Who Can We Trust? by Donna Young

Who Can We Trust in the Medical Service Fields? by Donna Young

    The people of the Dobo Island's trust no one. They consider this a positive attitude and as being healthy, wise and by being cautious. (Reference, World Book, Vol. M, p 329, 1979.

BREACH OF TRUST IN MEDICAL CARE AND SERVICES:

    Many years ago, a relative of mine, was so rushed on the fear of cancer of the eye, the doctor had her in the hospital the next day to take it out. There was no time for a second opinion, she was that rushed.  Then our family would find out that this doctor was doing 18 eye transplants a day, and worked in collaboration with lab technicians.  

    In order to use her eye for another's use, first alleged to be cancerous, he had to have at least one of the lab technicians state the eye was not diseased, in any way.  This was once the eye had been removed. The eye or coroner then could be used in another's transplant, with that opinion.  

    What my relative had was a detached retina.  This she was not told, and the doctor considered women something to be exploited was then stating for precautionary reasons, he wanted to remove her other eye.  

    At that time, my mother stepped in.  My mother was helping my other Aunt to clean her eye socket in order to put in a class eye.  My mom, and I witnessing this, said her eye socket tissues were healthy.  My mother had been a nurses' aid, to give that opinion.  

    My Aunt sought legal advise, to find the inconsistency of lab reports but her removed eye had gone missing.  It was likely used in another's use.  The lawyer said he would not represent her as the actual eye had gone missing.  He was not going to use the statements of the other lab technicians,  when there other opinions the eye may have been diseased.  

    The doctor was never charged with criminal medical malpractice and working in collaboration or collusion with lab technicians.  No civil damages were taken, in my Aunt's case.  It was alleged the doctor died, or was so reported. The initials I have of an eye surgeon involved in an investigation are E.S.

    In a more successful dealing with a breach of trust, is the John Moore case.  Moore settled out of court for his blood and organ used in developing a MorLine...without his informed consent.  It is believed his settlement was 1/2 million dollars, but the lab and doctor shared 3 billion dollars within 3 months of developing special stem cells of this MorLine. check the Net for the details.

ON CHILD BIRTH, WOMEN ARE BEING DECEIVED ON ACTIVE MANAGEMENT VS NATURAL BIRTH EDUCATION AND PRACTICE:

    Only in Western Societies, particularly, for women in child birth have we been brain washed to trust blindly.  Doctors tell their clients not to use the internet.  Many women are career persons and do not do their own research.  They are discouraged in independent studies and there is a conflict of interest, apparently, that is controlling information or the lack of it in the prenatal classes.  Such courses are being run by the Registered Nurses. On my research, to date, they are failing in facts of the natural hormones used by the fetus and the mother to bring about less harsh labor contractions and the control of them and support drugs use in labor.  These prenatal class are promoting the increase of acceptance of 25 percent and rising in the major operation of c-sections; and the use of drugs in labor management rather than the knowledge and the encouragement to use natural birth education and practice.  The nurses are not competently trained on the safety of warm water births and the legal rights of women to birth their babies in the water and catch them, themselves, for a no hands on birth.

BLIND TRUST CAN BE HARMFUL TO THE MOTHER AND THE CHILD:

    What has been found out in my four years of research on maternity matters, with personal experience, that not getting more information when a doctor tells us we have a sickness or a condition to know what is best practice and least risk of harm.

    We blindly accept their directives, not considering they are a business person.  Being a first a business person to be practical there may be a conflict of interest as to care and treatment, from the doctor, as well as in the birth institute or by those who may come into our homes, for homebirth.  

    Checking the training of the registered-nurse-midwives, they are being taught as mini-medical doctors and are highly skilled in sophist statements, that are untrue and misguide their clients to a consent, wrongfully obtained by information that was left out.  

    The latest experience has been for surprise reasons to clamp a child's functioning umbilical cord, that threatens the child with low blood volume and pressure.  The latest being, the fear of the mother bleeding, which is a normal part of birth.

     It is also a motive that the midwives, now trained in blood taking from the placenta, have a main objective of increased fees for services, in early clamping of the cord, to take the placenta's blood.  That placenta blood was intentionally, then, by misrepresentation taken by some of the midwives, or at  drained in to syringe tubes.  The midwives are also trained to take placenta blood by draining it from the cord  into blood bags, the size given hold 200 ml or more. How much taken can be 60 percent of the child's total blood volume, and that will depend on the size of the baby and how soon the child's pulsating cord was clamped.  Most try to clamp before 30-seconds.

    Again, the latest false surprise statement currently used by female doctors and midwives is fear of the mother bleeding.  It is an alibi to prevent a criminal investigation, as are the other alibis used in policies directing hasty clamping on all babies.

    The facts are early clamping endangers both the mother and the child, so was not a cure for if this condition proved true.  They were doing a procedure without substantiated facts.  

    Other midwives, have used various trendy excuses, and myths, as:  short cord, fear of too thick of blood, too fast flowing of blood to gain consent by the information given, but not factual, thus, the consent was wrongfully obtained.  

    Further, the studies indicate that 30-second clamping and most babies survive and tolerate the assault, and so the mother is left with a living baby and often does not bring investigation for latent internal injuries caused the child by low blood volume.

    Checking the facts of records of what was left in the child's medical charts, that all medical persons should be required to leave factual information was the reason of early clamping, the weight of the placenta, and the amount of blood that could be drained by the early clamping.  In other words, the intent to conceal are all part of the care and treatment done to the child after birth.  The parents, none the wiser, of their duty to the child to make sure all records are truthful and factual of that care. Importance is to the duty to the child, documenting the collecting of the blood later drained or syringed from a full placenta, that they caused by early cord clamping, by a surprised statement, obtaining consent, by misrepresentation of failing to tell dangers,

     The care and treatment may not be the wisest, and the most likely done in a conflict of interest with profit sharing in mind, even to the structure of government and the use in government money in research grants as to stem cell research -- the blood mostly taken from our struggling babies.

     People then on medical matters can be exploited if we do not take personal interest in our health and in research on any one disease or care offered.

    When the population was to trust, the trust was to come under law civil and criminal when the trust was breached, whether we have a verbal understanding and promise, no harm to us as to the training and intent of the medical, persons, all information made known to make an informed choice.

    This means policies of care or clinical standards are not to be considered a law to be imposed on any one person, yet they often are understood by those using a clinical standard to take away informed choice in medical matters. NOT so, if the situation gets in a court of law, civil or criminal.

    Trust allows for accountability when there is breach of trust. Again, this issue of active management and blood taking from the babies may be a tort that is both criminal and civil. The duty of the adults when and if they have information is for the proper recording of the child's care and treatment during and after birth is to file a Writ.  This starts an action for review and records and Discoveries.  This is a legal means to complain to the police by any witness or informant, something was not right at the child's birth care of one or both the mother and the child.

    The mother is involved in the immediate nurturing of her baby, so is most vulnerable not to be able to deal with legal matters or investigation of her care, what was done to her, or to her baby. The medical institutes take advantage of that logic...and this is one of the main reasons mothers do not complain about questionable practices and policies imposed on them, in birth. After all, they have a living baby, and do not know a damaged baby averages some $700.00 monthly in extra supplements, drugs, and special education, and that is on the low end of the scale for dealing with compromised children.  The parents were not informed and intentionally not informed in natural birth education and practice rights, to be done in hospitals.

    The reason hospitals do not use natural birth education or practice or the choice is that the births then cost more in patience and time. If the hospital approved only active management, they are allowing the doctor and the nurse to conceal the dangers of active management, selling it as painless and quicker births. They are not telling the risks of virus infections because active management involves false birth positions of flat on the back and semi-sitting birth positions.

    These false and harmful birth positions were written up by those with a conflict of interest, the Merck Manual, for example,takes advantage of these harmful birth practices, by promoting "all" women be cut to deliver babies, because they say the imposing (without informed consent) episiotomies on all first time, and inexperienced mothers. Then once done, always done, thereafter. The false birth positions done by putting the mothers on a high operating table (not necessary) was for total control over the mother's birthing body. The mothers to have any help at all, after the early 1900's, and then to the rural women after about the 1920's, was stopped by acts of parliament swayed by the doctors movements in organized societies and Colleges.

    The doctors learned to use drugs, tools, and to take the blood from the placenta trapped there by policies of early clamping, outside of natural birth. Mothers, who birth naturally, without active management care and treatment, birth on their sides, or in gravity positions, or squatting, and they do not bleed, they do not tear, and they do not tie off a pulsating cord...they wrap their babies in a warm clean towel, and wait for the placenta to come out, and they wrapped that too in a warm clean towel, and kept it close to baby. Natural birth had the placenta come out within five to ten minutes, and sometimes it did not come out for twenty minutes, the amount of time for the blood to total transfuse into the baby's now expanding lungs. This was documented in length of time...of particularly drugged babies, as the baby's own heart controls the transfusion. Dr. Mavis Gunther confirmed the length of time as well as the amount of blood that would be deprived the baby by early cord clamping.

    The doctors, who may have been doing hasty clamping during the Second World War, not challenging teaching, yet going on in the 1950's, to clamp the cord early, was challenged by Dr. Gunther, and her report was filed in 1957 that the babies are better care for, if no clamping is done at all, stating that unassisted births, the baby's thrive. I have her report sent to be me Dr. George M. Morley, and it is to be found in the Lanclet Original Articles. The Lancet is a respected medical journal of past and present research.

    Many upstarts are being controlled by groups of medical persons, that block challenges to their own bias. The most current controlled bias that is being organized to be used by the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons is in the States, MD Consult, using the biased of Dr. Gabbe's to misguide or give as defense, to all doctors doing early cord clamping. Dr. Gabble's told the doctors, that the blood trapped in the placenta is not important. That amount of blood was not given in the same directive not to care or to allow the choice of timing of the clamping of the cord, only to be the doctor's convenience.

    In my opinion, for what was left out in that paragraph, encourages medical malpractice with a defense, that is an alibi for risk taking.

In Canada, the Registered Nurses Association were using the Collaboration of controlled randomized trials, that the public would likely never get to cross-examine the women who were likely first time mothers, to set a clinical standard to only use active management in all hospitals to continue. This is again, drugs, cutting, and early cord clamping as the standard practice of care. However, the experts were doing this outside of legal individual choice and were imposing this without the mother adequately told of the harms of active management. The organization, was stated by another group calling the Cochrane Collaboration Group to be a conspiracy.

    It certainly is, when used not to allow Rule of Law and individual choice of what is best practice possible and least risk of harm. The Active Management being protected by policies to teach only the use of drugs, cutting and early clamping, has motives that must be demonstrated in a court of law. The motives are...all of active management increases distress to the child, and higher costs to monitor that distress.

    The distress to the child can be found to prove a benefit to increase blood released inside the baby body. The increased blood may also have drugs that cause the blood to expel the immature blood cell's DNA, called stem cells. Drugs cause the loosening of the DNA nucleus, likely then to be easily separated by extraction of high powerful machinery. Then nothing is done innocently by any medical person, who could have had this information by research, even if independent.

    What the trainers at all universities were doing, as to my confirmation of some, so far, was NOT to encourage the future students to have time or directions to do independent research, and in fact, are conditioning the students not to question those considered superior or the leaders, the doctors training them to watch, early cord clamping and drugging mothers, as the Standard Clinical Care.

    They were also ignoring the facts of the "good in policy #71, December 1998" put out by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, who agreed warm water births were gentle births, and agreed gravity births allowed for faster transfusion of the placenta blood into the baby's body, and that the only warning of a water birth was to have the water NOT too hot, nor too cold, and they stated to bring the baby's face out of the water. They did not put in the logic, that if the placenta had pulled from the womb, the baby would not get "oxygenated blood." But still, the baby would get transfusion of any blood and would oxygenate that blood if it were now breathing, the blood not going into the baby's expanding lungs.

    They did not state the volume of blood needed into the lungs, which logically would be the same as the blood that remained in the placenta while the baby was in the womb, to do the gas exchanges. To adequately get that same blood to maintain pressure and volume the baby's cord must not have been clamped off. To do so, would be to rob the owner/infant of that blood nutrients of amino acids, enzymes, hormones and the other suspensions of the blood. So the baby is put into a state of health, that is not healthy.

    Many babies because of drugs and lack of oxygen have excess death of red cells, that their iron then remained in excess in the baby's blood stream, the liver and the spleen not able to contain these in excess iron. The baby will give evidence of something remiss in their body, jaundice. While persons assume jaundice is excess blood, that is not true, the baby actually has low blood volume and pressure, which the doctor and the nurse did not test for, but could have confirmed low blood volume, but did not do so, because it creates questions why the baby had low blood volume and pressure. The answer is, they did early clamping. The nurse or nurses were participants or accessories before and after the fact, by their failure not to just be a witness, for they failed and covered up by failure to record what they observed.

    They were not the doctor's private nurse paid by them. They were the agents of the hospital that controlled what the nurses filled on the care and treatment of the child, that their employee, the nurse participated in, and did not fill in her own separate report. The hospital then, by policies or the failure of them, was requiring the nurse not to report unnecessary procedures and policies imposed on the birthing mother, without informed consent.

    The Canadian Criminal Code, protect all employees from dismissal by any threat of their jobs, if the employee is threatened to position if they do report and uphold high standards. The implied duty of the medical persons are to report endangering practices or trends, they have not done that as an organization, so the entire associations, that directly or indirectly, will have employment by increased sickness internal, did not work in the informed choice of prevention and best care practices in the medical institutions.

    It is not cut and dry, but many law firms do take on government involvement of allowing their representatives to turn the other cheek and be willfully blind to what is going on in the care of women and children in maternity matters, and the directives of falseness put in policies, and even in the biology textbooks, but the biology teachers. The biology teachers were directing early cord clamping on all human babies, and did not do that for any other mammal.

    They knew right from wrong, and did not suggest motives of human blood wanted by the medical fields, and thus, encouraged the mothers to be, to be exploited. This was having the mothers birth in institutions, where they could do early clamping and benefit from the baby's deprived blood by policies that they did not have to have disclosure or consent to use the placentas, or the placenta blood. It was done in secret. What is done in secret without options to make safer choices, no harm done, is called a breach of fiduciary trust. That can be both criminal and a civil tort. It is decided to be allowed to go to trial by the Court System, that is to uphold no one person can be exploited by age, sex, race, color, marital status, or mental or physical disadvantage.

    The mothers are being exploited by both mental and sexual discrimination. The mental is that the doctor, the nurses, and prenatal classes and the education source of information contained false information on reproduction to birth of their baby, and what was most logical to prevent internal damage to herself or her baby. The baby was exploited by size, in some cases, as to age of birth. Premature babies were being exploited and can be confirmed, that they had more stem cell blood then did full term babies.

    We do not need new laws to protect mothers or babies. We need actions to begin, individually, or by Class Actions. I see this as a universal attack on women, world wide, by organization of the medical groups. The intimidation is to the public, in general, by the organization of the medical groups, including individual authors of repeated false information, is a form of extortion, to fail to correct and apologize for their false policies imposed on women. The threat to the population at large was done by an essential services of the good in the medical care and services that they were all doing this, to excuse investigation and accountability by their believed high standard of training and ethics. The ethics were only promoted for the public at large to think that the medical persons, nurses, included, and midwives, could be trusted as a whole. NOT so. NOR, as a group, as to their memberships, that were in silence of good medical practices and the duty to report bad science and bad practices.

    The nurses the midwives were being sent into the private homes, to do early clamping; and they are being sent into third world developing countries to teach detachment of the cord, when they did not detaching of the cord before. When others think the Western Society is healthy by detaching the umbilical cord, they do not know that since this trend, starting in hospital births, not done previously in unassisted home births, creates internal sickness by blood viruses, that are slow and fast acting. The truth of that statement is known by the World Health Organization reporting deaths of babies world wide by cut cord infections, to be 400,000 to 500,000 deaths. That can be considered a form of population control to the uneducated not to clamp or cut the cord, as they did from the beginning of time. Other babies are then exploited with active management policies as to repeat medical care and attention of weakened immunities caused by blood volume being lowered by hasty clamping.

    The medical groups, by their memberships, directly or indirectly, gain by increased medical costs, and payments to do blood experiments on the blood taken from the babies who are early clamped. It is all organized even to the Collaboration of Clinical Randomised Trials...that the women who took part, cannot be cross-examined if they truly gave informed choice, and the women, will likely to be found to be inexperienced first time mothers, who I alleged were exploited by inadequate information given on natural birth education and practice.

    When doctors and hospitals and nurses and the Medical Libraries are using experiments to make clinical practices or policy training and practice, those all must have trust of accountability and responsibility. These two come under torts, which breach of trust, Fiduciary breach of trust...the trust broken comes under torts, which can be criminal for injury of long nature, or risk of latent internal injury...being compensated to all hurt or harmed, by prison sentence, if the investigation finds the experiments done without the best practice possible least risk of harm. Natural birth, obviously does not carry a penalty, because birth is not a sickness, but a normal event.

    Only if the common sense of reason means any help did not keep the baby warm coming from a warm womb, then wet, and hit cold air. We know by logic the circulation of the blood is going to be stopped by that cold air...that is what, logically, gets the baby born. So receiving the baby into warmest room (many hospital rooms did not have the thermostat turned on, energy efficiency...for an expected birth....and were not prepared with mirrors of observation, and the care and treatment were blocked up to the 1960's of witnessed births of what the doctor and the nurses were doing in care and treatment, with the nurse threatened with her career, if she did not sign whatever the doctor stated on care and treatment. Of that form left out information, or consistently left out information on the timing of the clamping of the cord.

    That failure to record the on the child's own medical chart, were that the cord was clamped while it was red, firm and pulsating. That is what should be shown on your daughter's child medical chart and on my daughter's notes from the three midwives (one a student). The absence of that recording allows, in your instances, to report what was done and the reason given...fear of the mother bleeding, when that was not evidence; nor did the medical persons, say they had reason to believed more serious bleeding because they used the drug pitocin / oxytocins...that causes harsher contractions...that would create a "fear" of bleeding.

    Plus, the fear of that drug and its chemicals causing the risk of brain damage....either by dissolving brain membranes...that allow then viruses to go into the baby's brain, slowly or fast....by early vaccinations...before the babies are healed of any low blood volume and pressure.......So we are playing around with serious injustice to babies, and the faster one puts in a complaint with a law firm, for a Writ to be filed in the child's best interest...for those latent injuries, that may take even many years, even to age 30 and more. Such as a case of a Kamloops lady, who all her life, did not know she had a hole in her heart from birth.

    This lady, and I spoke to her personally, thought she was having a heart attack, and the tests later revealed a hole in her heart. Holes in the heart begin when the chamber of the heart are not equally maintained, because the pressure foot of control of the volume and pressure of that child's blood volume, it created for his/her size, was stopped by a clamping tool. The tool, when used unfairly, or unnecessary, is then a weapon and the person using it, was doing so with intent, not to record the reasons why. This is because they were doing a medical procedure without informed consent, or the reasons they had to fear the mother would bleed.

    In any case, of the use of oxytocin, or a fear of the mother bleeding, the cure then was not logically, early clamping. The element of surprise of this fear, was intentional. It took the mother off guard to cause her to think her life was in danger, in the manner this was told her, or lies associated with it, that it was a logical cure for prevention. But investigation rules otherwise, it was more dangerous to both the mother and child.

    Those then promoting a false teaching must be given if the doctor in your State was trained in a convention or visual lesson or a textbook. The doctor has to reveal the source of training, or take the responsibility of making this up, as some kind of under the table excuse and alibi to cause the baby's blood to be trapped into the placenta.

    Motive. Trapped blood, if you check out your hospital's ethic Board Policy, will be considered waste blood, or excess blood they deemed the child did not longer need, because the baby survived the assault. What they are saying, low blood volume and pressure is not their policy of concern, if they caused that condition by the interruption of the blood volume. The courts will look at unnecessary interruption of the blood, even though the baby did not die. It was a violation of property rights, and to maintain physiological volume and pressure as to the blood the baby needed for his/her own needs. The blood contained nutrients specifically for that child's continued growth and well being, at birth. All that was caused an interruption and a deprivation, unlawfully imposed by the policies of the doctor, and his/her training; as well as the approval of the Hospital to then allow, blood trapped in the placenta, to be taken for their own use.

TORT LAWS, BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL:

    There are both torts here, civil and criminal. Criminal disciplines, of bodily harm, caused with total indifference....The baby, may have been known, in your case, to be tested for low blood volume and pressure....and topped up without consent, or knowledge with Ringer's Lactate. This means they were avoiding possibly a collapse of blood vessels in any part of the baby's body, likely the brain. The brain is the least organ that can take volume and pressure and oxygen deprivation....it will show the problems later in life....even in seizures. So you have to do the investigation by Discoveries of all what was done in your grandchild's situation.

    If your daughter remains hostile to your knowledge as a nurse or as to inquired information that can all be confirmed by tests, and seeing your grandchild's records, the Courts can approve and allow Next Friend Witness that your grandchild, is not being legally and appropriately protected in long-term injury, that will become evident as she/he matures.. Latent injury by this sort and drugs used often are delayed until the child is challenged in school, and has injury to memory capacity, and is easily frustrated to learning knew information that requires memory, such as short term memory damages, as to stroke victims. New information is then always distressful to students who were impaired and damaged by drugs and blood volume loss. That is logical, and the lawyers, not being doctors, have to understand, that "active management" is using tools, that risk staph viruses, slow and fast acting, into the blood stream of the mother and to the fetus; and after birth, caused the same risk in clamping and cutting the cord. This was a cosmetic procedure.

    If the motive of taking the placenta and placenta blood are selling by the policies of the hospital, no longer used by the former owner, and they can sell it without informed consent, it is fiduciary breach of trust, civil. Since it was removed without informed consent, and did have a benefit of preventing harm to the child, it is likely allowed to be a criminal tort, of bodily harm, of risk taking, of latent or slow acting viruses or fast acting viruses now being in the child's blood stream.

    Internal injuries begin, logical with the shock to the baby, of low blood volume and pressure. Those were testable in the hospital, and nutrient deficiency of the baby's blood by size and lack of volume of blood and pressure, and all the nutrients deprived can be tested in the 1/2 cup to 1 cup of blood they deprived the baby. That blood, if you confirm the hospital's policy, past and present, will indicate someone, somewhere, in that hospital, knew what was happening to the placenta's. The duty would be to the nurse in the maternity ward, putting the placentas in freezers. She would be willfully blind, where the placenta go; and would be willfully blind of any facts of the placenta drained, either yet inside the mother's body, or the placenta drained after they were expelled.

The endangering to the mother of early clamping, is expelling a full placenta, by early clamping, thus they are risking mothers with the Rh factor disorder. The were doubly exposed to danger. I am sharing my concerns, with others, too.

Sincerely,

Donna Young

Natural Birth Education

From: Trymommarie@aol.com <mailto:Trymommarie@aol.com>  To: dyoung@sun.pris.bc.ca <mailto:dyoung@sun.pris.bc.ca>  ; Trymommarie@aol.com <mailto:Trymommarie@aol.com>  Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:57 AM Subject: Re: Blind Trust, without written contracts, is that Healthy for our Times?

____________________________________________________

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:  

  www.cordclamping.com

Note:   PETITION     www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814

Please ask this site to have a Medical Alert Petition Site: petitions@earth.case2.com