World Health Organization Reveals History of Babies Dying of Cut Umbilical Cords
BABIES ARE DYING OF CUT UMBILICAL CORDS 500,000 A YEAR AND IN WESTERN SOCIETIES INSTITUTIONS TOO:
Contrary to the World Health Organization's directives on methods of umbilical cord clamping, WHO's statement's in red below, Medical Practices, I offer a safer and better option, the Primal Pioneer Method, now known as Lotus Birth: "Warm water births, no drugs and followed with No clamping or cutting of the umbilical cord, ever, unless the cord tore or for placenta previa." by Donna Young, Mother and Grandmother, Natural Birth Education.
The Reference for this Url is: www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-457.htm (Revised March 29, 2004)
In the Vancouver Children's Hospital, September 29, 2002, a Superbug was in the nursery. This was MRSA, methicillin-resistant staphyloccus aureus. "An outbreak of MRSA at B.C. Children's in 1998 killed two babies and infected 47. I say, if they do not clamp and cut the cord and inject babies with vaccination, nothing can get inside the baby's life stream. (Reference to the story, The Vancouver Province, Page 1 and A3, September 20, 2002)
An experienced grandmother, Laura Shanley has shared her views of any
assisted births, she says, "NO." To them all. Mothers are wiser to birth
unassisted and be in control. See Unassisted Births.
Well, I say, some Moms may need the security blanket of taught institutional
births. I say, at least allow them to birth Primal unassisted on their
premises of the institution. but do take along a door stop. Do have a signed Birth Contract. The
door stop is to assure the sign on the door is respected.
It might read: "Do Not Disturb -- Natural Birth in Progress - The Mother will Call for Help
if she wants to or needs you." The Loving Parents.
You will not be a bad parent if you do not do the scans, the injections, the
needles the tests. Go Primal Birth 100 percent and have that blue ribbon
baby you dream of. When in doubt Go Natural.
I say, that if the baby and the mother are going to have the best practice possible,
least risk of harm, we must return to the
natural birth education and practice of our grandmothers -- those who birthed unassisted in their own
homes prior to the 1920's.
They only had problems if someone controlled the birth and "cut" the mother's body. She
and the child would then like die of the
infection. Ninety-five percent of births are not complicated, if the mother does nothing to rush
the natural birth, such as thinking
inductions are special treatment to her and her child by the doctor. Those methods are harmful
to her and the baby, in most
instances.
The pioneer ladies did not even have midwives, only their family present, or
spouse. That was traditional birth. Tradition of
natural births are set aside for the Native women in the Province of Ontario. No women should
be discriminated against to have
a traditional birth, attended by whomever she pleases. Birth is not complicated, in most cases. Women just have, after hospital
births, lost confidence their body will know what to do and the baby, too. I advocate if the mother
lacks information or education,
that she see about an unassisted birth in a hospital, that she is in charge, provides a waiver and has
a signed birth contract for a
no hands on birth. The mother catches her own baby in a warm water tub, if she likes. In fact,
warm water births are best for the
baby and the mother.
In a warm water birth, which is supported in the good of Policy #71, December
1998, of The Society of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists of Canada, is that the baby has no shock of cold air. The blood circulation is not stopped
by this shock. The
babies therefore receive the most blood transfusion. This done, the placenta is quickly expelled. This is quicker and natural only
if the baby's placenta cord is NOT clamped.
So the baby must be protected against uneducated medical persons wanting to
interfere for any reason, this natural process.
Only if the cord tore or for placenta previa should a cord be clamped for the benefit of the baby. This
indicates or may indicate an
error of care and treatment at the birth.
The birth contract is a legal right of the mother to have, and is so stated
in the good of Policy #71, of SOGC. This signed
contract should be signed early in the time period the mother knows she is planning a family or is already
pregnant. An unsigned
contract on no clamping of the cord, for c-section, premature babies, or vaginal full term babies, means
the doctor or staff at the
hospital are not properly educated on this issue, or are involved in harvesting the baby's blood. This
is either for the interest of
their own lab to have cheap source of experimental blood, or some one is selling the placenta and the
blood drained from it for
extra income. When this is being done it is without informed consent.
A signed birth Contract, means then the good faith to keep to the contract,
by all involved in the child's birth, and only the
mother can change the contract, not a medical person, as the Contract has a waiver for the mother refusing
a suggestion of care
and treatment to herself or the child.
A signed contract may have the mother requesting an unassisted birth, and only
calls for help as is necessary. In Mexico,
women birth in hospitals as to there right of having an unassisted as their choice. There is no
good reason this is not world wide
and a provision in all hospitals and birth centers. ,
Because we have, today, State of the Art Technology, does not mean it is safe
for mother and her embryo, fetus, or newborn
child. In fact, we have one in sixteen babies born with defects. Some internal ones are
revealed, months, years, later. No
investigations or stats are taken of the State of the Art done to the child that likely are a common
factor. Risk to the child and the
mother are for curiosity of the medical person, or the mother or the father, or relatives putting pressure
on to use State of the Art
Technology. Many medical plans do cover these without insurance to the child of risks that are
long term: scans, needles
inserted into the baby's amniotic fluid, monitoring of the baby by attachments to their scalp, breaking
the water bag, applying gels
and creams on the cervix, taking castor oils and doing other things to bring on the baby's birth, when
baby is not ready to be born.
THE SIMPLICITY OF BIRTH PRIOR TO THE 1920's:
Our grandmothers, over 3 and 4 generations ago, had it so simple. They did not tie or cut the umbilical cord. They simply put the placenta in a warmed towel after birth, as was the baby put in a warmed towel. Later the placenta was put in a diaper, and in two or three day's time, it fell off. No cord infections, no hernias, no tetanus. The baby was healthy, got all his/her own placenta blood complete with stem cells, platelets, plasma, enzymes, hormones, (necessary for our emotions too, to match our sex organs), white cells to fight infections.
Only after the blood was typed, and blood was important in medical fields and
science research 1901, did doctors change the
method of cord care, to cosmetic removal. No one really knew how the placenta and the blood were
discarded and disposed of.
We believed burned. But was it, really? Who knows for sure.
In any case, the babies, to day are noticeable endangered by harvesting and this is recognized by the American
Academy of
Pediatrians too. But they did not stop early umbilical cord clamping, in their policy statement. This was with their knowing
babies were being caused to be anemic. They simply, implied, as to my perception, "Oh, well,
people will be people. If babies
are to be harvested, at least give the blood to be used immediately, and not store the baby's deprived
stem cells in private blood
banks, have the baby's deprived blood given to be used immediately, by another."
It is not the duty of babies to give their blood by wrongful early umbilical cord clamping. AAP
have admitted this is harvesting of
the baby/owner of the blood. Even if with parent's consent, the duty was to the child, and no one can
waive a duty of care of best
practice possible least risk of harm to the child. That the baby feels no immediate pain from
blood deprivation of up to 50 to 60
percent total blood volume (see references in list of contents, last on the list), is no consolation
to the child, so weakened. As to
pain, many babies have heart attacks from blood deprivation loss. Many gasp, struggle to live,
and die.
Has a child who was deprived his blood at birth ever had to have their blood back. Yes. The
baby was likely caused to be
severely anemic from hasty clamping. We may never know if the baby lived, or if the story was
true. The story was released by
the CBC Evening News by Peter Mansbridge, but the story did not give factual warning of the dangers
to the child by early
umbilical cord clamping. The public was misinformed of all the risks associated with depriving
a baby's immediate right to
security of person and equal protection to have all the blood he/she made for its needs, at birth. The
placenta blood goes into the
expanding lungs. Lungs take a lot of blood. Please see the transition from the fetal to
neonate circulation system at this web site.
Medical practices
See also Dupont developing a clamping and cutting tool, without warning the baby will have 20 to 50 percent total blood volume deprived if the cord is clamped soon after birth. The placenta nutrients will not be transfused into the baby's expanding lungs.
http://www.umbicut.com/supporting_data.html
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/MSM_98_4/MSM_98_4_chapter3.en.html
- During the 1800s in Western countries, thousands of infants died every year from umbilical infections, including tetanus neonatorum.
- Many newborn infections were spread by medical attendants who failed to recognize the value of washing their hands.
- The importance of cleanliness gradually became apparent and these infections were rare by the early 1900s. Current medical practices - washing hands before cord care, clamping the cord with sterile clamps, and cutting it with sterile scissors or blade - are based on the principle of aseptic technique.
- They have led to a reduction in omphalitis, neonatal tetanus and sepsis. Although aseptic technique at birth decreased cord infections, other practices that were introduced in hospitals had the opposite effect.
- When hospitals started separating mothers and babies in the 1940s, placing babies in nurseries for newborns to facilitate care, the risk of nosocomial infections and cross-infection among infants increased steeply.
- Staphylococcal epidemics of pyoderma and omphalitis emerged and the umbilicus was found to be an important reservoir for dissemination of S. aureus.
- Prophylactic routine application of antimicrobial agents to the cord stump helped control these epidemics. However, successes in preventing colonization by one organism sometimes resulted in colonization by others of equal or greater pathogenicity.
- The practice of applying an antiseptic to the cord is now common not only in hospital nurseries but also outside hospitals, yet it has not been thoroughly evaluated.
- A wide variety of regimens exist for cord care in hospital nurseries, suggesting an uncertainty about what is most effective. The purpose of these regimens is to reduce colonization and thereby reduce infection of the cord stump with hospital microorganisms, the most common of which is S. aureus. Regimens for cord care are, however, not always based on firm evidence that they are effective.
- Routine care of the cord usually includes daily cleaning of the stump with alcohol and application of a dusting powder or an antimicrobial solution. Powders currently used contain varying proportions of zinc oxide, talc, starch or alum and other ingredients. Some powders also contain hexachlorophane or chlorhexidine. The most common antimicrobial agents include triple dye, tincture of iodine, iodophors, antibiotic ointments, silver sulphadiazine and chlorhexidine. The frequency of treatment also varies. In some cases the cord stump is cleaned and/or treated only at the time of delivery; in others, care is repeated daily or at every diaper change until the umbilicus heals.
- The use of umbilical binders was discontinued in most hospitals in developed countries in the late 1950s and early 1960s when it was found that they frequently harboured bacteria and hindered healing by not allowing the cord to dry."
_________________________________________________________________________
Note: For any other topics at www.lotusbirth.com or www.123-baby-birth.com just put that web site name into a search engine and the topic right after it. This can be used for references, and identification of all the medical groups approached who have no protective policies on this issue, including Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, Midwives, doulas, ambulance medics, and the nurses whose basic course was absent, apparently, of the fetus to the neonate circulation system. See the criminal codes of Canada, namely, Common Nuisance where even one person was endangered, causing bodily harm and the Criminal Code when Canada, at least, determines when the baby is considered a citizen, a human being for equal protection and security of person. This is as to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- no discrimination by age, nor by mental or physical disadvantage. Are babies endangered by age and mental and physical disadvantage? Yes.
The babies, world wide, are being deprived 20 to 50 percent total blood volume. This causes low blood volume, jaudice and anemia. A 9-pound baby only makes a total blood volume of 10 ounces (300 ml), so how would you like to be deprived up to 50 percent of your total blood volume and have it said that is no harm done?
_______________________
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
