many medical persons, in surveys, said it made no difference to them when they clamped the baby's umbilical cord, as long as the babies lived.  Some followed the medical directive and opinion of Dr. Gabbes in MDConsult.  This doctor said it made no difference on the timing of the clamping of the cord, done at the sole discretion of the doctor, who walked away from long-term research if that was true or not. It was this American report and opinion that the CPSBC would not investigate a doctor doing immediate cord clamping on c-section babies. They said it was a policy of defense.  They would not go on their statement to me, all doctors were trained not to clamp a pulsating umbilical, cord, for a c-section baby or vaginal birthed baby.

No long-term research was ever done to compare fully delayed clamped babies and those endangered by blood deprivation by instant and early clamping.  How come?

Many beautiful children, with learning and health problems, never have a review of the medical procedures.  Many mothers sick after child birth, too, many with thyroid problems after the use of oxytocins, pitocin with questionable preservatives in them, were never informed of the risks of the drugs and their association and directions for the timing of the clamping of their child's lifeline, and the fathers, if present were none the wiser either.  Most biology books and reference books in the libraries had misleading information, too.  They could not know what to believe, what was false and was was the truth.  There should be no such excuse to the medical professional, though.

C-SECTION BABIES, WHO ARE MOSTLY LARGER BABIES, ARE ENDANGERED TOO TO HASTY CAMPING.  THIS IS NOT NECESSARY FOR  HASTY CLAMPING TO BE IMPOSED ON ANY BABY, C-SECTION OR A VAGINAL BIRTHED BABY:

Most babies born in c-sections were alleged damaged because they were c-sections, and drugged.  But the truth is more likely associated with lung and brain damage by early clamping of the cord and blood deprivation.  These babes then are having to be quickly revived with oxygen and another form of blood volume for proper pressure.  Many c-section babies are routinely observed for behavior and learning problems.  

It is expected for c-section babies to have life harder then normal birthed babies who are not early cord clamped.  We are dealing with the control of the quality of the life of the child by the ethics, and training of the medical person (s).  

That risk to the child need not be the case if the babies are not early cord clamped but removed with their placenta and cords still intact and not clamped.  This is for all babies. Then the baby's get full natural blood transfusion from the placenta to the child's body, mainly the need of the expanding lungs.  No babies have the lung disorders if this is done by the research of Dr. T. Peltonen, back in 1981.   

Mammals born in the wild are not damaged by not interruption of the placenta and cord:

This hasty clamping is not ethically done for any mammal born in the wild, and it thrives without interventions of man.  Like the wrongful circumcisions imposed on babies, male and female, now before the courts, interventions not of a medical need must be questioned.  Both the medical person(s) and the parents are being named on the Writs for unnecessary medical operations that are cosmetic, only, at the time they were done.  No disease being the requirement of an operation or amputation of some organ.

The settlements for unnecessary medical interventions on the child, unable to protect himself or herself, will be going on long after the reader and I depart from this world.   So will be the issue of the stem cell robbing by early clamping off the pulsating cord, is the malpractice suits of the future.  Most of this was a medical secret between the hospital policies and their contract with the doctors and nurses involved in draining the placenta and the blood used in lab research and sent to stem cell research.

But in most cases, the records of that assault on the babies is intentionally left of the baby's medical records, but that absence of full reporting is to the hospital and the doctors or midwives own peril.  This is because it was their training to make honest and full reports of all  care and treatment given, even to a neonate.  

There can be probable damages to a struggling child which can be linked to: harmful flat on the back and semi-sitting birth positions, known to close the birth canal by up to 30 percent; drugging the mother the drugs are known to cause allergies and side effects in the babies, and drugs are paid for and leave a medical billing record; early clamping leaves a billing record of organs and blood billed for in codes for sending to research; there is evidence of fact of jaundice, and this is known to be associated with the medical fact of drugs and hasty cord clamping.  

These are records of physical harm and risk taking to the child. Such conditions of the child was to be recorded on the child's charts.  Hasty clamping and the amount of blood left in the placenta were being destroyed of evidence of risk taking to the child, in most cases.  In such cases, there is the criminal code called an obstruction of justice for destroying evidence.  

This taking of the placenta blood for stem cells and other components of blood, hormones, for example, allows the drug companies, cosmetic companies and those in stem cell research to get government grants, in the billions, and it would be no exaggeration to say in the trillions as the practice is world wide.  Every baby born today, regardless of the country is vulnerable to the hasty clamping.   

GAPS ARE LEFT IN THE CONNECTION OF CELLS, ONE TO ANOTHER:

Even some parents, in home births are selling the baby's deprived placenta blood on the internet.  Everyone wins, but the baby, who is left anemic, jaundiced, and impaired where any one cell was deprived of oxygen and blood nutrients, for any period of time.  

This is the cell damage-gap that is likely of the tiny cells damaged and their connections to other cells damaged, one cell connecting to 10,000 other cells.  An example is the egg of the mother, before conception, is not larger then the period in brackets and other cells being smaller (.).  Imagine the cell damage and having a gap .................. . .  ........... . . ....   This allows for disease to fill the gaps and to start a mutation of cells.

The baby's trust is breached for the legal rights of equal protection and security of person by all who attended the child's birth. There were birth witnesses that did not know to report assault and battery, thinking the doctor or nurse or midwife knew what they were doing and were ethically and competently so.  Not necessarily so.

MISSING FACTS OF THE CHILD'S CARE AND TREATMENT:

The medical records of the care of the baby are not now properly stating the timing of the clamping of the cord, and the condition of the cord when clamped.  The cutting makes no difference now, the damage to the continued steady flow of the infant's circulation system was interrupted by the clamping of the pulsating cord, yet, red, firm and pulsating when that act of violence was imposed on the child by the doctor who ought to have known to step aside from unnatural care and treatment to the vulnerable baby.

What the doctor and nurse then do next, is to conceal the condition of the cord and the time it was clamped from being recorded on the child's own medical charts. This prejudices the legal rights of the child to have financial compensation for any risk taking and endangering to his or her person, when nothing need be done to the cord, at all, unless the cord tore or for placenta previa. That is a surgeon cut into the placenta or cut off the cord.  

The bleeding would have to be stopped.  The baby would need remedial care, quickly, to replace the deprived blood and oxygen.  This is all common logic and we wonder why doctors and nurses have being trained to stop the baby's blood flow unless the motive is the placenta blood and it being more valued then gold for blood components in it.

When the records are not stated what the medical persons did to the baby after its birth, and why and the evidence of proof of the need of hasty cord clamping they have done so at their own peril.   Some alleged they threw away the deprived blood still trapped in the placenta or that someone drained it out and sold it, so easily done, today.  

The blood is syringed out quickly, whether the placenta is inside the birth canal or ejected.  The blood from the placenta, in some methods is drained from the cut vein, to drain into a bag or tube.  The blood is also injected with a form of rat poison to keep the blood from clotting for at least 36 hours.  The sending away human organs and tissue and blood can reach its destination, anywhere in the world, within those 36 hours.  

Compensation is to the person who handled in the dealing of the organ and the blood, whether it is the hospital or private billings of the medical persons, a registered nurse-midwife, in some cases, by a direct entry midwife, perhaps, even a doula.  It would depend on the ethics of the medical association receiving the placenta and/or the placenta blood as to the qualification of the persons sending in a human organ or the blood from it.

Compensation for a desired type of blood can be any where from $150 per each 30 ccs of blood and even to $25,000 finders fee.  For example a report of a stem cell transplant to an adult reported the cost to be $125,000.  The $25,000 included the finders fee of the stem cells to match the receiver.  

Therefore, it is of no surprise to many medical persons, and without informed consent of the parents of the child, in most instances, that  premature babies are being harvested at birth by early cord clamping, 30 second clamping, for the premature babies  have the most stem cells of all babies.  If they die, the organs of the premature babies are also sought, and most parents give, then consent, for them to be taken too.  They did not know the baby was being harvested, at birth by early clamping though. That they did not know to prevent.

The premature babies are also being endangered by taking of 10 to 15 percent total blood volume every second and third day, for the volume of blood to be used in an adult transplantation of stem cells.  See evidence of research of confirmation in Canada, list of references in the contents lists, at the bottom of the contents.

So we have the babies being exploited and harvested, and the parents, today, none the wiser the medical persons and lab technicians and student nurses and student doctors were involved in this.  All were silent and did not report the matter to the police as child assault, battery and endangering by a medical person.  They did not report the false policies or the hospital's allowing it, and taking part in the sharing of the income derived from the selling of the placenta, and blood, they now call simply, discarding.  But their discarding means a dollar value, higher then the value of gold, to those involved. Yet, all of this is mostly unknown to the parents, the legal guardians of the child.  This is breach of trust.

Is this a medical conspiracy of silence, greater than the blue wall of silence of corrupted police?

A medical wall of silence of a doctor harming patients and even co-workers was reported in the Reader's Digest, September 2001. This was the American Doctor, on Swango, Judge Mishler, sentenced him to three consecutive life sentences, without the possibility of parole. Some quotes from the article:

     "It seems inevitable that more Swangos will surface, as hospitals are an almost ideal setting for a killer to camouflage a murder as a natural death.   . . .

    Hospitals must be required to report disciplinary actions against doctors and the information should be made available to the general public."  . . .

    "In Judge Cashman's views, hospital administration and doctors were so concerned about potential liability they refused to acknowledge evidence of numerous wrongful deaths, and thus became the killer's unlikely allies."  

    "The medical profession seemed blind to the possibility that Michael Swango, one of its own, could be a serial murderer.  

    "Most doctors I know are fine upstanding people," Judge Cashman says.  But he believes some consider themselves members of an elite and treat one another accordingly.  And the loyalty among physicians at times makes the police officer's famous "blue wall of silence" seem porous by comparison."  (pages 200-202).

In the case of endangering the babies by early cord clamping for not good reason, other than harvesting their placenta blood many babies have been given a live time sentence.  The parents paid the cost of higher costs for education, in most cases, and those who could not afford the private schools and tutoring could not help their children progress as well as others.  

They deemed the child just having bad genetic mix-up and did not review the long-term effects of bad medical practices, wrongfully imposed on the child, when natural births are evident no harm done and no clamping of the cord or cutting it is not a medical need, but cosmetic, except as stated above, the cord tore or for placenta previa.  All other fears must be examined by a court of law for the protection of the child's right of equal security.  Either the parent (s) are liable, or the medical persons for doing that to the child are all accountable for the child is paying the life sentence.  

WHEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS SEEK TO DEPRIVE  A PERSON OF INDIVIDUAL SECURITY AND EQUAL PROTECTION THAT WOULD NOT BE NORMALLY TAKEN BY AN INFORMED COURT, IT IS CALLED A CONSPIRACY:

One would think that when one or more levels of government are involved, and a violation of taking another's right to equal protection and security of person, it is called a criminal offense called a Conspiracy.  Conspiracy in medical training and practice taking place and many silent about it?  Well, that is for the honourable courts to decide, if they are not controlled to ignore the constitution and Rule of Law and Supremacy of God that gave common right to all of us, Do No Harm.  It is the message of the gods, that be.

Hurt and Breach of Trust to the Child:

"Why, mommy and daddy, did they do this to me?"  The baby has a legal right to know.  And can know all the facts of his her birth up to the age of 27 for civil matters, and longer if the facts of medical policies were violating the child's rights in that hospital by allowance of policies of the Administration of the hospital to allow anything goes by their doctors allowed to practice on their premises and the mothers not informed of the risk taking a medical person will do under policies of risk taking on another's child.

In most instances the mothers did not knowingly harm their babies.  They simply trusted in the medical person's judgment and that "active management" would not harm the mother or the child.

Many of the past three and four generations, for this reason of blind trust, have been deceived. Those contributing to the deception is first in the false information in biology textbooks.  The information is selected by the governments and their chosen committees.  The mothers, when they sought information on child birth, were also deceived by the nurses in charge of prenatal classes, and what was taught and left out was in the control of government agencies.  

The mothers were also deceived by the medical person's and their intentions concealed when they were intending to interrupt the baby's circulation system by not sharing when they would impose the clamped by a taught fear.  But those fears and intent to clamp a pulsating cord were not revealed in time for the mother to make an informed decision.   That means the medical person did not discuss their training and fears when they would clamp a pulsating cord during any prenatal sessions or discussions with the mother-to-be, or the father.

FULL POTENTIAL OF GENIUS ARE BEING DEPRIVED A CHILD, IN THE SAME WAY OF FULL POTENTIAL OF PROFITS BEING WRONGFULLY DEPRIVED A CORPORATION IF SOMETHING UNTRUE IS SAID ABOUT THEM:

The baby wanted to maintain its hope for full potential of its genius cells and to have health of that of a blue ribbon baby, as intended by the design of nature, or the gods that be. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, internationally implied in human rights declarations, were to assure the baby of its legal rights of equal protection and security of person, and that is a duty implied of all adults to uphold the protection to a child who cannot protect itself by reason of disadvantage of mental and physical disadvantages.

FIXED COMPENSATION DOES NOT TAKE IN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS TO THE DEGREE OF HARM:

This limitation on compensation is questionable. Injury or death of a person is not intended to enrich their estate for another, where the survivors are not dependent on the person's means to make a living.  But some children do look after aging parents, and to loose a child is to loose potential means of comfort in old age and care.

Compensation is intended for medical suffering by medical malpractice.  What the States impose on its people, comes a reality for those living in Canada, too, and in other countries.  They will try to copy restraining compensation to victims.

Who knows what corporation shares Mr. Bush has that may sway the decision of his elected representatives.  Who, of the politicians, have shares in cord stem cell research and other drugs companies, that often harm the people by the ingredients in the drugs?  

If so, those shares would come down when millions to billions are requested to in settlements when the public is informed of many medical malpractices, policies and Constitutional violations, even criminal code violations, that are now going on.  The settlements would be the vicarious liabilities of conflict of interest of receiving human organs and the baby's placenta blood without informed consent of the legal guardians of that child's organ, or even of their own.  

Again, this the harvesting of human body tissue and blood and organs, for medical profit, world wide, in private corporations involved in organ and blood banking.

Many government officials approved uninformed consent, on what is considered waste body parts, to be in the possession of private research and drug companies and cosmetic firms.

Formerly, such human organs and tissue was believed burned, but not no more.  Organs can be ground up and the components of blood in it, and hormones can be extracted.  That is being done without informed consent.  Seems we need a witness on the baby, all the time, and no one left alone for a moment with a medical person or lab technician, ever.  My confidence in the ethics of the medical persons and the hospital policies are down at this time.  To restore it and some other persons, we need an Official Inquiry on the Maternity Care of the Mother and the Newborn Neonate.  

We need a medical bill of rights to assure us of a witness to be with our loved ones, friend of the person and trusted family members, and this must be birth to any operation, for any age or mental or physical disability of the patient.  

We need this Medical Bill of Rights written by the lay persons, the average citizen, and not the professionals now controlling policies and what is done to our persons and our babies.  In this way, having a witness in medical matters,  not just the nurses and the doctors, involved in policy making by self-regulation, is what is now needed to assure the security of person and equal protection, to each individual.  We need to know that the Rule of Law is not exempting medical persons from investigations when false policies are reported to the police and the medical person not questioned or those instructing them in risk taking as a policy.   

President Bush and His Staff were Informed of Babies Being Violated at Birth and NOT Given Equal Protection:

President Bush and/or his staff, if they informed him, was made aware of my research.  It was shared to him that medical assault and battery has been taking place on the newborn neonate for some time.  This is depriving them of 20 to 50 percent total blood volume by a trend of hasty umbilical cord clamping.  

That means 4 to 6 ounces of blood may have been deprived a 9-pound baby that only made a total volume of blood of 10 ounces.  It takes babies a long time to create their blood supply for their own size and needs, and that would be full gestation baby, of 9 months.  C-section babies, instead of taking the placenta and baby out as sealed unit were the most at risk babies, and then came the premature babies.  

The premature babies were not expected to live, and they had the highest quantity of stem cell blood, so they would be early cord clamped, and not allow blood transfusion from the placenta over 30-seconds, at the most 45-seconds.  

These babies, at least, given that time amount on the natural transfusion of placenta to the now expanding lungs, to do the gas exchanges, once done in the placenta organ with the mother's system providing the oxygen and nutrients to the placenta, did survive the assault.  But some babies who went into shock of as little as 20 percent deprivation of blood would not be investigated by the Coroner's in each State, Province or Territory.  

Impaired and compromised living children were taken home by their unsuspecting parents, there babies were anemic.  This fact of the blood would not be investigated for.  And since the baby had the iron yet in his body and insufficient volume of blood it would be a jaundiced condition for up to two weeks, and this was called natural.  It would likely be anemic yet with iron in abundance because of the shortage of blood volume.  Other babies showing evidence of distress would be taken away from the parent's observation and be given blood expanders, like Ringer's Lactate and oxygen.

The billings of the care and treatment, in most cases, would not be signed for the parent (s), and they would be none the wiser of drugs used during the labor and the actual birth of the child, and that one drug, called a hormone, but is a man-made synthetic drug, oxytocin, called pitocin and Toesen, and Syntocinon, are warned about to cause brain damage to the fetus and the neonate.  The World Health Organization, without a reference to an actual medical reference that I am aware of, directed immediate cord clamping on all babies, if the mothers were given oxytocin, with or without their informed consent.  

The millions of children who have been robbed of their placenta cord blood for the giving it or the selling of it for fees for services were often left internally impaired and compromised.  Their parents were left with the higher cost of education, in most instances, of normally looking children, who struggled in the public school system, unable to learn to read, write and spell.  They were intelligent, but learning for them would take far longer and with greater teaching skill of those children who did not have any form of oxygenated blood deprivation.   

The President has been informed that false policies directing immediate cord clamping were cancelled but without a public apology by those most responsible in allowing false medical practices training.  In this case of hasty umbilical cord clamping, it was the Educational Bulletin #216, November 1995, put out by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).  

They cancelled the directive "all": babies had to be immediate cord clamped for taking of a pH blood sample.  Such tests could have been done through a urine test, and if a blood test was wanted it could have been after the expulsion of the placenta and after all pulsation had ceased.  It could have done with lesser risk but of some risk of putting a virus into the baby's blood stream by inserting a fine needle in the pulsating umbilical cord vein, for the blood sample for pH testing.  However, that test would not have tested the quality of blood now deprived of stem cells, in the placenta blood, and the nutrients and hormones and enzymes part of the blood now trapped in the placenta.

What generally happens with the placenta and blood is it can be sold by the policy of the particular hospital, or for blood and organ sample management by the doctor and/or the hospital labs.  The placenta and blood trapped in it are often sold under special code and billings, and the parents did not give informed consent to have had their baby's blood given to stem cell research, genetic testing labs, or sold to cosmetic companies and other research labs, on and off many of the university's campus.  

Off campus research do not have to meet ethical standards of informed consent, and sometimes the Drug and Food authorities did not monitor to the best of public information such use of DNA and genetic testing from human blood, and taken from patients or babies, without informed consent of the legal guardians, the parent (s).

The story to limit what may be ahead, millions of babies having Writs filed in their name for both Constitutional violations and pain and suffering from false trends and taking of their placenta blood without informed consent, and the child not having long-term results reviewed, up to the child is 27 years of age, when such matters he or she can deal with, before that time in civil court.  It is not know if criminal medical policies and practice will be allowed after the child is 27 years of age for violations to his person, done unnecessary during child birth.

One cannot sue for natural child birth, which can be undrugged births in warm water tubs, where the cold air on the child does not stop the circulation system, the mother does not tear if she births on her side or any gravity position, but not on her back or in a semi-sitting position, and catches her own baby, brings the baby up so it may breathe (a baby is not a fish, even whales bring their babies to the air), and the placenta is expelled, before the cosmetic clamping and cutting of the cord.  

No cutting of the cord or clamping is best practice possible as no cord infections get into a cut cord.  A cut cord takes 2 weeks to 8 weeks to heal, and a no clamped or no cut cord is off in two days time, a perfect navel, and no navel hernias, no cord infections, and the baby is strong, alert for getting all their blood, of stem cells and hormones and other nutrients for quick growth.  

It is much easier to maintain a blue ribbon baby then to nurture a damaged and compromised baby needlessly impaired by unnatural interventions taught and done by most medical persons.  None can be trusted for they cover up for one another, so many wise women are birthing unassisted, with only their chosen friends or family there, to give a hand, if requested and actually needed.  

Short of Votes, Senate G.O.P. Still Pushes Malpractice Issue

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Full Story:  http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/politics/06TORT.html?th

WASHINGTON, July 5 2003 — A bill that would impose strict limits on jury awards in medical malpractice cases — a central element of President Bush's plan to revamp tort law — appears headed for defeat in the Senate. But the majority leader, Bill Frist, intends to introduce the measure on Monday anyway, forcing a vote that could be used against Democrats in the next election.

The bill, similar to one the House passed in March, would limit awards for pain and suffering to $250,000.

The bill has no Democratic sponsors, and Republican leaders, including Dr. Frist and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican whip who will manage the bill on the floor, concede they do not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

"It's going to be difficult," Mr. McConnell said.

A vote could occur as early as Wednesday. But proponents say that even if they lose, as expected, the issue is not dead for this Congress.

Instead, Dr. Frist, who has made malpractice changes a signature issue, hopes the vote will force lawmakers to take a stand. That would expose them to more pressure from lobbyists, and might yield a compromise later in the year.

On Thursday, a group that opposes Dr. Frist's position called on him to remove himself from the debate because he and his family own substantial investments that would benefit from limits on medical liability. The group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer rights, said the family's holdings in HCA, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, and a subsidiary, Health Care Indemnity, the fifth-largest medical malpractice insurer, created a conflict of interest.

The broad issue of overhauling the laws governing liability in lawsuits has been a perennial dividing line between Democrats and Republicans, and because of the rising costs of medical liability insurance, this aspect of the issue has been especially potent this year.

With medical liability premiums rising and some doctors leaving their practices as a result, proponents of malpractice changes say caps on jury awards are necessary.

Doctors, insurers and business groups, all of whom contribute substantially to Republicans, are lobbying heavily for the bill.

But opponents, mainly trial lawyers and consumer groups and the Democrats they support, say the bill, modeled after a California law, would deprive malpractice victims of their day in court without solving the insurance problem.

They say the $250,000 cap is too restrictive.

"We have tried during the first six months of the year to see if we can't build a bipartisan consensus on this, and thus far have been unsuccessful," said a spokesman for Senator Frist, Bob Stevenson. He added, "We view this as a long march, and this is the beginning of it."

That march may well extend until the next election, in 2004. Some Democrats — who complained that Dr. Frist is circumventing Senate procedure by bringing the measure up for a vote before it has been considered in committee — said he is using the vote to generate a political issue for Republicans.

Republicans made it clear that they intended to use the vote against Democrats.

"Women are having trouble finding obstetricians to be able to deliver their babies," said Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, the chief sponsor of the measure.

"In states like Nevada, doctors are leaving in droves, and that kind of scenario is repeating itself over and over around the country," Mr. Ensign said. "As voters become aware of it, I think you're going to see the change of minds of senators who may now be against it. We bring it up for a vote now, and it may cost them in the next election."

Mr. McConnell agreed. "It's important for everybody to go on record," he said. "If we don't act, I think it's a certainty that it will be an issue in next year's election."

Because most controversial legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, Democrats will have at least two opportunities to defeat the measure on the Senate floor.

Under Senate procedure, they may vote to block Dr. Frist from even bringing the bill up for debate. Or they could allow debate to proceed and then signal their intention to filibuster, forcing Republicans to come up with 60 votes to halt debate.

A spokesman for Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said Mr. Daschle had not decided how to proceed.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said he hoped there would be a full debate, because he was developing an alternative that would offer doctors tax credits to give them some relief from insurance premiums.

Mr. Durbin said his bill would also curb the insurance industry's exemption from antitrust laws — a move that a number of Democrats, including Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, argued would exert downward pressure on rates.

"The premiums that are being charged to doctors are outrageous and I think we need to do something," Mr. Durbin said.

With a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, proponents of malpractice-law changes have been hopeful that this year they would finally achieve their goal.

Some now sound gloomy.

"This represents our best offer," said Kate Sullivan, director of health care policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce, adding, "My fear is if we take a vote right now and we lose the vote, then this is bad for the 108th Congress, which runs through 2004."

But officials of the American Medical Association, which made medical liability legislation its main priority in Washington, remain — in public at least — upbeat.

"We believe it's the best opportunity for national medical liability reform that were seeing, certainly in my lifetime, and we still remain optimistic," said Dr. Donald J. Palmisano, the association's president.

Both sides are lobbying hard. The medical association is starting an advertising campaign focused on senators opposed to the bill, and USAction, a consumer advocacy group backed by the trial lawyers, is spending more than $500,000 on a two-week advertising campaign featuring victims of medical malpractice.

"This Congress has a very bad track record of supporting powerful special interests at the expense of average Americans," said Jeff Blum, USAction's executive director. "We want to make sure that real stories of real people are in the debate on medical malpractice."

Those stories have had a powerful effect on the debate.

In February, just as the House was planning to take up its bill, a 17-year-old transplant patient, Jésica Santillán, died after doctors in North Carolina gave her a heart and lung of the wrong blood type. Opponents of the bill cited the death in arguing that a $250,000 cap for pain and suffering was too low. Critics, including some Senate Republicans, began to argue that any malpractice legislation would need an exemption for catastrophic cases.

For a time, it seemed that Republicans and Democrats might be able to broker a deal. But the lead Democrat in the negotiations, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, dropped out when doctors' groups, including the medical association, refused to support a proposal that would limit jury awards for pain and suffering at $500,000. Dr. Palmisano, the association's president, said the group has been turning to the states.

Despite the lack of agreement and the bill's dim prospects, Senator McConnell said there was no reason to wait.

"There is substantial clamoring for a national solution to this national problem," he said, "and we think there is no time like the present to begin to deal with it."

________________________

for a Medical Web site on Cord Clamping, visit:   www.cordclamping.com

Comments to the author of www.lotusbirth.com  contact:   Donna