Informed Consent in British Columbia on Child Birth
Informed Consent in legal terms means if it a medical care and/or treatment with no warning of risks or alternative choices, the person did not give true informed consent. Nor had the informaiton provided to make a true informed choice. The care and treatment, may then regarded as a form of criminal assault and battery, and also a civil tort to be compensated for personal injury. Both must be heard in the Court. by Donna Young, Natural Birth Education.
For Reference this Url is: www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-443.htm (Revised March 29, 2004)
This may be particularly true for women in child birth because they are not
sick. Please see the comments of a midwife, and
mother, Charolotte Millington,
Informed Choice
, title in red, below.
The facts are, it was ruled a doctor erred in giving a woman a c-section, against her will, in London, UK. First she lost, but under an Appeal, she won. Details at: Right of Mother to refuse treatment: c-section BMJ 1997;314:993 (5 April) http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7086/993
Posted at: http://www.123-baby-birth.com/constitution/doc/Constitution%20aug%207-124.htm
A woman does not have to agree to have her body cut to give birth. Nor, does
she have to be drugged to give birth. And her
legal rights are to know the risks and to be told of safer options in order to avoid drugs or cutting
of her body, such as warm water
births, and freedom of movement to give birth.
Her choices for natural birth, refusing drugs and cutting of her body, may have
some risks that she may die in child birth,
whether or not she chooses natural birth or "active management". It is never assured
a woman will not die from the cutting of her
body to give birth or her baby, or from the side effects of the drugs. Drugs can stop the heart
from contracting properly, such as
the ingredients in man-made oxytocins, commonly given to all women to cause them to birth faster. Generally,
that is for the
convenience of a busy hospital staff.
Therefore, the options for a natural birth is no more at risk, if that is what
the mother thinks is best. It is her body, her informed
decision. So episiotomies or c-sections that were imposed on women, are not legal,
if not given with "informed" consent. The
placing women on their backs or in semi-sitting positions are not legal, either, and often are the cause
of cutting of the woman's
body to birth her baby.
Policies of the Hospital for "appropriate care" are not legal. They
do not give informed consent for such matters. They can be
challenged, I would think, in "both" criminal and civil Supreme Courts. The Judge decides
if a matter goes to court, not the police,
but the Judge.
The Laying of Information is another way of getting the
matter before a Judge. This may be used, if the Police are not
informed on violations to women and the child in childbirth, by unnecessary medical procedures. They
assume the College of
Physicians and Surgeons do criminal investigations on their own criminal medical malpractice trends
and policies outside of
observable best practice possible, least risk of harm. Often, then the police have refused to
do an investigation on a professional
group, by policy or by deed of individuals belonging to a group advocating harm to another group, defenseless
babies.
AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS: Also, there is a means to go before a Judge,
for an Order of Mandamus, if the Federal and
Provincial Governments are not protecting a group equally, the pregnant women and the child. This
may be that the Federal
agents, receiving bad counsel or no counsel from their paid advisors, many of them lawyers, having a
implied duty by their
licensing and called to the Bar, did not counsel correctly on the Constitution and the Statutory laws,
the criminal laws, implying
duty of no harm done to another person, even by medical persons and their policies and their training.
Many of the government officials through their Health Agencies and Ministries
were allowing the pregnant women to give birth
in their licensed hospitals by their licensed medical agents, where exploitation of her body and her
baby, were being done and
without informed consent of safer and best practice possible. They were knowingly for Grant
Monies, paid by both the Provincial
and Federal governments, taking the newborn's blood, by early cord clamping directives, made in
policies.
Nothing of this nature to violate the child, or to deny the woman of informed
consent, to be self-directive in the best interest of
the child if the mother is not in factual danger, the child is sacrificed for the mother's sake...but
not by taking from the child what is
legal his or hers. The government has no good excuse to allege the did not know what their self-regulating
agents, licensed in
each Province, State, and Territory, were doing by trends. They ought to know what
is going on in medical training at
Universities and in their hospitals, all supported by the tax dollars. The governments appoint
representatives to protect the public
at large. They were paid to protect the public and not harm any other individual for protecting another
person, without informed
consent. The good of the public cannot be by the sacrificing of others for that cause without
informed consent. The duty, implied,
then is to protect the child for equal protection and security of person, not to be made a second class
citizen, nor not to be equally
valued and protected. Hospitals and the agents that work in them, cannot overrule the Constitution,
nor take away the need of
informed choices.
ENDANGERING AND NEEDLESS TRENDS OF MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT:
Any risk to the mother or the child by unnecessary procedure today, is endangering to them, when safer options are known, or ought to be. Therefore, there are various sections in the Criminal Code that can be used to any person endangering another, needlessly. Most, medical persons, when they have a concealed conflict of interest in hasty clamping, not told the mother, attempt to use an emergency excuse, such as short cord, fear of the mother bleeding, fear of too much blood, fear of too thick of blood, fear of too fast flowing blood, or their right to decide the quality of the life of the child, or life itself, in the timing of the clamping of the cord.
But nature of natural birth indicates the child thrives if no one stops the
pulsating cord, along as the air is warm and the child is
kept warm, the blood flows to the child from the placenta, to the lungs, maintaining proper volume and
pressure, controlled by the
child's own heart and beat. And the mother does just fine without drugs and cutting of her baby
to birth her child. Her body
makes the proper hormones to cause the muscles to expand, and the pelvic bones too...birth happens without
interventions, in
most instances, about 95 percent of all births.
The conflict of interest is to the Administration Board's own policies to take
the trapped blood in the placenta and do as they
wish with it, whether burning or using in transplants or research. This has been done without
informed consent, other than
burning, and is a violation of Church and State to those individuals not believing in donating of blood
or receiving it. Acts 15 is
Universal, and not to any one group.
Many of the current hospital boards, have used deceptive excuses, not good excuses,
in taking the baby's placenta, as they
did cosmetic removal of that organ, and while it was yet in the womb, not leaving it attached to the
owner/infant. They need to
explain possible conflict of interests when they failed to tell the women, no need to clamp or cut the
cord at all. This was a custom
of the early pioneers, prior to the 1920's. They allowed a violation of rights to consent by informed
choice, for c-sections and
vaginal births, for all babies, whether full term or premature babies.
The conflict of interest of using the child's organ and the blood trapped in
it, needs to be explained more fully in a court of law,
meant the actually harvested the baby's more precious then gold, placenta stem cell blood and other
components of the blood
and hormones.
The duty is on all adults involved in approving questionable policies that endangered
the child, by hasty clamping of the cord,
to anemia (and failed to test for this within days and weeks of the child's birth), and to be endangered
to low blood volume,
indicated by one symptom, jaundiced coloring of the skin and/or eyes, or both. The jaundiced is
caused by low blood volume and
too many iron components remaining without sufficient volume of blood for it to be used, appropriately. The iron remains after a
red cell dies or is injured. The red cell normally lives 120 days after the release into the blood
stream.
It takes one week to full maturity of a red cell, and it takes twelve days
to create a white cell. To deprive the child of full blood
transfusion was to lessen these valued blood components to the benefit of the child's needs, and quick
growth, now out of the
womb, and greater activity, needing all the blood the baby created in 9 months, or when born. The
average 9-pound baby only
makes 10 ounces of blood.
Hasty clamping can take away 20 to 50 percent total blood volume. The
evidence is in the draining of the placenta, of which if
done, is kept secret and off the child's medical records, how much was wasted (burned) or sent for another's
purpose, in
research or in transplants. The policies of the hospital kept secret from the knowledge of those
who trusted in no harm done, if
they used the services at that birth center.
Reference of fact that it will take a weakened child from 6 weeks to 6 months to recreate the deprived blood is to Policy #71, December 1998, of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC), who have refused to cancel the bad in this policy and trend of hasty clamping and also policy #89, May 2000, that directed immediate clamping to be done routinely on "all" Canadian babies.
SOGC followed the Policy #216, November 1995, of the American experts,
of ACOG. ACOG did protect their American
babies by cancelling Policy #216, in January 2002, after some complaints. I complained and Dr.
George M. Morley complained.
I complained to SOGC, but they continued to persist in a false policy. Why? Do they have
shares in private stem cell blood
corporations? That may be a conflict of interest where the duty is to protect all members of society
equally, and to security of
persons, including the newborn citizen.
Children do not have to submit to genetic testing, nor do their parents have to consent.
PKU testing is a genetic testing, often prescribing a very expensive diet for
life, and not known to prevent harm to the child, by
the facts the child was brain injured at birth by drugs and hasty clamping and not because of this PKU
gene.
Genetic testings and taking blood samples, and risking babies to virus infections
by sticking needles in their pulsating
umbilical cord vein, or any injections of their persons are not legal. No medical procedure or
policies of hospitals can treat a
person like a prisoner without self-determination and informed choice of anything to be done on their
person. That includes
women in child birth.
The doctors thought, long ago, they had an Oath, of secrets of their care and attention, could to day, be called medical law. It does not stand up nor rule over individual freedom of the will to say no to medical care and treatments. What the doctors and now the midwives have done, is organized themselves by two or more doctors to take away a person's common law rights. They were are wrong. The Court can be used to protect such persons the doctors intend to violate of Constitutional Rights of equal protection and security of person, not necessarily given by the doctor's decision or intent of practice.
No professional group can do that to another, take away their Constitutional
Rights and Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
informed choice. The legal guardian of the child is the parents, and that is by Supremacy of God,
unless the Evidence of Fact
show the intent of the parent is to cause the child harm. The doctor cannot prove his method of
care will give a cure, and not pain
to the child.
Often the drug treatment has no natural vitamins or minerals in the care recommended,
but destroys blood and nutrients, and
over time kills the patient, but the treatment was paid for by the medical insurance plans, and gave
profit to the doctors and drug
companies.
No one can make a policy that involves the individual right of the person. That
includes there is no privacy on medical records
that the individual of those records cannot see and have a copy on. That includes hospital records and
all tests, and all the
doctors files and even from third party opinions.
Examples of Tests on babies
. It was ruled that if the medical persons had put a needle in the heel of the newborn infant
to
take a genetic blood sample to test for PKU, the judge, in Dublin, Ireland, said it would have been
battery. He ruled the medical
persons could not make compulsory tests to be imposed on healthy babies to test them for genetic disorders.
What is not
included in the assessment of any PKU child, if found to be genetic deformed is the early clamping and
drugs used at birth. One
child after the special diet, was to be on the diet for life. Details at:
http://web47.radiant.net/~pkunews/research/yap.htm
Court Case:Posted at: http://www.123-baby-birth.com/constitution/doc/Constitution%20aug%207-102.htm
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abridged/323/7322/1149
The following are the thoughts of Charlotte Millington on Informed
Consent for the ladies in British Columbia Canada:
Informed Consent
By Charlotte Millington
http://www.birth.bc.ca/birth/articles/informed_consent.htm
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a magic phrase that you could use with any health practitioner that would make them completely freeze mid-movement, then slowly turn to you in deep respect as they realise that you know have the total key to your own health care? Well, there is... sort of. The problem is that it is phrase that is neither well-known, nor well-understood by either parents or practitioners. The phrase, in case you're wondering, is the term "Informed Consent".
Informed Consent is pretty much as it sounds: it the simple act of making a decision based on complete
and accurate
information. What is great about informed consent is that it allows you to make knowledgeable,
informed decisions, based on
the concept that if you know all of the pros and all of the cons of a specific action, procedure, or
medication, you will be prepared
for whatever may happen as a result of your decision. In other words, you are not a passive recipient
of your health care, but an
active partner. In theory, informed consent is an important part of health care. In theory, it
is your right and your responsibility to
make informed choices. In actual fact, informed consent is often a can of worms.
The problem with informed consent is that it is not a term that is understood by each member of society,
and in the past, it has not
been a theory that has been encouraged by medical practitioners. The reason for this is that, until
recently, people were not
encouraged to question doctor's orders. It has been accepted that doctors are "healers" who
have our best interests at heart.
Knowing that doctors have the ability to pull off miracles nothing short of resurrections, it is difficult
to think that doctors are mere
mortals. But if you can accept that mere mortals are not perfect, and that they can occasionally make
flawed judgments, it is very
wise to question everything and accept little.
So how, then, can informed consent be a problem? It's very simple: there are some medical practitioners
who plain old do not
like to be questioned.
It's a particularly nasty thought. The idea that the occasional doctor (or other health practitioner)
may get his or her nose out of
joint over the idea that we asked the three questions: "Why?" and "What are my other
alternatives?" and "What are the pros and
cons of this?" is not something we modern-day health care consumers feel too good about. Clearly,
it is not all of the practitioners
who dislike informed consent; nonetheless, there remain many practitioners who are not happy about a
non-compliant client.
Legally, you are well within your rights at any time to refuse to have any treatment on you or a minor
in your care. All you have to
do is utter the magic phrase, "I do not give my informed consent," and no one, regardless
of how compelling their reasons, can
touch you. In British Columbia, no one has the right to touch you or provide medical treatment
on you or your children, unless you
give consent. In medical terms, you have the right and the responsibility to say, "yes, I
give my informed consent," or "no, I do not
give my informed consent."
The problem however, is that a doctor also has the right to deem you an incompetent decision-maker (in
extreme cases) or to
become reactionary (in normal cases where a practitioner did not like you exercising your rights). What
happens when you are
deemed to be an incompetent decision-maker, is that the doctor has just labeled you a fruitcake and
is going to get back to
doing whatever he or she was previously doing, whether you like it or not. What happens when you end
up with a reactionary
practitioner is a whole lot more subversive.
In some cases, the may simply refuse to treat you unless you are willing to accept that his or
her methods are an important
component in doing the best work he or she can. It is possible that the practitioner will make
a quick call to social services and
let them know that you are unwilling to allow your children, unborn or born, proper treatment. Most
of the time, these things won't
happen and they are very extreme. But they do happen and they should be considered. Typically, however,
what happens is that
the practitioner treats you like garbage because he or she is unhappy that you have questioned his or
her work. (Frankly, the
notion of having an internal done by someone who has just written, "non-compliant," across
your file in red ink is one that should
concern most women.)
So, what are your options?
Well, there are many options. Probably the most obvious one is that you can simply accept everything
your practitioner tells you
as valid. Question nothing; accept everything. Many women do choose this route, either because
they do not know about
informed consent or because they do know about informed consent and they don't like the risks. It
is the least satisfying of the
options and certainly the choice that carries the most substantial risk. Another choice is to question
when you feel a need to ask
questions and then wait for the reactions of the caregivers. This also has its risks, but if it means
that an unnecessary intervention
will not be performed on you, it may be a worthwhile risk.
Most of the time, a practitioner will be pleased to help you make the best decisions possible. Some
of the time, he or she will
resent your questions. If you have asked for more information, all under the phrase of informed
consent, and your practitioner has
not reacted well, you have more choices. Here are the top five:
1. You can stick to your choices, continue to refuse treatment or an intervention because you know it
is right for you, and live with
the crabby practitioner.
2. You can stick to your choices and ask for a new practitioner. You have the right to refuse to be
treated by someone who you do
not like, but be aware that if you request a new practitioner, they will only come after an earful from
the previous practitioner, a fact
which may or may not be relevant.
3. You can backpedal, smile, apologise, and go for the practitioner's original suggestion.
4. You can ask for a few moments to consider your options.
5. You can try and negotiate something that makes both you and the practitioner feel good. While
this sounds reasonably good,
remember that a conflict with a practitioner is not a situation to be negotiated with the idea of a
win/win outcome. Your
practitioner has nothing at stake. You do.
Ultimately, how you choose to handle informed consent is your choice. There is no right or wrong way,
but there are some ways
that may better suit your needs than other ways. What it really comes down to is this: your health is
in your hands. How you
choose to take responsibility for it is up to you. Ethically and legally, the responsibility is yours.
Charlotte Millington is a Maternity Photographer, Doula, and Prenatal Instructor in Victoria, BC. An
advocate for childbirth and
reproductive freedom, she is British Columbia's only professional photographer who also attends births. She has been attending
births since 1991. She is also a mom.
____________________________
Links:
www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-435.htm
Diagram on the fetal circulation to the neonate circulation form.
This page link: www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-443.htm
Search this www.lotusbirth.com web site for : AAP policy, SOGC policy, ACOG policy; Placenta; Fetus to Neonate Circulation; 30-second clamping; World Health Organization and Dupont ; Circumcision ; Dr. Sarah Buckley's Declaration ; Canadian Criminal Codes and when a baby is a person; and any other subject you may be interested 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 at from the various government officials who appointed representatives to protect
the public on medical
policies and practices; also the "No policies" of the various medical associations, societies,
and colleges did not live up to no
form of discrimination to women or the child of any kind. It is believed they had a duty to have
a policy of equal protection and
security of person, regardless of: age, mental or physical disadvantages ; race, color,
social or marital status of the pregnant
lady ; or belief or faith of the family, or genetic type of blood sought for by medical researchers,
for stem cell matching, and use of
white cells, mature red cells, platelets, enzymes, hormones, and plasma.
contact: Donna Young, Mother and Grandmother
Home: www.lotusbirth.com
References of research: www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm
A medical web site to visit:
Note: PETITION www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814
Please ask this site to have a Medical Alert Petition Site: petitions@earth.case2.com
