Pregnant Women's & Newborn's Natural Rights & Medical Records

Topics: Medical Records; Pregnant Women's Right for a "signed" Birth Contract; Pregnant Woman's Bill of Rights; Informed PREGNANCY Choice and Known Risks of any drug or Medical Procedure's Danger; and the Woman's Right for Primal Birth.  By Donna Young, Natural Birth Education.

This article's URL:  www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-589.htm)  

Petition to Protect Babies and Mothers, Too  ).

Revised March 5 2004

Primal birth is a natural pioneer care of the mother and the child, identified as the Lotus Birth.  Primal birth allows for choice of mother to refuse drugs and to control contraction-discomfort by movement and by warm water births and no hand's on birth and no clamping of the child's umbilical cord.  Primal birth rights are to provide truthful information that, in most instances, cord clamping and cutting is   NOT a medical need,  only cosmetic. The cutting can allow entry of a virus. The early clamping can put the child into shock. The clamping and removal of the cord on the premature, or c-section or vaginal birthed baby are all dangerous. Only if the cord tore or for placenta previa is there a true medical cause to clamp the cord. This is to be based in facts of visual evidence of science (not opinion), for the benefit of the child . Otherwise, the child must not have any stopping of his/her circulation system. If such situations did happen, they happen rarely, the situation would require an immediate remedy. (see Chow-case-law (1).

The placenta-lung-blood-bag, as I call it, contains the blood to be transfused into the baby's expanding lungs, and by his her own means to do so by the heart's pumping action.

Why is this information on Primal Birth (Lotus Birth) being provided?  It is because, I, Donna Young, President of Natural Birth Education, am a mother and grandmother, have been involved in voluntary baby birth research for the past four years. My concern is that three and four generations of women have been deceived. Few of us have had a positive birth experience and regretted how the doctors and nurses treating us in institutional births.  The concern is costing me personally, over $230.00 a month to inform and to hopefully reach some of the women yet planning a baby. There is need for them to know about their rights of primal birth.  

A few babies have been spared by my concerns.  I say, we have no babies to spare.  And, I say, the babies have not one drop of blood to spare and need not be imposed on to give it, either, by the present trend of immediate and early umbilical cord clamping. The baby's blood is being taken for research and the placenta, and without informed consent, in most instances.  There is also a family privacy invasion of the DNA and genetic codes as to who all has access to them, or how the information may be used.

What I have found out in medical policies is that they are very political, meaning in financial profits of others, and not necessarily in the best interest of the medical consumer, the pregnant woman and her baby.  The practice of active management, in particular, increases the risk of internal damages, to both mother and the child.  Subsequently, there is repeat business in the higher costs in medical care and higher education costs to assist the now created 'challenged' children. These early clamped babies were denied by the controlling of the doctor and the clamp, if hastily wielded, to be the best that they might have been, with all potential genius cells undamaged, for the nurturing of the child's natural inclinations, and the means to learn not to have been made more difficult then life needs to be -- life is already difficult for most.  

I am appalled by what 'medical persons' ought to have known before being licensed to handle any baby's birth, or counselling any pregnant lady. What they do tell them is encouraging profits in some state-of-the-art technology that is not necessary in most births. Personally, and from research of other mothers, the medical persons have been leaving out the right of informed choice and right to know about the safety of primal births (Lotus Birth) and what is the difference of primal choice and active management, so frequently, imposed.

The reasons most doctors like "active management" is simply if uses and manages the birth by drugs.  The drugs are used more for the convenience of medical staff and busy doctors, at most hospitals and birth centers, then it is for the child's birth, or for the mother's benefit.  Even in midwifery, by those using any reason at all, the midwives, too, are collecting  the blood from the placenta, by early clamping. They too are carrying oxytocin that manipulates the birth. They too carry oxygen to revive a baby, after active management.

Many women, not satisfied with the treatment of using a midwife, have said there was no more safety in choosing a midwife then a doctor or an institutional birth.  This may be so if the mother is not going to have a "signed" Birth Contract stating what cannot be done to her or her baby.  A birth contract for a primal birth, if not signed, is a good indication the mother needs to consider a home unassisted birth, just with family available. To birth in an institution, she must be assured of her privacy and for a primal birth with her own birth witnesses. So the hospitals have to decide, is it better to birth in a rented room, unassisted, where help is not far away, or the women to totally reject the medical services, completely?  Is it control over her and the child the professionals want; or, for the birthing mother to be assured safety and peace of mind to birth natural, with no interference and that means not touching the child and his/her lifeline,or the placenta.

POLICES BEING USED AS AN ALIBI:

The most recent alibi of both doctors (females) and midwives (females) and likely to keep them out of the criminal court was a clinical study (not yet revealed of source) that they had a  "fear" that the mother may bleed and used that excuse, without the facts present, to clamp the yet pulsating cord.

In each case, one in Florida, USA, and one in Ontario, Canada, the early clamping was soon enough to collect from 60 to 180 ml of placenta blood. This was wrongful deprivation of blood to the owner/infant. This is so, whether the blood was burned or sent to cord blood banks, and with or without the parent's informed consent.  

That is how the medical policies are being criminally used, which is unethical of the medical persons involved in collecting of stem cell blood for research. Many are being compensated for the collection of the placenta as well as the contents derived from this organ.

The threat to the child is anemia, iron overload, and ongoing internal disorders by the shyness in the appropriate volume and number of  hormones and enzymes that were produced by the child, in the original placenta blood. These nutrients were intended to go into the baby's expanding lungs. This was to take over the placenta-lung-blood-bag's duties of purifying the blood and exchanging the carbon dioxide blood for fresh oxygenated blood.  

The lungs take a lot of blood to do the purifying and the gas exchange. The child would be a weaker child by the wrongful interference of their property rights. What will a Judge say as to this unnecessary intervention and invasive care of the trusting child and likely uneducated and trusting mother in the medical services of today, and in the past?  

INCREASE OF MEDICAL COSTS, IMPOSED ON THE TAX PAYERS:

The history of facts, on c-sections, were that only 3 to 5 percent of all births required a c-section, prior to the 1920's. Some of the women of that time have histories of 16 c-sections births...so women did have c-sections, frequently.  The number of her children were not limited by a c-section according to references that I have read.

Now, under active management, the increase in c-sections is up to and over 26 percent, and climbing. These are not emergency births but provided for career ladies. Many of these professional ladies are wanting a set time for their own convenience. They are not paying for the c-sections. Others are women who are not educated on primal birth and their own reproduction system. The fear contraction discomforts and do not know by moving around or birthing in warm water can have them birth naturally, and without undue distress and/or of tearing.

The c-sections births are running at considerable higher costs, then would a primal birth.  The active managed births, yet, vaginal births, have also set high drug administering and other monitoring of babies. This adds up to be just as expensive of birth care, as though, it were a c-sectioned baby.

On the other hand, and not political are the choice of the primal births. The costs would be negligible.  The expense would be for a rented hospital's room, or the cost of a birth witness in a hospital's room or in an unassisted birth in the privacy of one's own sweet home. The home cleaned suitable for a warmed room birth ready for any emergency birth of a love-child.

The blessing to the woman and her child, for primal birth, would be their retained health, for both of them.  The child is not going to be challenged the rest of his/her life which can be distressing and taxing on the family.  The woman would be in control of her own body, during birth, and not drugs.  And she would choose what is done or not done, and the care and treatment to her baby, after birth -- which by primal birth rights can be not clamping or cutting of the child's lifeline. No pre-determining the quality of life of her baby, or life itself would be in the hands of the medical person.  God's ability to decide would be there, and not the hand of man or woman. Plus the woman's own means for preparing of her body to have a healthy child.  A healthy child was also in the means for her spouse's healthy body as well.

THE DIFFERENCE OF A PRIMAL BIRTHED CHILD AND AN ACTIVELY MANAGED ONE -- YELLOW-GREEN JAUNDICE OR HEALTHY-PINK BABIES:

The results of active management is in the consequences of jaundiced babies, who are yellow-green at birth. Primal births are healthy pinky-white babies for Caucasian race, or healthy none-yellow-green whites of the eyes of colored babies. Yellow-green babies can have life-long internal disturbances. The internal pH has been re-adjusted, and their blood nutrients. Iron Overload is a frequent cause of the jaundice, and caused by excess iron from killed off red cells in too excess. The babies, if tested, would be found in fact of science, to be also low in white blood, red blood, and most other hormones, and enzymes. These are all important for the future developing and abilities of the child, from the brain down.

RIGHT TO KNOW FOR WOMEN PLANNING A FAMILY, SOME DAY - PRIMAL BIRTH RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL:

The concern of the right for truth involves also the perceived political statements involving higher medical services and cost to the tax payer, in the information found in most biology textbooks. Found in such resource material, past and present (1)  is a bias of political interest that is directing immediate umbilical cord clamping on the "human baby's umbilical cord", the selling of the placenta and the blood trapped in it; and their alleged safety of drugs, failing to mention all gases and drugs cross the placenta; and their promotion of a harmful birth position, supine. These prone birth positions have been known, prior to 1913, to close the birth canal by up to 30 percent.  The supine birth positions make the women vulnerable to the doctors then doing, routinely on most women, an episiotomy, the cutting of her vagina to make it larger. These are performed on most women, particularly, the first time mothers, and then on them, thereafter.

Such political policies are also found in a drug company's manual, indicating a conflict of interest, political in nature, as to Merck's Manual, governing over or influencing the care of the medical person over the uneducated and ill-informed first time mother. The biology textbooks and medical manuals, of political nature involving higher costs, then lead to injections of both mother and child, which are not normally found in natural primal births.

All these natural rights for a primal birth and no harm done apply to Canada and the United States and are also Universally acceptable under the United Nation's Human Rights Declaration since 1948 and to the present day. It is a duty by the individual to keep them. It is a duty of each community to keep them.  It is a duty of every Federal government to assure Human Rights and no discrimination are kept, everywhere, and in every institution, in their Nation.

This is to assure confidence in the medical services to all persons, and to their citizens, regardless of age, and sex and so forth, by both criminal and civil directions, they are upholding these, and that due process of law is available in the enforcement of these rights.  This is in the "enforcement" of the law by the police's duty to investigation if the laws are being kept and the reasons why not, if a complaint is alleged.  Who, in any professional self-governing organization would have authority to overrule criminal law or civil or the Constitution, to be NOT applied to them, or  by their association's own policies or standards of care?  Who, in any self-governing organization, whatever the professional status, religion, education, medicine, justice officials, political policies, has authority to wipe out the Nation's laws not to provide equal protection and security of person to the individual or any group of persons in regards to: sex, color, race, faith, mental or physical disadvantage, or by social status,  and /or as to marital status?

Many of the unwritten natural birth rights are stated or are implied by the World Health Organization (W.H.O.).  W.H.O. is believed to hold values to not discriminate against protecting any women, in any society. This must be perceived to include no discrimination as to region. Therefore, protection is perceived to be to women living also in the Western Societies, who donate so well to W.H.O. They have an implied duty to protect without discrimination to any women in Third World developing countries or in the developed countries.  Most Nations have agreed no form of discrimination to women of any nature and to do their duty to give to the child the best that we can offer.

The fact of evidence, in child birth, of any placenta-birthing mammal, is in the living, the present, as to the visual of good science and good medicine, and natural birth, primal, and the right of all mammals. Plus, the duty to do no mischief of any form of perceived exploitation, or to cause any child to be considered a second class citizen, harvested, at birth. This would be for the value of their placenta-lung-blood, rich in their stem cells and other hormones and enzymes found in their placenta blood.  This placenta, by now bogus medical policies (intended to escape review in a criminal court),  is being clamped off early on the pulsating cord. Those doing this involve: nurses going into villages and into home births, and in every institution, and the surgeons in c-sections, and by the trusted family doctor.  Most of these concealed intent and informed choice for primal birth rights for both the mother and the child.

The citizens of Western Societies contribute to W.H.O. so Western Civilizations' women and children should not be exploited in medical care to the pregnant mother and her child, such as in Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, or the United States.

So far, those countries named, have not as yet have had a reciprocating approachable representatives who responds on concerns as to questionable medical policies, practiced, world wide. It makes you wonder if their addresses and emails are bogus, not intended to serve Planet Earth and all the inhabitants on it, equally?

 The medical policies on child birth, seem very dubious and of a political nature. These questionable policies are being set up by the experts, the Obstetricians, Gynecologists, Pediatricians, Heart, Stroke, and Lung Experts, and Blood experts working in cord stem cell blood banks. These experts also have an influence as to sitting on all volunteer non-profit societies gathered to deal with existing medical problems in the youth.  Controlled are the questionnaires, that do not go back to active management and what the mothers of the afflicted children all had at common. These questions are being avoided to be discussed and many suspect "control agents" governing such organized groups of hurting parents and there now challenged children.

And they have for political reasons have set policies that were allowing harvesting on the Western Babies of their placenta cord stem cell blood.  This must be questioned in a Court of Law, or by an Official Commissioned Inquiry and the threat is to all children born on Planet Earth - or are so being targeted from developed nations and now from also the undeveloped nations. The latter had maintained primal birth rights and protection to the child's birth right of the placenta blood and its benefit for that individual child, or those of multiple-births. No child, not even a twin, needs to be clamped of the cord, or cut from it. Should that happen one or both twins can be caused to be mentally and physically challenged. The right to know of primal births is a duty to be shared to all expecting mothers.  

The World Health Organization, by fact of visual evidence, primal birth in a clean home and environment, and no cutting of the woman' body, does no harm but benefits both mother and child. Both their systems are free of active management drugs. W.H.O. does KNOW  that children who are supplied with their right of placenta blood, for their individual needs, are healthy babies and with full immunities.  W.H.O. does know the universal care and right for each child to take from the cup of the placenta blood, as to its individual needs. This, too, is natural a design by nature. Or, if a believer of any faith, it is by the design of God, the Grand Omni Designer.

The intended design means no unnecessary intervention that the lifeline not severed by man or woman.  This, too, means the legal guardians of the child are the natural parents. This, also means,  the STATE, cannot direct or allow any child to be violated of equal protection or security of person, even by the legal guardian of the child. The STATE knows, as does W.H.O. the duty is to the child on the issue of the placenta-lung-blood and the legal owner of it, the baby.  The threat to the child, in any cut cord, is a germ getting into a cut cord and that is true of circumcisions of babies and any needle put in a new born's flesh.  And for no good reason to have done so.

The threat of internally damaged children, that our Western communities can afford to look after, is that the presently trained medical persons, in all levels of schooling, private, and government controlled, are being directed to collect blood from the placenta.  They are taking blood, too, from the weaker children from countries who cannot deal with impaired children, who will be left mentally and physically challenged by a policy directed form of blood-letting.  Immediate cord clamping causes a form of anemia by blood loss.  Immediate cord clamping imposed a deprivation of blood as if the baby bled from his body, and not the placenta by 60 to 180 ml of blood. Most ethical doctors and midwives know this. There is no good excuse for what they intend to do for policies established in political profits and intent.

A BUDGET IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPENSATION:

In the United States alone, they have a wealth of over $20 billion dollars used in baby births. It is perceived, that this budget, can be set aside for the money saved in primal births. This budget, on an annual basis, thereafter, after a court application, might be annually distributed among the millions of yet living victims of the drugs and the clamping tool. these are the forceps and the vacuum. The harm of unnecessary  injections of needles and "stuff" , too, that went into our most prized possessions and assets, our babies, the adults of tomorrow and the future.

INCREASE OF AUTISM AND OTHER INTERNAL DISORDERS:

The increase of autism, is perceived as a consequence of that blood deprivation. If found to be a common factor is has been an unnecessary medical procedure, and thus, needs to be addressed in a court for a criminal medical policy, involving an offense against a person, and to causing bodily harm, which internal injury includes.  The immediate cord clamping (ICC) or any clamping on a pulsating cord, or would be if the child was revived on the cord, is perceived to be and to be heard by the court, to rule on if it has been: assault, battery, and theft, really, and in some cases murder of the child. The doctors, by training, had concealed to the medical consumer of the hospital's local facilities,the endangering consequences of their intent of early clamping. The policies to permit this on all babies, or any one it was done to are bogus. A bogus policy is merely an alibi to keep the police away. Many children after hasty clamping go limp, as to what some call a flat child.  These babies require revival.  The will be revived by given another's oxygenated blood.  Most will live.  Any revived child will be a challenged child.  That the doctor, or the medic team, spared the child's life is no good defence for the causing of the endangering of the baby, in the first place.  The hasty clamping was without medical need to have interfered with the child's circulation system for the necessities of life, and quality of life, and to consequently to have been risked to living life as a compromised and challenged child.  (See the Chow and Ing-case laws, in Ontario, Canada, handled by Roth and Sommers).

HARVESTING OF A DECEASED CHILD:

If the child died, the harvesting is continued to the rest of baby's organs. The intent, in harvesting at birth, was to treat the child as a second-class citizen. The harvesting was political for an organized groups, medical associations who all had an interest in human organs for research, transplants, and harvesting for cosmetic purposes, drug companies, and stem cell transplants.  The harvesting of any organ without informed consent and duty to the owner of the organ and blood was a violation. This is even if consented to by the parent, the legal guardian of the child, who had the duty to protect the child, if asked about this issue, knowing, by information given, the amount of blood that would be deprived the child and as it should be explained was nutrition and hormone filled and intended for the child's expanding lungs. Were they so informed? If not, why not. If not informed the intent was political not to inform of natural birth rights that this is NOT done in primal births.

The duty of parent and doctor  (or medical person) was not to endanger the child by any waiver of a policy to allow an unnecessary deprivation of nutrients of the placenta blood to be naturally, and normally transfused into the child's expanding lungs.  The placenta, in my clarifying what it is, a placenta-lung-blood-bag. And, as such it has as its design and purpose to transfuse the blood as to the child's own means of determination how much blood and when to stop, the transfusion done by the circulation system of the heart.

The timing of the clamping off a pulsating cord cannot be done wisely by any doctor or nurse clamping it off, by counting to 10, 20, 30, 40 seconds and clamping off the oxygenated blood flow. That is willful participation in an offense against the person. Often, that offense is done by concealing the amount of blood drained from the placenta to be used by the institution. Such concealing and no recording of the facts of the amount of blood deprived are in conflict of interest, to have made such a report. And, how they used that blood, or if they robbed for the sake of destroying that child's blood supply, and his/her hope of a quality life, not to be a challenged person, who may have been selected by sex, race, color, age, and mental or physical condition, or the social status of the child's family (rich vs. poor).

MILITANCY OF MEDICAL PERSONS TO POWER AND RULE OVER THE PERSONS THEY SERVE:

    There is a growing concern of power, control and militancy towards women and children. There has been since 1801, the concern of the treatment and control over the mother and child, during and after birth.

    The consumers of medical services are losing confidence in the medical societies. And with good cause. It has been breach of trust, violations of ethics, that are not just a slap on the wrist violations but breach of duty not to do unnecessary medical interventions, now seen as a breach of the criminal codes, as to offenses against the person. (2) List of Contents.

    The lack of trust is well deserved.  My discussions reveal the lack of information for informed consent  goes back to the past three and four generations of women who have used the institutions to birth their babies.  On this issue of child birth, the medical policies are seen as being bogus policies to allowed harvesting of the babies' placentas and robbing the baby of the nutrients of the placenta blood.  This may common factor of hasty clamping why children born into the same family had compromised abilities and are not associated with any bad genes, or the life style of the parents.  But rather, these struggling children were challenged, at birth. This is now obvious and perceived to have been by the individual choice and power of the doctor, who used policies, political, in nature to hide behind.

    It is perceived that in the doctors allowance of offering a birthing mother drugs from the Hospital's own lab, and given by their own employee, the nurse, that all risks known of the drugs and how they worked on the mother's system, were not shared.  That means no informed choice to any internal risk to the mother and to the child's internal system, too. The drug a direct threat to the brain to be made toxic by the drugs, and other cells, and nervous system. The fetus system circulates to the brain first by by-passing the lungs.

    The most commonly offered drugs to the birthing mother have been Demerol (morphine) which slows labor and the the use of Oxytocin (with preservatives in it like Chlorobutanol). The oxytocin is used to speed up the termination of the pregnancy.  It is an abortion drug.  Using these drugs, which are often combined,  the women are not aware of harsher contractions on the muscles.  

    Many of the medical groups policies (and collective they are accountable in their memberships, severally and collectively) made the policies which are now seen as political to profits, and in efficiency of time management. The are not seen to be in the best practice possible, least risk of harm, to the medical consumer as to side effects on the health of the mother and the child. Active management was the only offering to most trusting and vulnerable birthing women.

    The lack of confidence of trust of our medical professionals is now becoming evident and to all organizations and memberships, to quote:

"I fear it might just be too late. The public can only stand so many bad
apples in the barrel labelled "The Medical System" before they decide the
whole breed might also be likewise corrupt, through and through.
But I wish that I would be proved wrong."
Hilary Butler.

The concern was on the truth of vaccinations and damaged children:

SCIENTISTS RETRACT STUDY SUGGESTING VACCINE, AUTISM LINK
The majority of researchers who wrote a study that fueled fears a
childhood vaccination was possibly linked to autism have renounced that
interpretation.
http://cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/03/retraction040303

DAMAGE CHILD BY PROBABLE UNETHICAL MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT, LEADING TO COVER-UPS:

Another concern is on the Alan Yurko Project. In this situation, there was not competent investigation as to cause of death and review of the child's birth records.  The coroner has since been suspended.  In this case, the Coroner made uncommon medical mistakes. Not all coroners are medical doctors, and it is not known where this person got his medical training and ethics, if any.

Involved in this case is a sick child, born compromised at 5-weeks premature, and believed still anemic when two months later he was injected with six (6)different vaccinations, in one day. One of the vaccinations was factually proven to have come from a HOT lot that caused illnesses and deaths in other babies.  In this instance, some effort to redeem the confidence of the public, world wide the American Medical Association in saving face, have spoken up.  They are supporting, correctly, to review of the medical services leading up to the death of the Yurko baby, at two and one half month's of age.

Information and Links:
AAPS Votes to Submit "Amicus Curiae" in Yurko Case
Great news!   http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/aaps.html


The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), with a
membership of several thousand private doctors, has has stepped up to the
plate in the Yurko case.

At their annual meeting in Orlando, Florida (18-19 January 2004), AAPS voted
unanimously to submit an "amicus curiae" brief (volunteered opinion or
"advice" to the court). This will add immeasurable support for the evidence
accumulated since the conviction that demonstrates Alan's innocence.

________________________________________________________

THE THREAT TO WOMEN AND THE CHILD ARE POLITICAL, THE INTEREST OF PROFITS AND SELLING OF ORGANS AND DEPRIVATION OF STEM CELLS FROM THE LIVING BABY . . THE BREACH OF TRUSTS IS IN EVERY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL.  

    The community hospitals are involved by the policies being allowed on their premises, without objection,  ELECTED OFFICIAL FROM LOCAL, PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. They are involved by the appointed boards and ethics boards to assure the region of best practice possible, least risk of harm to any one individual, and to avoid common nuisance or bodily harm risk of a criminal nature. Criminal would be for any doctor or for a nurse to participate in any unnecessary and endangering practice imposed on the patient, regardless of age, sex, race, color, mental or physical disadvantage or social status of the mother of the child, and the child's family:

    The power to impose or instruct medical students to inappropriate care and services was based often in a few bad apples of the profession making bogus policies with connections to concealed conflict of interest (concealed motive of harvesting the babies) to become a standard of care.  A few persons, the policy-maker experts, were influencing the entire medical professionals to impose as a policy on others, without the risk know or unnecessary need of a procedure as a one-shoe-fits-all policy.  A medical policy taking away the civil and independent rights of the women and the natural parents rights to make an informed choice by facts of science what is best for their child. It is NEVER healthy for a child to be stopped of its circulation system to be harvested by the STATE'S political conflict of interest in exploiting the baby for its blood.

IS IT THE WOMEN'S OWN FAULT WHAT HAPPENS TO HER IN CHILDBIRTH AND TO HER BABY?

      Women, in particular, are naive and trusting in the medical persons.  They are threatened to believe and trust them because of the militancy of harming them and not having a criminal investigation, if harmed.  Women fear to ask the surgeon doing the c-section questions, particularly, on the timing of the clamping of the umbilical cord.  

    Many fear that the State are favoring the income-producing doctor (high incomes) and not to have criminal negligence in the care or an offense against another person.  And the possibility at attitude was there, for intentional medical error and by lacking due care and attention. That some may have an indifference to the care given, like it was done routinely, standard care, or a common occurrence,  not subject to informed risks.  The medical policies of such nature, and those outside of visual science (the placenta and its amount of blood in it) must be on trial. And those also who are training the doctors and the publications they are reading to give them power of unnecessary procedures, such is active management in child birth when primal or natural birth for the freedom of the woman to be in control is what we had many years ago, and the right to keep them, in current child birth, wherever the birth may take, taxi cab, home, or at the hospital, or special birth center.

WOMEN MORE THEN MEN ARE FORCED TO SEE DOCTORS, FOR A NATURAL CONDITION:

    It is perceived that pregnant women have been a meal ticket in the baby birth industry. Going to a doctor or not going to a doctor is a man's choice.  What the political system has done has made it a male dominance for a female to be "required" to see a doctor, not a recommendation or a suggestion.

    Since home births, prior to the 1920's, the American budget for just child birth, is now at $20 Billion dollars. This is including the rise of c-sections.  The c-sections are often described by prenatal nurses as though they are, today, as safe walk in the park. It is not always safe to walk in the park.  On the contrary, c-sections have serious consequences as they are a major operation. Some women have experienced death by them, some made very sick with the flesh eating disease.  

    At the prenatal classes the nurses are found promoting the doctors by not telling the women of the full risks to themselves and their child by the drugs offered during labor and other medical procedures used to induce labor.  The drugs that will be offered at the local  institution describe the drugs to offer pain free labor and fast labor.  The women have mentioned to me, that the serious consequences of the side effects were not factually shared to them by the prenatal nurse, nor did she give them the manufacturers recommendations of the local drugs used in the community hospital.  

    They did not tell the side effects to both the mother and the child, if they were to accept the offering of the drug (s).  This lack of information by the prenatal nurses is then a political interest, a conflict of interest, promoting higher medical costs and services, but not necessarily wiser or safer or producing contented women and healthy babies.  The benefit is truly, in most instances, to the benefit of the drug companies and in repeat business to the medical fields, then in services for the internally damaged.  

    In particular the prenatal nurses, have not told the women of the intent and training of their doctors to pick and choose whose baby they are going to be selective to do hasty clamping and deprive that particular child from 20 to 60 percent of placenta blood, requiring to send the child off to the intensive care and revival unit.  While they can revive any child (see Chow and the Ing-case laws) is evident that any revived child is going to be a compromised child.

    They will have a compromised immune system. They will be having a pre-disposition to be anemic and autistic, and to have many internal problems, associated with deprivation of enzymes, hormones, and vitamins and minerals that were in the original blood supply, and may never be put back in the same quantity if the gland reproducing organs, were damaged by any dehydration by lack of oxygenated blood continuously nurturing any one cell in the brain, or the nervous system, or delicate secreting glands in the internal organs, including the sex organs.

SAFETY FOR C-SECTION BABIES TO HAVE NO UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING:

      Many women, whose baby's are immediate cord clamped, to conceal up the damage to the child's lungs, are then told the child was premature and the lungs not fully formed causing the lung disorders.  According to research, damaged infant lungs are caused by the immediate cord clamping and that is the same for all babies, who are early clamped.  See T. Peltonen research on primal care of the baby's umbilical cord for c-sections.  

    Reference:  Peltonen T. Placental Transfusion, Advantage - Disadvantage. Eur J Pediatr. 1981;137:141-146

Note:  C-section babies can have the no clamping or cutting of their cord, too, because the placenta, cord and baby can be medically removed together, as a sealed unit.  They are a reciprocal biological unit, a sealed unit so to speak.  Keep the unit sealed and there will be no blood diseases .

MEDICAL RECORDS:

    In Canada as to some case-laws, one such in British Columbia, regarding a Dawson Creek man's rights to his medical files, and others, he was allowed his records under access to information.  This medical information is a natural right of the person to access to information on their own files.  Doctors had regarded such information to be "their" files and the patient no right of access.

    In Canada, all persons are entitled to get all copies of their medical records, but many have to fight the court system for that natural right.  But as to the right of the individual their hospital's' records and for their newborn child's file, must be shown to the family, with photocopy of all information.  

    The parents should not leave any birth center without a complete copy of all files of the birth, all drugs used and the condition of the umbilical cord when clamped, and when clamped. They should make this clear before they birth at that hospital, as to any complications to full, complete and accurate birth record copies and all Apgar Test Score, and the timing of the clamping of the cord, if the parents have given informed condition to risk "cord infections" if they clamp and cut the cord in the hospital, or informed risk of any needle inserted in the child's organ, vein of the placenta, or skin, for any test.  Most tests can be done by pH and do not need blood tests, generally.  

    Right of choice on the timing of the clamping of the infant's umbilical cord to be Primal Birth Rights:

    All parents have a right to primal care of the cord, no clamping at all. They do not have to be a political exploitative prospect to present their child's blood to the State for harvesting their baby's blood for stem cell research.

    The stem cells are important for the child's quality of life. The State has just been thinking Political and deprived a living child of stem cell rights while they pretended to be ethical in determining if it was to take the cells from a non-person, an embryo.  The STATE knew all along the doctors were harvesting a newborn baby, depriving it of democratic protection, and weakening the child.

    That was exploiting the vast majority of babies born in the United States and in Canada, and in Britain and elsewhere.  Each case needs an Writ filed in a Supreme Court for a perceived breach of trust. This is to seek damages to the child and a breach of trust to the parents and to their child's rights not being respected for equal security of person and equal protection by the civil and criminal codes.

    The clamping of the cord, if the parent's were not told it was not a necessary procedure, only for cosmetic reasons it was imposed, again, would be a violation to the child the parent's not giving informed consent. The charges ought to be criminal for it was not authorized or needed care, but a criminal violation of a crime as an offense to the person, endangering. And endangering to the mother and the child, for obvious reasons a full placenta being born, can be bigger then the child's head, and it may rupture.  Drugs given to the mother, without her awareness of side effects, may trap the placenta in the womb. Drugs given may direct early clamping a threat then to the mother and the child, like oxytocin.

    The doctors, nurses or hospital not exempt from equal protection by the Nation's laws. Their own self-governing policies could NOT waive the right of the duty of care of the Nation's laws to any group as the doctors were doing and the governments in harvesting babies after birth.  

    If that umbilical cord and placenta care of how much blood they drained and deprived the child, is missing, then the birth witness of the mother should make a report and place it in the child's own medical chart, and have it stamped by an authority of the Hospital's Records Office. For any violation of the interference with the child's lifeline, for a c-section baby, full term or premature, and for the same for a vaginal birthed baby, it is recommended a WRIT in the child's name be filed immediately for latent damages.  

    The Right of Primal Birth:  The cord should not be cosmetically removed without the parent's informed consent of the danger of infected cords by a cut cord. Primal birth rights mean not clamping or cutting the cord in order to protect the child.

    See the Declaration of Dr. Sarah Buckley for more details on primal birth. This many people do not remember is what the pioneer's did before drugs were used to combat cord blood poisoning. Cut cords take from 5 to 15 days to heal up.  Unclamped and uncut cords take merely 1 to 3 days.  The facts are over 500,000 babies die annually from a cut cord. Why risk this cosmetic procedure?   The deaths include some in Western Societies.  The infection in the cord are similar to the infections risk to any child needlessly circumcised.  The duty is to the professional to well advise the parents of unnecessary trends imposed on their baby and their right to use the courts, long before the due date of their baby's birth if they expect hostility, pressure or dominance of militancy in their community hospital by any one doctor, or committee or Administration policy.

     Dr. Sarah Buckley delivered her babies by the warm water birth method and followed with Lotus Birth (Primal) care of the umbilical cord. Link to the Declaration of Dr. Sarah Buckley : http://www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-314.htm

In the United States, AIMS, has listed Rights of Patients for their medical records.

http://www.aimsusa.org/YourRightToRecords.htm

    Why do women have democratic rights to be in control of the delivery of their babies?  It is because they are not sick when they are pregnant. A little out shape maybe, but not sick.  It is not a medical condition. Women do not have to see the doctor if they do not want to any more then a man does not have to see a doctor, if they do not want to.  It is suggested, perhaps, they do, but he cannot take over control of her decisions, and the medical persons is obligated to inform the facts of medical science, as seen in observable facts of biology and in birth of people and animals, and not by opinion of a policy what will be done to her person, or her baby's care and treatment.

     Women have rights to a primal birth. It is best, though, until women see natural birth films and warm water births and no clamping of the cord, they can only be protected in institutional births if they have a Signed Birth Contract.  

    Democratic Rights of choice over-rule Administration and Medical policies.  What that means is that no medical institution can impose a policy and expect the women to give comply to their will. She has a legal right to have a primal birth, even in hospitals. If she perceives any militancy of demand she have her baby's organ removed and drained by the hospital's staff or their motives for that reason, she is encouraged to a protective order with the local Court, of no harm done to her person or her baby.  

    The women in the community must fight Administration dictations on removing the placenta, when political reasons involved the hospitals were selling the placentas and the trapped blood in it, and were doing this in breach of trust of sharing private DNA and privacy to others of that family's history in genetic information.

    The democratic way is for the Woman's Choice for a no hand's on birth, so that even in the hospital, the mother is in total control. However, the women must be warned doctors and nurses have been known to cause them accidents and treat them physically rough, if they do allow them into the birth room. The woman has the legal right to have in the birth room, her own chosen birth witness, whom she can pay by contract, what can be done for her, or what cannot be done, and/or if when to call for another's help.

MILITANCY DOMINANCE AND ROUGHNESS IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL GROUP, MEN AND WOMEN, WHO ARE AGGRESSIVE IN DELIVERY OF BABIES -- BIRTH CONTRACT:

     If a Birth Contract is not easily obtained in good faith for a natural birth, contrary to Active Management, the women, I suggest should consider birthing, like Laura Shanley did, unassisted in their own home.  Why?  Well, it is suspected, but not yet, known for sure,  if a woman was intentionally (but of course said accidental) caused internal injury in Langley, BC, Canada. Personal, information  I have received shared that she had found out about Primal birth, no clamping of her cord, that her own mother was aware of her grandmother's birth and care of her baby's umbilical cords and placenta. She did request that her baby not be harvested of its placenta blood and left alone on the pulsating cord.  

    The threat to the loss of income by not having the baby's full volume of placenta blood that led to the woman's injuries. Revenge. It may be the value of that particular family's blood type that was highly profitable for harvesting, was European. And, if they are selling placenta blood to the Russian victims of radioactive exposure, over 18 years ago, they may have lost a value of $30,000 to the collector of valuable blood, particularly, from a large baby.  In Russian, their baby's are sick, and they likely need much blood.   In this case, her baby was not violated and is fine by not being harvested by immediate umbilical cord clamping. However, the child's mother was seriously injured in the birth.  The cause of the injury was alleged to the medical person(s) pushing the baby back up into her womb. Infection began, internally.

    The medical excuse for doing this was they had to push the baby back into her womb because the baby was being born face up.  I have not heard that to be a clinical standard of care to push baby's back up inside the womb.  The torn womb and subsequent infections almost cost the women or her life. For months she was paralyzed. She had to have a colotomy.  Some believe, this may have been a deliberate act of militancy, in birth care, happening about the fall of 2003. This mother is not out of danger, this date, March 4, 2004.  

    If this was revenge for not providing this hospital with a quota of the baby's blood, which they may have taken from the placenta, if permission was given to grind it up after the baby had emptied the placenta-lung-blood-bag into his own expanding lungs, a compromise may have settled the wants of any medical staff involved in selling placentas and the contents of them for separate billings.  Or to the Administration that may get extra income for the handling of organs and the organ's blood draining.  

    Who knows or what the out-come of the injured women will bring?  Will she seek criminal and civil damages. She certainly has a right to investigate the draining of those who pushed a baby back in the handling of a merely face up birth position.  They are supposed to be competently trained, are they not? Does this sound competent, when baby's are born "bum" first and are never pushed back up into the womb. The are born feet first and are never pushed back up into the womb.  

BOGUS REASONS GIVEN TO THE FEAR OF THE MOTHER BLEEDING USED TO DO EARLY UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING:

    The medical militancy is evident of both male and female doctors and midwives.  And, in two other situations the mothers, too, had requested full delayed umbilical cord clamping. But they had not written birth contract signed. They were going on good will no harm done to their babies.  This is believed, again, a possible militant stand of the medical persons.  

    A female doctor said, and before the grandmother of the child, " She feared the patient, her daughter would bleed .  This mother was a nurse.  Her daughter was in good shape and not anemic.  Her placenta was not yet birthed and the baby had not yet finished on the cord, it yet pulsating.  The child's umbilical cord was clamped.  

    There was no evidence of the mother bleeding.  If Pitocin was used and was a threat to the child, it was not given with informed consent to threaten the child of lurking problems later on.  They do not know with the removal of the baby from the birth room what all was done for revival, if oxygen or blood expanders to keep the baby's blood vessels from collapsing was given the child. This happened in Florida, in May 2003.

     One incident, of the same excuse, "fear of bleeding to the mother"  happened in Ontario Canada. Involved were two Registered-nurse-midwives, and a student.  This incident happened in June 2003.   In the situations, it was not known what happened to the placenta, and if they were drained

     Those are the risks women take if they insist on having professional person deliver their babies. The trust is not there when the doctors want and demand "they" make the decisions but they are making a decision of unnecessary interventions and the reasons given are bogus as to the absence of the facts of need to interrupt the child's lifeline.  They have conflict of interest in the collection of the placenta blood that can be sold on the open market. And the placenta can be sold on the open market, as well. It has valuable hormones and enzymes which are extracted by grinding up the placenta and extracting them by centrifugal machinery with highly sophisticated speeds.

     Laura Shanley , who herself had unassisted professional births, and really unassisted births, believes it is a women's own fault if she is drugged, cut, and the baby immediately cord clamped, in this day and age. NOT necessarily so.  That is like saying if a woman in a dress bent over and a man was behind her, he could rape her for causing him to get excited.  

    The duty of the medical person is restraint and not to be involved in political conflict of interest where a carrot is dangled before their arm's reach, for profits billed for for collection of an organ (the placenta) and the blood suspensions in the cells of that organ.  To be paid $30,000 for a few ounces of blood (Australia used to pay that before they began harvesting "their own babies", per birth, can be a handsome price for the collector of that medically-posted type of blood. And and/or paid to any institution allowing bogus policies to be allowed on their premises and their real political reasons that no informed choices are given the women for Primal Birth Rights to their own care and those of the child's.  

    In one sense, Laura Shanley is right for the duty of the women, today, by the availability of the internet, to make inquiries of anything their medical persons says. And to find out the birth process long before the due date.  The means are there for women to know about how to have a safe emergency birth, in her own home.  Laura is just confirming the trust of the medical persons are not there, any longer.  And I have to agree, they have violated and breached that trust and by organization. Such organization may,yet, be considered criminal by conspiracy, with the harm done to so many women and their babies.

    For some women to be in control is more difficult.  But to be in control is so not even the doctor or the nurse can power-play on her and forces her on her back in a supine position, and other so-called medical policies they can touch your body and your child as they please. Think about, a policy of self-governing professionals that they can do as they please with your person???  We have been insane to go along with that and not have it in criminal court of assault and battery, long ago.

    In most medical policies on child birth, active management for example, it is wrongful power and harmful to the mother and her child and harmful policies directing vaccination on people.  The means of primal birth are simple providing security to your child, which is not in the hospitals.

PRIMAL EMERGENCY CHILDBIRTH:

    Primal child birth is not complicated like Active Management.  What is essential is a very warm room, and warm towels...are what are needed, and hot water bottles, to keep the towels warm and the mother, after birth. Electric blankets would be ideal. There is no need to clamp or cut the cord and if you do not do this the baby will not get cord infections and likely die.     So don't clamp the cord, wherever the baby is born or however.    But if the risk of a cord infection is preferred to be chanced, simply, for the need of cosmetic removal, then do use boiled scissors and a tad of iodine on the string and scissors. These methods have been in the past used.  

INTERNET HAS BETTER INFORMATION THEN THE BIASED AND BOGUS POLICIES THAT THE DOCTOR WILL GIVE YOU:

    Today, women have means to have education and films long before they plan a family and to know the best practice possible, and to have a signed birth contract.  But all women are not equal. The duty is not to exploit the unsophisticated women who has yet blind trust in the medical person to do her or her baby harm.  

    Harm, is done, even if the women and the child did not die. The risk to them, in active management is in the use of drugs and the mother was not informed of the risks associated with the drugs crossing the placenta.  The duty was to the drug company, the lab in the hospital, and to the doctor or nurse who should have known the risks, if they studied drugs being offered in pregnancy, or ought to have known.  The women should have been given such active management policy of the drugs to be suggested or used on her, for informed consent and the right to have refused the treatment proposed or suggested.

EMPOWERING WOMEN MAY COME FROM THE RIGHT TO BE EMPOWERED BY THE COURTS - IMAGINE HAVING TO GO TO COURT TO SAY NO WHAT CANNOT BE DONE TO OUR BODIES IN CHILD BIRTH, A NATURAL EVENT:  WE'VE BEEN CONNED BY THE MEDIAL SOCIETIES, ONE AND ALL.  WHAT POWER THEY HAD OVER THE COURTS, THE JUDGES, THE POLITICIANS.    LETS SAY THEY POLICIES, WHEN REVIEWED BY VISUAL SCIENCE ARE SHOWN TO BE UNNCESSARY AND BOGUS - THEN THAT IS A CONSPIRACY INVOLVING ALL  INVOLVED IN ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AS POLICY, ORDERING ON THE HOSPITAL PREMISES THAT WOMEN HAVE TO SUBMIT TO - AND NO CHOICE? AND TO SUBMIT THEIR BABIES TO - AND NO CHOICE?

Women have to be empowered to be strong to take control over their bodies and to trust their own body and not another's control over them. But sadly, in some cases, both the spouse and the women are so high on creating a baby, they do not want their bubble of joy burst by reality of needing a Birth Contract. This must direct what is not to be done to the woman's body and/or to their baby by informed consent of all risks. Their baby's cord need not be clamped at all. The evidence of violence to the child is by visual facts of the amount of blood, visual, after draining, the placenta. And it is this fact that the hospitals have concealed: by the lab, the doctor, the nurse and the Administration board, and in each community of the hospitals.  They all were allowing early clamping.

REQUIREMENTS TO GIVE BLOOD BY ANY PERSON :

    Many hospitals and staff were involved in sending the more precious blood elsewhere for another's use. They exploited the baby, not age 17, can't give consent, not known in good health when blood deprived, and not over 110 pounds. Those are the requirements for any healthy person to voluntarily donate blood.  Would a court really allow a parent to give consent to store up to 50 percent of the child's blood for a rainy day? Many have done so being told the "doctor" has to clamp the cord for a medical reason. That is the bogus and endangering lie.  NO cord needs to be clamped unless the cord tore or for placenta previa.

    Many will agree with Laura Shanley, it's the women own fault if she births in a hospital or with a medical person licensed by the State.  

    The women have not had a chance for truthful information. This is because those who govern over bogus medical policies, seemed to have had influence of false information in the biology textbooks and medical manuals (1). These are deceptive and not factual for presenting along side active management the right of the woman to know no harm in primal births.  

    Some of the false and misleading information has been fed to the biology science teachers or they select the publisher and author's who fit their own bias and motives in harmony with the drug companies and medical science wanting blood from babies. A bias seems evident, not based in facts of visual science, and the biology textbooks, too, were directing as a policy to do immediately cord clamping on the human baby. These same biology professionals would not dare say to do that to an other animal birthing. This is because the SPCA would get after them for cruelty to animals.

    So who is protecting the human babies?  See the Petition Protect Babies and Mothers, Too.  There is not protection to the child when so many political levels of government make money on the human baby's deprived blood. This is really a breach of trust and a human rights issue to all children so violated at birth.  

    For those women not yet confident in themselves, knowing 93 to 95 percents births are without incident (unless they are actively managed) I suggest they have a signed Birth Contract. This is to birth in a hospital in a rented room. The Birth Contract is actually a waiver to the hospital for an unassisted birth.  

    The woman, by a Birth Contract, for Primal Birth is in control over what is or not done to her body or to her baby. For the women to present her body to the doctor and say do as you please...well that do as you please ends, on her body.  Doing as one pleases to a living baby, may have consequences to both the mother and the doctor if the mother knowingly allowed for the doctor to hurt her baby.  The duty is to protect the child, for only care that is in his/her best interest.  This is when the mother does not need protection.  Rarely would early umbilical cord clamping be for the benefit of the mother, and is endangering to the child.   

    So the "fear" of anything without the facts is being used to used in a bonus statement, excusing, wrongfully that the mother's life was in danger when no danger was obvious.  The bogus reasons are to then deprive/or rob the baby of the placenta blood. But wasn't the duty to give back the baby's own blood if the mother was known to be out of danger or no danger, as to fear of bleeding?  Where did the blood go, if not back to the baby, had the baby or the mother been in real danger?  The deprived baby is at risk of getting a top-up of someone's else's blood. Or living anemic with a fast beating heart, and continuing with a hole in the heart, as the flaps or by-pass windows do not seal, as they would if the baby got full volume and pressure of blood, as was intended, had the cord not been clamped. And artificial blood has none of the original nutrients in it that was specifically created for this baby's needs.

     So women, in Laura Shanley's statement, if hasty clamping or receiving the drugs is there own fault, there is a duty to the protection of  the child, so violated of lack of security of person. Also, in all cases, this will be found universal, there has been in the delivery rooms a consistent failure to document for the child's care and treatment after birth, regarding the clamping of the cord.  This is a blatant denial of the child's future rights to have been  protected that  "all" that was done to his/her umbilical cord, and the condition of the cord when clamped were written down in the child's own medical charts.  The absence of the factual reports are to the hospitals, nurses and doctors peril. But a court must begin to order protection of the child to have such documents provided, for all babies. it shows a record of whose baby is getting early clamped and what the long-term result was, if experiments have been done on babies, and that is suggested in some records kept, called the Apgar Scores. These provide government officials the means to know that early clamped babies do not fare as well in school as full delayed.  Other information on the registration of birth also allows them to know, approximately, the color of the child, the sex of the child, race, and faith of the child, if any.  And the condition of the child as to defects, and suspected mental or physical disadvantages, which may have also determined early clamping.  Early clamping risked the child to an early death, if not revived, promptly.  Information if the child was a c-section are also on the information, and many c-section babies have problems.

    Questions the parents should be asking:  How much did the placenta weigh? Where is the picture of it?  How long was the cord?  Did it have two arteries and one vein?  Did the cord have knots?  How blood was in the placenta?  Who drained blood? Where did the blood go?  Where did the placenta go?  Who gave consent for blood and the placenta to go to others if not burned?  Who were the others?  How was the placenta and the blood to be used?  Was their compensation to the hospital, the doctor, or the lab?  Who gave the consent for it to go to another persons needs?  What was the chance the DNA and Genetic codes could be sought by someone, somewhere?  What information went with the placenta?  

DUTY TO THE CHILD BY ALL ADULTS:

     I would think the child would have legal right of a Court's protection that no parent, even the parent, can direct a doctor to stop the pulsating cord. This is because the umbilical cord and the placenta blood are the property rights of the child's, and not the parents.  So they cannot direct the doctor to violate the security rules of no offense to a person, or for their child to have been risked to risk bodily harm that endangers the child. This even the child was revived after early umbilical cord clamping.  A victim of a crime, even though they live, have still suffered from the assault, battery, or even attempted murder.  And no policy can excuse unnecessary bogus medical services. Only, if the cord was torn-of or for placenta previa, might a cord be clamped as a perceived benefit to the child's own best interest.

     No ethical doctor would agree to a Birth Contract that directs a harm to the child by blood deprivation and risk of cord infections, as has been a policy of the past, unchallenged by some three and four generations of uneducated women. Early clamping was not done by the pioneers for their babies. No person should do that today and make the child vulnerable to anemia. Revival of the child does not change the fact an unnecessary procedure was wrongfully and without cause imposed on the child.

     In fact, the purpose of the criminal law as to an offense against a person, by endangering, women who were birthing unassisted were under threat of a five-year prison sentence if the intent was to harm the child.  It should be no different in a professional care of the child's birth -- no harm done - and policies of directing immediate cord clamping and early clamping are perceived to have intent, premeditated endangering to the children. This is wherever it is done, and by whomever, the c-section surgeon, the ambulance medic, the registered-nurse-midwife, the direct entry midwife, the doula, the nurse aiding in the delivery room.  All have a duty to best practice possible, least risk of harm.

    .   See Birth Contract .http://www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-537.htm

    UNASSISTED BIRTHS :   http://www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-530.htm

    Laura Shanley Bornfree! - The Unassisted Childbirth Page  " http://unassistedchildbirth.com

See The American AIMS (see their web site for the complete article)

Full Report Link: http://www.aimsusa.org/ppbr.htm

THE PREGNANT PATIENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS

Many pregnant women are not fully aware of their right of informed consent or of the obstetricians' legal obligation to obtain their patient's informed consent prior to treatment. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) first publicly acknowledged the physician's legal obligation to obtain his or her pregnant patient's informed consent in its 1974 publication, Standards for Obstetric-Gynecologic Services, (pg 66-67) which reads:

"It is important to note the distinction between 'consent' and 'informed consent'. Many physicians, because they do not realize there is a difference, believe they are free from liability if the patient consents to treatment. This is not true. The physician may still be liable if the patient's consent was not informed. In addition, the usual consent obtained by a hospital does not in any way release the physician from his legal duty of obtaining an informed consent from his patient.

"Most courts consider that the patient is 'informed' if the following information is given:

• The processes contemplated by the physician as treatment, including whether the treatment is new or unusual.
• The risks and hazards of the treatment,
• The chances for recovery after treatment.
• The necessity of the treatment.
• The feasibility of alternative methods of treatment.

"One point on which courts do agree is that explanations must be given in such a way that the patient understands them. A physician cannot claim as a defense that he explained the procedure to the patient when he knew the patient did not understand. The physician has a duty to act with due care under the circumstances; this means he must be sure the patient understands what she is told.*

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

*  Comments of Donna Young:  This statement "understands what she is told" should be more clarified. It is likely covered in the full article.  I would think the duty of the doctor is to be non-political.  That means he/she is not thinking of higher increased fees for the services rendered but in that best care of the patient is least risk of harm and alternative choices available to them.

    Alternative care to Active Management is the primal birth (Lotus Birth). What Dr. Mavis Gunther had to say about natural birth and active management was that the natural birth (primal birth) the babies thrive.

    Doctors, I belive, in providing a baby delivery service ought to be non-political in collection of the placenta and the placenta blood for selling to the highest bidder on the stem cell research grants, and need of organs and blood for the nutrients extracted from them. This is perceived as a conflict of interest and a breach of trust, and it may involved the ethics committee in the local hospital (s).

    Deception on Care Intended to be Provided:  

        Many medical persons have told exactly what they "intend" to do to a women while pregnant and how he / she "intends" to use a policy of a standard of care on her body and her baby. For example a trend of immediate cord clamping, put into quoting a Professional Policy, for example ACOG's Policy #216 November 1995 (now cancelled) was policy used to clamp all baby's umbilical cords, immediately. The bogus reason was to obtain a pH test. The facts of science and medicine known, were that cutting the cord was  NOT necessary to do a pH test.  This policy was bogus.  In following the policy doctors were preventing blood transfusion into the baby's lungs. pH tests and PKU tests need not samples from an early clamped cord, they can be done by urine tests, so not even a fine needle need NOT be inserted in a pulsating and functioning umbilical cord.

        Many medical persons, male and female, intend to not tell the pregnant women of her legal right of primal birth and not clamping on the cord, unless the cord tore broke or for an accident of a knife in the cord and the placenta. Both of these are rarely happening accidents, and I would think when they did happen, an explanation and justification would be required.  The threat to the child is then to be anemic, requiring, possibly, blood from another source, and oxygen. (Chow and Ing-case-law).

        Any early clamped child is at risk of being caused sickness by iron overload, jaundice, pH disorders, and deficiencies of nutrients that were normally found in the original whole of the blood.  These were the nutrients to be provided to the expanding lungs, as the placenta-lung-blood-bag, as I call it for clarification, was being transfused into the baby's expanding lungs. All this transfusion was being controlled by the baby's own needs, by his/her own heart.  Interventions of that primal transfusion was not logically done and in error of judgement and to the well-being of the blood owner, the infant. No other person had a legal right to have deprived the child of her/his property rights, blood, ever.  

        Babies being the sacrificial lambs was outlined centuries ago.  We should not harvesting babies blood for any scientific cause.  Where are we today in our values and ethics and by the professionals in their bogus medical policies, that many have remained silent and ought to have known better and said so on every major newspaper and radio and tv, available.  

    Why has this not happened? And, why the silence of every elected official at all levels of the government and starting in each community.  

    Why did the local hospitals allow this. If they treat babies with disrespect what is the trend to any of us for any protection as we enter their den of iniquity? If I may be so bold to ask.  But I know.  I have witnessed the putting persons done, and against their will.  The persons, being put down, were alleged to having some untreatable fatal disease. The persons are soon dead by induced insulin shock. They come in and out of the induced coma.  This is suggesting to the visitors a fatal disease is doing that.  

    The alleged dying are then given increased injections of morphines. And, while this is going on, they are being denied food and water (alleged refused), and any supplements offered by friends.  In this way, it is practical-way and fast way of killing as the dehydrated body accepts the drugs into the cells more readily.

     In such killings the person is dead within 2 or 3 weeks of an alleged fatal disorder.  The police (RCMP) in this situation, have alleged the death by drugging in a controlled institution (small town hospitals) is legal in British Columbia, and the rest of Canada. This they alleged was even if it was against the person's will, who was seen and heard fighting against his will from being held down and injected and given pills the patient was refusing.  

    In this situation, the Administration of the small town hospital's policies were if the siblings were helping to do this to their brother and with the nurses help in the fatal injections, it is legal. It is policy, but not publicly announced for all to have fair means of staying out of institutions run by self-governing medical persons and their policies approved by their "appointed" medical boards.

    In such cases the right of equal protection, by the Nation's laws was denied. Those there to rescue this person to take him out of the hospital, all written application for the patient to sign when out of the coma, were not given. The power of refusal was given to the power full power of cooperation of the family, who may have had an interest of a political nature (property assets). The concern of the community of what was being done to a friend was blocked by due process of the law, the courts not immediately available, blocked by a policy, no immediate appeal of a change care and treatment policy changed, not by the person, but by others, he had not given consent to, took force, and the Court hearing would be block by 3-months wait, and a fee of $20,000 to $40,000 or more, to save a friend.  No next of Friend to hear in any Judge's Chambers to rescue a friend, as it was, in this instance in British Columbia, Canada.

    The power was given for the family and the doctors blocking the coroner's report.  None in the community would be allowed to know true cause of death, by disease or by enhanced death by drugs, against the person's known will.

    So is this legal?  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms don't allow for siblings and the doctors to gang up on a brother and put them down, against their will.  It was just a case the RCMP wouldn't investigate and the Crown wouldn't prosecute.

    One cannot trust one's siblings nor the medical services.   Not only do we need a Birth Contract. But we, need a Death Contract .  Imagine, deaths allowed in a controlled institution, in a hospital.  Well, Hitler did it, didn't he?  We have a man, in Canada, a Mr. Latimer, who did no less of that kind of a killing.  In a controlled institution, his own family farm, he loving-gassed Tracy, his daughter, who had severe CP. She was just entering womanhood at the age of 12. Would he have lovingly have done that to his child, if this was a boy?  

    Each of these situations are happening in the communities we are living in. We seem to be in total shock and cannot be called into action, individually, or as a group. What is happening to us? If you have an answer, please, contact me. I say we go public and let them know how we feel about doctors using bogus policies to avoid criminal charges of unnecessary touching of a woman's body, in child birth, by what they call Active Management, nor clamping off the infant's lifeline, and taking the placenta and the baby's blood for their own political causes and for a fee for services, not consented to by the parents of the child.  Many left with great burdens in financial care and treatment to challenged children, who were impaired and comprised by active management policies, when primal is the best care of all, no harm done by primal birth process. When in doubt, it has been said, do nothing at all. If it ain't' broke, don't fix it.  That is natural birth.  The faster we get to primal, in our own homes, or if you must risk in, in the hospital, the faster we will have lower medical costs in child birth, and in education costs now needed for challenged victims who deserved to have their birth stories told in a court of law - each and every one of them, and the treatment and breach of trust to the mothers, each and every one of them.

Full Report Link: http://www.aimsusa.org/ppbr.htm

_______________________________________________

Friday, March 05, 2004

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

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

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

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