Dr. Shawna Lyn Koehle, Kelowna, BC vs. S. Smith and C. Jeffrey: "Use of midwife
undermines relationship between doctor and patient."
Dr.Shawna Lyn Koehle, Kelowna, BC vs. Shandra Smith and Carrie Jeffrey: "Use of a midwife undermines relationship between doctor and patient."
This Url, for your convenience of reference is:
www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-956.htm
Revised: November 4, 2004
Warning: Truth revealed can be shocking and hard to stomach. For those doing a study on child birth, including primal birth traditions, pioneer birth methods, Lotus Birth, or active management, or expectant management, this url is recommended only for Mature Teenagers and Adults only. The following article includes opinions on medicated labor, drugs in labor, positions of child birth, and the timing of the clamping of the umbilical cord, and links are provided for other opinions of a professional nature. For those reviewing Human Rights, Charter Rights, Charter Challenges, Constitution Rights, Common Law or criminal law, personal injury, there is food for thought, provided.
Verbatim Transcript
CBC-FM 91.5
Regional News (North)
October 15, 2004
7:30 am
Anchor: Drew Karankis
Reporter: Gary Simmons
“Shandra Smith” Rejected Patient
“Kerry Jeffrey” Rejected Patient with Sick Baby
KARANKIS: The College of Physicians and Surgeons is investigating a Kelowna doctor
for denying a patient services
because she allegedly - er, because she used a midwife. Shandra Smith filed the complaint after
receiving a letter
from her doctor saying that she was no longer welcome as a patient. As Gary Simmons reports,
Smith feels like she
is being punished for using an alternative childbirth method.
SIMMONS: Shandra Smith gave birth to her first child just two weeks ago. She wanted a natural birth: no drugs, no medical intervention, and no doctor; only a midwife in the hospital room.
SMITH: It is nothing personal against the doctors; it is just that women want a different experience, and we want to use this expertise.
SIMMONS: That choice came with consequences: Smith got a letter from her doctor. Dr. Shawna L. Koehle says Smith had shown a lack of trust, so she is no longer welcome as a patient.
SMITH: I knew she would be upset, but I didn’t think that she would actually drop me from her clinic, because I didn’t think that would be ethical or allowed, even.
SIMMONS: Smith has filed a formal complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and she is not eh only woman upset about the policy. Kerry Jeffrey was also a patient of Dr. Koehle’s, until she too had a child with a midwife. Now her newborn son is sick, and her doctor refuses to see him.
JEFFREY: It is certainly not Logan’s fault that I decided to use a midwife, and we don’t have a family doctor.
SIMMONS: Koehle would not speak to CBC about this issue, but in a letter to Shandra Smith, Koehle says choosing to deliver with a midwife effectively undermines the doctor/patient relationship.
Gary Simmons, CBC News, Kelowna.
_________________________________________________
Note: Spelling of Carrie Jeffrey is not confirmed.
PETITION:
Protect Babies and Mothers, Too .
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814
Contact person for this site, home page and table of contents:
www.lotusbirth.com
Some of the References of past research, with comments, since 1998, link:
www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm
Please create your own Petition because women, pregnant women, child-bearing women, are being discriminated
against by protocols and policies of Active Management. Doctors are making themselves and their
policies above the
law, not accountable to the law and true informed choices and right to decline "suggestions"
of care and treatment,
even to pregnant ladies and their baby or babies.
Comments on Active management is that this is the most commonly trained practice of most persons who
will deal
with the third stage of labor, or otherwise, the delivery of the child. Canadian medical societies have
often used
clinical studies provided by the Cochrane Library Collaboration Group.
Most used is the report by S. McDonald, et al, active vs expectant management. However, expectant management is no longer the usual hands off birth, wait and see, it is the use of drugs, and all the clinical studies carried out early umbilical cord clamping, about 30-second clamping. Three out of five studies selected, in this study, did not give the outcome of active /expectant managed births of the child's survival. The Apgar scores were not shared in all births. Yet, they directed all institutions to have active management as first choice, that implied in training and practice of what they allowed on their premises. And I dare say, "only" to be allowed on their premises. NO warm water births, no unassisted births, no undrugged births, no hook-up to machines for fear of dehydration births, no unmonitored births, or no call you if I need you natural birth, for the birthing-mother-in-charge births.
Women are imposed on, without true informed consent, to these unnatural impositions, common to
active managed
births:
1. Threat of their babies picked up if they do not submit, passively to demands of the medical
person to do things to
her body and her baby, without the right for the patient to receive the information, and all risks known,
or ought to
be known, and the right to decline "active management" in hospitals and/or home or emergency
births, the active
management impositions to be thought a right to impose include:
Delaying birth labor by use of a narcotic:
* drugs injected, or IV'd, or taken by mouth, that included narcotics of morphine, most commonly used is Demerol. This delays labor, more often then not for the convenience of medical staff.
Advancing labor by the use of a oxytocic drug, Oxytocin, Pitocin, Syntocinon, Toesen:
* drugs to advance labor after labor has been delayed, or to speed up labor often have a combination of morphine and oxytocic drugs, injected, IV'd, and in some types taken by mouth. These drugs are abortion drugs to terminate the pregnancy.
* They are to cause lack of oxygen to the blood vessels, causing them to restrict.
* This causes contractions of the muscles, the pregnancy is terminated by harsh, close together contractions. The mother often screams in uncontrollable pain for out of control labor pains. The man-made oxytocin would have linked to natural oxytocin, together, they likely cause too close together contractions, and too long for the mother to get oxygen. Even if nurses are competently trained to give this drug, oxytocin, or the midwife, they cannot predetermine consequences of allergic reactions.
* Consequently, some of the babies made toxic by this drug, as all drugs cross the placenta and almost instantly, are still born, or must be revived. Any revived child is going to be compromised or impaired to blood deprived or toxic that may dissolve the delicate membranes of the brain or cause damage to the central nervous system.
* One in sixteen babies have been documented in Canadian studies to be revived babies.
* The cost of health care to children under one year of age is now documented to be second highest in Canada, next to the Senior Citizen's, cost, in first place.
* The infants, are caused to be anemic with low blood pressure and blood volume. This is creating infant heart conditions, patent by-pass windows, the foreman ovale and the arteriosus ductus. They are patent because of low blood volume and pressure caused by immediate cord clamped. The doctors will try to excuse this to bad genes. Very few patent by-pass windows are caused by bad genes, but more likely bad medical practices.
* There are many further "internal" complications of anemic conditions, which involve low blood volume and pressure, loss of enzymes, hormones, white cells, red cells, platelets, minerals, salts, water and fluids for correct metabolic action of all cells.
Cerebral Palsy CP and Other Brain Injuries:
The brain and the central nervous system are the least of the cells that can tolerate oxygen and fluid debt. There are no valves to keep the blood into the brain after sudden cutting off the umbilical cord's provision of oxygenated blood. There are no valves in the lungs or the abdomen and in the smaller veins, capillary vessels.
* Medical persons, involved in child birth, were supposed to be competent, ethical and moral in their training in how to provide the least risk of endangering to the mother and the child. This is not true as to my research, my personal experience of myself and other family members and friends.
* Other somatic cells, after early cord clamping depriving the child of volume, pressure and nutrients,
must then
release their buffers of oxygen and fluids. The oxygen and fluid must, logically, rush to the need of
the lungs, now
not receiving the oxygenated blood because of the early umbilical cord clamping. Children who get their
placenta
blood do not have lung problems, and that was proven by T. Peltonen, whose studies of 1981, are
quoted by the World
Health Organization, on their review of cord clamping, 1998.
H
ARSH POSITION OF BIRTH TO CAUSE DISTRESS TO THE MOTHER AND CHILD
.
Birth positions, such as semi-sitting or flat on the back (except for a c-section birth) are merely convenient to the medical persons as they then take CONTROL over THE MOTHER AND they can DETERMINE THE QUALITY OF THE LIFE OF THE CHILD, AS TO THE ABOVE. Motive of control over the mother, making her helpless that she does not catch her own baby, may be to obtain the placenta, placenta blood and the cord, taken from the mother by medical persons assuming a right of ownership of such organs. They have no such implied rights of organ ownership by any policy or protocols of their own business organizations (medical persons are business persons and so are the agents they work for, the hospitals who contract for their services).
* The Active Management training and policies have promoted semi-sitting birth positions and beds, backward
leaning birth chairs, and flat on the back birth positions, generally, imposed if they put the mother
on a high
operating table, even for a vaginal birth.
* This creates distress to the mother and her child. Consequently, there will be more release of hormones in her blood and also the child's. The released hormones in the placenta are then not allowed to be transfused into the baby. What happens the medical persons are using protocols and training in active management, not natural birth, to do early and hasty umbilical cord clamping. They make excuses, not visual, or with cause why they do this, but after the fact have stated, short cord, fear of bleeding, fear of too much blood (there is blood letting); too fast flowing blood, too thick of blood, all needing testing for that opinion.
* The medical person or if acting as an agent for the institution where the birth takes places, arranges for the placenta to be drained, either for donated tissues, or for the institution or the medical persons to be compensated by codes in the collection of tissues. Or, there may be allowed third party billings at the medical institution where the birth took place.
* These flat on the back or semi-sitting birth positions are the worst possible control of the mother for any kind of dystocia, particularly, shoulder dystocia.
WHAT ARE CORRECT BIRTH POSITIONS:
* The correct birth positions are to what the mother feels most comfortable and educated to know that if she is tired and cannot handle gravity birth positions, forward leaning on her side, is best.
* Any gravity position, stride standing, squatting is best. Safe equipment must be made to support the woman's weight if she is trying a gravity birth position. On her side, forward leaning is recommend. Ideally, the woman are educated and comfortable to birth in warm water and catch their own babies, not touching the umbilical cord, but keeping the cord relaxed are having the most satisfied births, and ideally, they are undrugged by choice. They do not have to get out of the water, to birth the placenta, the completion of the child's birth, nor tie off the cord. The mothers are wise to take the baby's face out of the water (it is not a fish and can drown). They are advised to wipe gently away the mouth and nose (not syringe out the mucus) with a warm clean cloth or warm clean hand. To use a syringe bulb can put a child into a heart attack and the mucus removed has valued Lysozymes, that fights germs and should not be depleted. Further, the syringe bulb can be so aggressively used the child has then damaged vocal cords and voice box, and that too, will be excused by the the medical persons to "bad genes."
UMBILICAL CORD AROUND THE INFANT'S NECK: What is the correct safe method of care?
* False and unreasonable protocols has directed medical persons to take opportunity to clamp and cut the child's cord for reason of cord around the neck. That is not logical.
Please study the Chow-case-law, Ontario Canada, Sommers and Roth. Michael is a very damaged child caused by this illogical directive as a standard of care. Standards of care can be examined best in a court of law for their reasonableness or if a prudent person would follow them.
* The correct method for a cord around the neck is placing a sponge or finger between the cord and the neck. The logic is to prevent neck injury and to allow the oxygenated blood to continue to supply blood into the child's expanding lungs. The volume of blood that was in the placenta will be almost empty, as the child determines his/her own needs, not the guess of a medical stranger, who actually determines the quality of life or life itself of that child by early cord clamping.
* Gravity birth positions allow the best oxygenated blood transfusion to the child's now expanding lungs. All babies
are born bluish at birth, normally, as to the fetus circulation that is slowly changing into neonate/adult
circulation
of the child's lungs doing the gas exchanges, that was formerly done by the placenta.
* For a period of time the child will be functioning on a dual system, the placenta cord is functioning and will continue until the baby's own heart circulation has the amount of blood needed from conception to birth, transferred into the expanding lungs. This is just common sense of any placenta mammal's birth.
* The placenta then being empty has the mother's body release the necessary hormones to eject the placenta, and milk in the breast is released, or colostrum. About 1/2 hour after the birth the baby has been resting and relaxing, and can be on the placenta, not cosmetically removed.
*There is no rush to cosmetically remove the placenta, and doing so, risk blood and navel infections. Pioneers left the baby intact. They had no drugs to combat infections from a cut cord. Drugs today destroy the baby's good bacteria, for blood infections, and they can be weakened with C. Difficile often spread in hospitals.
* A relaxed baby, full of nutrients will soon want to nurse and will be strong and able to suck, not so many early clamped babies, they have weakened hearts and are low of strength of blood volume.
*The stronger babies can latch on and nurse a good long time. It is very cruel for any medical person to separate the mother and her child.
* Most births are without need of medical intervention and that is best if the mother is educated and informed and not be taken advantaged of by medical persons or birth educators that do not share such information that are actually visual facts, not opinion, on natural birth being best practice for all.
* I believe a competently educated birth educator would advise the mother to have a signed Birth Contract, which is better then a birth plan. Make it one page of what you do not want done to your baby or yourself.
* If the Birth Contract is not signed early when you know you are expecting, if I were her, having a baby today, I might well plan an unannounced unassisted birth in one's own home. Emergency births do happen, eh.
* It is the mother's body so she should be educated to handle natural birth as our grandmothers did, on their pioneer farms. FACT: We don't need politicians approval of medical policies in the birth room eh, any more than we need their help in the production room.
* How were the politicians involved in birth? They threw the women to the wolves, intimidating them they "had to use the experts" in child birth, at their location, and on their terms, lest they threw the midwife in jail that assisted them, or took away the children from the birthing mother, objecting to STATE control over her birthing body.
* The motive may be that costless childbirth went from a thank you to an experienced mother assisting, generally, just being there so a woman was not alone, ever, gave no revenue to the politicians for running the government. The USA now has a $200 billion medical bill and $20 billion is used for childbirth of active management. The amount in Canada for child birth is unknown.
* Most of the Canadian medical policies were stimulated in the USA. Canada has been following them, willy-nilly, not questioning the policies copied in Canada. For example, ACOGS, #216 November 1995, stated as a reference in Canada, SOGC, Policy #89 May 2000. The midwives and other medical persons, including 9-1-1 Dispatchers, too, directing tying off the cord and with any "dirty" item, are trying to say that they cannot do anything but follow bogus medical policies.
* Really? No ignorance is used as a defense. This is child abuse because they know to early clamp the child is to weaken the child by depriving the child of 20 to 50 percent total blood volume.
* I say we have no babies to spare and not one drop of blood need we give to science or research, ever. Not for visually healthy babies, and we do not have to have our genetic history checked for PKU, either.
* Not one cell from the placenta or the cord need be donated to science, as though it were a duty or a law of political medical policies and that goes for the local hospital involved of the scams, too, by arranged and selected committees that did not have true representation of the common folk, on this issue.
* Write your health critics and government official of health, local to Federal levels, and all will say, "Oh, we know nothing of child birth; we leave that to the experts." Well, child birth is not a sickness and it is best leave the choices to the birthing mothers for her own choices and aids, she best trusts in.
* If there is negligence of care, I am sure the parents will know to whom they believed and trusted in the actual care of their baby ; and mothers can sign waivers to refusing of the care the doctors have been trained in, active management. Mothers must have choices for natural birth, after all, it is her body, guiding her, safely, in most 93 to 95 percent of all births. This is if the mother becomes factually educated in how babies are born, the purpose of labor discomfort warnings and announcements, and learn to trust in her body and the child to know how to birth, without most complications.
ECONOMICS ARE LOWERED IN BIRTH COSTS -- IF MOTHERS RETURN TO NATURAL BIRTH TRADITIONS, TO BE ALLOWED
IN
ALL BIRTH INSTITUTIONS, AND HOME BIRTHS:
* Natural birth traditions and customs are the least cost to society and reduce medical costs for extended
care of the
child and repeat internal problems, and reduce education costs and criminal activities of damaged babies,
not
adequately compensated in needs of special training, if caused to be compromised, at birth.
See The Magical Child, Chapter, "Time Bomb" written by an educator, Joseph Chilton Pearce. This book is available by order at most libraries, and this chapter is an eye opener.
Some excerpts, for their opinions, can be found at the table of contents, www.lotusbirth.com
DISTRESS TO THE MOTHER AND CHILD CREATES A LARGER HARVEST OF VALUED BLOOD, STEM CELLS HARVESTED,
AND
HORMONES. THE BABY'S DEPRIVED PLACENTA BLOOD IS MORE VALUED THEN GOLD, IF EARLY CORD CLAMPING
IS IMPOSED
ON THE CHILD:
It is just my opinion, and you may disagree, but it is possible and likely a correct statement to say,
active
management causes the child to be a by-product of the birth.
* I believe, by active management, whether medical persons know it or not, that the real objective is "to get the placenta with the blood in it." eh. Think about it.
* Placenta blood and the components and cloning from cells for interferon, can be worth $30,000 an ounce. If the baby is deprived of 6 ounces of blood and its blood type is sought after, that is $180,000 possible value.
* Australia was paying $30,000 for samples of blood for transplants of stem cells. Now they harvest their own babies, as is all nations getting in on harvesting babies.
* Only the mothers and fathers are not the wiser how their offspring are being made into second-class citizens. The government had appointed public representatives who knew the new trends intended to harvest their babies' blood to be given to others, weakening the owner/infant to their own personal needs and security of person to the individual, in this case the owner/infant of that blood, the child.
BLIND TRUST OF MEDICAL PERSONS, ASKING NO QUESTIONS, GETTING NOTHING DOCUMENTED, OR SIGNED:
Have we been too trusting of our medical person (s) and not questioned them on this third stage of labor and care and treatment to the child? Have we ignored the duty to protect the civic rights of the child?
* How many of us are guilty of culpable negligence in the care of our child born into the hands of strangers?
* Most parents excuse is that they have not been adequately educated, as we ought to have been, or could have been? The source of means of education on this issue, the local biology textbooks, I have reviewed, are found wanting. They either have no information or the information is false and biased. The prenatal classes are controlled to leave out information and the nurses, who instruct the actual birth of the child courses, say they don't know this. If not, why not?
* Have we parents of the past, and those that will birth tomorrow, failed our children being satisfied only to take home a "living" baby, and our babies live, thereafter, in an internal damaged body. They were damaged by drugs and early cord clamping. Then, we the families and the community must find ways to heal the compromised child.
Please review these case-laws, Ontario Canada, handled by Sommers and Roth: Chow, Ing, and Crawford.
STOLEN SUSPENSIONS OF THE BABIES PLACENTA BLOOD:
Another reason of the use of false birth position to cause distress to the mother and the child, is the known release of hormones and suspensions in the baby's blood. The medical persons are trained under "active management" to interrupt the child's circulation system and blood and oxygen flow into the expanding lungs. The consequences of weakness cause the child, is visual, testable, and not opinion.
Some of the medical persons following policies, blindly, are told the blood from the placenta into the lungs is not important (in most instances alleged by Gabbes, MD Consult). You can bet on it, that the medical persons then deliver the placenta, to the hospitals lab or workers or nurses for draining of the placenta blood that is used in experimental research, stem cells, or cloning of proteins, such as interferon.
Confirmation of use of deprived infant's placenta blood can be confirmed at the Edmonton's Royal Alexander Hospital, knowingly doing this, and with the approval and acceptance of the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons, with approval of the Alberta Provincial Government's agent, The Hon. Gary Mar, Health and Wellness Minister. These levels of government and medical licensed persons operate without accountability to both civil and criminal duties to the child's right of equal protection and security of person. Why is that? Likely, because parents have taken home living babies, and when they get sick they do not attribute the weakness of their child, subtle to serious, to the method of active management which was not necessary procedures, compared to primal birth traditions, the mother is in control, not others.
*By early cord clamping, the child is basically robbed of his/her own nutrients of the blood, but is revived with oxygen and other cheaper blood or Ringer's Lactate Expanders.
* The weakness of babies, when they are discovered, often latent to learning and behavior problems, or failure to thrive, are said to be the parents "bad" genes. The increase in autism is epidemic and relates to the trends of active management directing immediate cord clamping to all babies, or routinely done.
Active Management does not allow Resolutions by ethical and competent medical persons to dissent to
harmful
protocols and policies set by the experts:
The Organizations set to govern and control the birth of the babies, directing interruption of the infant's
circulation
system, denying the parents blue ribbon and healthy babies, are found in current or past Education Bulletins
and
policies of the Obstetricians and Gynecologists of the USA, Canada, and likely, to be found in all Nations:
ACOG: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Bulletin #216, November 1995.
While this policy was cancelled as to printing, January 2002, the training and practice of it continues. The International Confederation of O & G's, made a First-ever Joint Policy Statement with the International Confederation of Midwives, November 7, 2003 (ref. USAID, press release, November 7, 2003).
These medical persons have approved between them, that "all" women for the reason of a "fear of being anemic" be treated with oxytocic drugs. The oxytocic drugs are directed to be followed by the World Health Organization with mandatory immediate cord clamping.
* The mother even if not anemic was injected with oxytocin, and the fear of bleeding is excused to do early cord clamping.
* This practice of endangering of anemic conditions to the child was confirmed in year 2003 in Florida, a female doctor imposed the clamping of the child's pulsating cord; and,
* this was done by Durham midwives working close to the Markham area and a cord blood bank, in Ontario Canada, also in the year 2003.
Canada's Policies on Child birth as set by the Experts, SOGC:
Policy #71, December 1998 and Policy #89 May 2000, directed interruption of the pulsating
umbilical cord by
SOGC, The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada.
They used the excuse, like ACOG, in Policy #89, to take a gas test by cutting of the segment of the cord, by early clamping on a pulsating cord. The gas tests are not a priority over the health of the child to have full oxygenated blood transfer into the child's expanding lungs, and medical persons and the hospitals premises are used to continue to follow bogus and false directives.
*The birthing mothers are not informed their babies are in danger during a c-section or vaginal birth as doctors clamping the cords without consent. Parents cannot be asked to cooperate to weakening their child, their offspring by allowing an unnecessary endangering practice.
Resolutions to dissent from Political Medical Policies is requested, plus, requested and necessary civil and criminal, if possible, discipline the executives most responsible for the protection of the public's health including babies, the new born citizens. Such resolutions have not happened at any Conference of medical societies, since the trend of early clamping began in training by medical policies.
Some informed and ethical midwives and doctors have pleaded with their colleagues, all of whom are self-employed, and self-governing, is not the same as a creating a Resolution and voting down or to denounce the visually bogus policies and medical hoaxes. These bogus policies are visually seen harmful and endangering to babies and the mothers, too. The mothers are risked to fetus-maternal blood mixing. The babies can be tested to be found oxygen depleted in muscle and blood tissues and anemic of nutrients, too.
BABIES ROBBED OF PLACENTA BLOOD, WHETHER BURNED OR USED IN MEDICAL SCIENCE PROJECTS:
The blood taken from the placenta, with no true informed consent, and the placenta sent to those with an interest in taking genetic information or use of the placenta membrane for burn tissue cloned, or the cord used in blood vessel transplants is done, in most instances, was done by no true informed consent, of the legal guardian (s) of the child.
This is a violation of informed choice whether tissue is burned or used for transplants and stem cell research. The hospitals used lawyers to undermine informed choice to state that if the organ or tissue was removed for any reason, once the possession of the organ was in the hands of medical persons (conflict of interest), they could do whatever they wanted with the tissues they gained/removed and use them at their own discretion. This can involved third party billings for what can be economically gained to the medical persons or the organization they contract with, as an agent to earn revenue on their premises.
The Tri-Council Policy Statement, Canada, August 1998, allowed the use of previous
removed organs to be used,
as though a law. There was assuming no accountability to the medical organizations, believed a
privilege of the
medical institution or medical doctor or committee of that institution, to set standards. Those
powers-that-be were,
however, not sharing the duty of true informed choice to the former owner of the tissue, or the legal
guardian of the
infant, or neonate, the newborn citizens.
Why did such committees and those working for the cord blood banks on the committees, not write that plainly in their Policy or how much blood would be deprived a child, from total amount of blood a baby, by size and gestation period, would have created, in total amount, and how much could be visually seen deprived the child by a clamping weapon?
Why did this deprivation and the removal of any organs or tissue from humans not direct specifically true informed consent of the use of them or the witnessing of their burning, if appropriate discarding implied burning?
The legal committees and advisers were not stating the rights of the patient, at all. Such committees,
not above the
Nation's laws, criminal or civil, were allowing policies and protocols of a private enterprise group,
with conflict of
interest of revenues to them, or their premise the contract to earn income, all the rights, as above
the law, and not
accountable to the law. Such committees and individuals licensed or certified by their self-governing
groups, seemed
to have ignored the criminal codes of the Nations, and to report child abuse. How come? They
believed as long as
the child lived and you couldn't see the internal injuries, they were not accountable for unncessary
interruption of
the child's circulation system, imposed, without informed right to say "no."
Is this not involving bodily harm, unnecessary medical procedures, no informed consent of all risks and safer options?
Is this not voiding out by organization and strength of many doing this, the Nation's obligations to
ratified Human
Rights Declaration and to no form of discrimination to women and to provide the best protective care
we can to
children, including the newborn citizen?
Please give references to the opinions above, if you give references, in the cause of all women have
a right to Natural
Birth, a no-hands-on-birth, whether in a medical institution, a home birth, or an emergency birth.
* Pregnancy is not a sickness. There needs no control over the woman's body. What that means is no one can cut a woman's body for her to birth a baby, that is neither the right to impose an episiotomy or a c-section. No one can drug a woman's body before or after a child's birth, without her right to say no to all and any drugs.
THE RIGHT TO TRUTHFUL INFORMATION LONG BEFORE THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD:
The woman far before the birth-date of her fetus NEEDS factual and truthful information for informed decisions. If that is not provided, might she not charge battery to herself and the child. I would think so, but that needs yet to be taken to Court, that may be a first in child birth, when that precedent case is presented.
* The mother must be truthfully explained third stage of labor and be encouraged to do independent research, and to make a Birth Contract what can or cannot be done to her person or her baby.
* Women must be told the primal birth traditions of their grandmothers, who did not clamp or cut the cord, or tie it or hand-squeeze it.
*What our grandmothers did was that if the cord had not torn, they did not tie the cord, but simply protected it that it was not pulled on.
* The pioneer grandmothers, were emancipated of control over their own bodies in child birth, not so the ladies given the vote.
* The pioneer grandmothers birthed the baby in the cleanest and warmest room possible. They wrapped the baby, head to toe in a clean warm towel, and changed it, until the baby was complete dry and left in warm dry towel. They did not cut the cord or tie it. And when the placenta, the completion of the baby's birth happened, they put the placenta in another clean warm towel, and changed the towel until the towel remained dry, too. They did nothing with the cord and the placenta was allowed to air, the cord kept covered, and all dropped off in a day or two's time. A perfect navel, a happy contented full-blooded baby, full immunities. They did remember to keep the cat away, too.
The logic of primal birth traditions, practiced by the monkeys, and seen in practice of most placenta
birthing
mammals (I don't want to argue this), is that there is no weight on the navel, so there are no hernias
; there is no
tying or cutting with unclean objects, so there is no chance of a germ or virus (Tetanus, or C. Difficile)
getting into
the child's blood stream; the baby, not science research, gets all the nutrients of the blood.
If mothers want natural birth, so be the power to them. They can be as primal as they like, what is
that to doctors, or
midwives, eh? If they want no one catching their baby or babies, so be it, they can do it
themselves, and they can
select their own birth witness, they can ask the doctor to wait in the hall, only to come in if invited,
or needed.
BIRTH VOUCHERS OF CREDIT OF $3,000.00
I recommend we pay mothers or reward them to get educated on natural birth education and to purchase only the active management packages of drugs, cutting etc., with signed risks of all drugs cross the placenta, all cuts of the body risk a virus to the mother and the child, all insertions of needle risk the same virus entry, but let the mothers pay for each active management alternative to natural birth.
* If she accepts total natural birth, all the mother would have deducted from her $3,000 birth voucher-credit at the birth institution (supported by the government's health insurance plans), is the cost of a rented room, if she birthed in an institution, close to operating room should dystocia be too difficult for her unique situation.
COURT CHALLENGES ON CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF MEDICAL PERSONS:
I recommend a Court Challenge of the need to check with the judges if the neonates can be exploited for their placenta blood, robbed of it, by early clamping, an unnecessary procedure but allowed at all levels of government, from local to the federal levels.
*The Federal and Provincial, State, and Territory governments have allowed civil, constitution and Human Rights violation to both the mother and the child.
*This has weakened the families, and put them to financial distress in the recovery and care of compromised children. This is by the governments involvement with their hired agents, and those the contract with for health care training and services provided in each community in allowing the exploitation of the child.
* Those in charge, included elected officials that took on health portfolios, knowingly did this allowance of exploiting the mother to provide the child, and they knowingly knew the agents of the government had a conflict of interest to take the child's organ, and deprived blood , and cord, and made and/or allowed bogus medical policies not to be investigated in the proper channels, the Court.
* Those in charge allowed the Coroners to cover up and conceal those babies that died of shock, too little blood in their bodies, and the engorged placenta evidence destroyed as an obstruction of justice. Why did they allow that to happen? Why, why, why? Why has this been allowed to happen to our babies, and for so long. This is Canada. We are supposed to be a Democratic society and that we "adults" do not pick on the babies.
STANDARD OF CARE EXAMINED BY THE COURT:
The standard of care all medical policies can be determined for their equity and fairness or harm done.
* The Courts are the final authority of injustices that have gone on, on this issue, unopposed, since about, War times needing battle-field blood supplies, and when blood was wanted for research, experiments, drug companies, stem cells and for any and all transplants.
HISTORY OF KNOWLEDGE OF WRONG DOING:
I believe the hoax of cover-up of what the doctors intended in child birth, kept secret to their intent, was first revealed and concealed in internal medical debates, since 1801. This is when Dr. Erasmus Darwin , the grandfather of Chales, champion of survival of the fittest theories, inferred,
"The child will not surely die if the umbilical cord is early clamped. The child will merely be weakened."
Erasmus said this because more blood will be trapped in the placenta that otherwise
ought to be in the
owner/infant. (See www.lotusbirth.com ibid). Truth is visual, not opinion, eh.
TRUTH SHOCKS - BUT WE NEED ACTION:
* If you are not too much in shock of the above, donations are appreciated if you are now Awake.
*My costs to provide an unlimited web server, is $231.00 from my Canada Pension of $239.00 My financial reserves are running low.
*Your help can be by putting up your own web page, $10.00 USA a month, and your patronage would be appreciated, if I can provide the server space.
*I can provide for the early patrons, almost, Unlimited space, for those who respond while I have space available, to the first 50 applications.
* You will have your own ".com address" and your own .com email, unlimited.
Or, if you do not want a web site, please consider sending a money order donation, to help keep my web
sites going.
www.123-baby-birth.com www.123babybirth.com and most recent, www.lotusbirth.com
This would be appreciated.
* I am a mother and a grandmother, age 62. Most of the battle on this issue is by us seniors, and we will continue until we die. We seniors on the battlefield (check out table of contents at www.lotusbirth.com)can only hope those with damaged babies come forward and take issue by use of both the civil and criminal courts provision for battered children.
* How can we stop this if victims do not come forward and their mothers and their fathers with filing Writ of Summons regarding their violated children's person.
The active management, as stated above, is in my opinion, child abuse.
Medical persons who were deceived by not challenging the illogic of the policies and education bulletins are encouraged to break away, quickly.
* They should boldly state their degree at www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814
* It will take courage, even to say, MD, Midwife, Nurse, Birth Educator, if even your name is not given, putting your title in place of your name.
* If you have another association you involved in, have them make a resolution to stand against harvesting babies. It is child abuse even if the victims live. A person does not have to show only physical evidence of injury to have been threatened of bodily harm. Check out the Criminal codes in your country and apply them to the newborn child.
Medical persons have a duty to report bodily endangering practices now put into policies and to report
child abuse.
Their implied duty is that they should send a registered letter to the organization that certified them,
or gave them
a license to practice medicine and involved training in child birth, and make a complaint of missing
information on
child birth, or false directives to hold to a false policy that endangers a mother and/or her child
by not being clearly
stated birth rights of information for choices to the mother, long before the birth of the child begins.
Medical persons ought to do this, and think about becoming a Government (State) Witness before they
are,
themselves, reviewed of all births that they have participated in the care. And what about the
medical persons, who
knew this was going on, and enjoyed spin-offs. They profited by silence in the treatment of many of
internal damages
to babies. They remained silent and allowed the false training and practice to continue, giving themselves
a
financial benefit. And the political allowance for profits of higher revenues by endangering babies
by the political
powers that be. Politics, is for profits, eh, in most countries.
It will be their implied duty to be honourable persons to make contributions for the financial compensation
of past
victims of the clamp, whether they burned the child's deprived blood or were acting as agents for the
hospital, that
used the unconsented organ, blood tissue and cord, and membrane, pragmatically, but not with true informed
consent.
The premise where the violation to the child, have accountability, too. If this is allowed in a criminal
court they are
allowing their premise to allow a felony by reason of a bogus policy, being used to escape legal accountability
and
review.
I believe also all medical associations and education institutions, even though considered by some of
them,
volunteer and none-profit societies have, still, vicarious liabilities, both civil and criminal
accountability.
IGNORANCE IS NO DEFENSE:
The law states that there is no defense to ignorance, particularly, for the trained medical person (s). They are the professionals and have means to confirm information to truth and visual facts. If they all did this crime, or were silent about it going on, there is implied accountability to their organizations and those that trained them, and those that gave them a license, leading the public at large, to believe the licensed or certified persons, training in baby care and deliveries, were ethical, moral, and competent.
It may be, on investigation, the weakened children who struggled in schools, having a right to lay criminal
charges,
too. This is to get them compensation for internal injuries, attributed to wrongful birth trends,
imposed on them,
and their parents not able to protect the child, controlled by the institutes policies or the training
of the medical
persons. We can't excuse the individual that willing implemented the policy of free choice, volunteer
choice and
without counselling in safer options, or their intentions to clamp the pulsating cord, or provided a
cold birth room to
speed up hypothermia that stopped the child's continued circulation from the placenta into the baby's
expanding
lungs. Technically, they would say, the cord was white, limp and not pulsating, but it was caused,
or they can
contribute to that by hand-squeezing. I suggest there is need of court hearings to see if the
Court will allow both or
either criminal and/or civil accountability to the medical persons who may be found imposing harmful
policies of
active management by personal bias and prejudice.
This medical persons, knowing what blood types were in demand, could then premeditate early clamping,
using the
policy of standard of care as a reason. They would deprive the infant by blood types, or race,
color, or sex, or mental
or physical disadvantages (premature babies most at risk of harvesting for stem cells, as the have the
greater
amount).
The Oath of the Doctors, do not harm, that the public only knows about, was to treat others no
different then they
would want themselves treated or their own children, regardless of the child's sex.
I belive, personally, that females were most often the children early clamped, and not able to do math was thought to be gender weakness. Now little boys, early clamped by female doctors, have the same gender handicap, can't do math, eh.
Medical persons can conceal their bias or knowledge of blood types sought, but they, being people can then by color by the bias of the persons have control over the quality of the child's life, by limiting oxygenated blood and nutrients. The child will not just need maintenance but over and above extra care, many families will not know or can provide.
Of course, that is just my opinion that social status and sex and color and race, may be factors in whose children were weakened. You don't have to believe that, as often the medical persons are put on a throne, not believed they could do such a thing, or even think of such a ploy.
The medical persons, apparently, are hoping that medical policies and protocols were above the law, not subject to them. Not so. This is true in most Nations who have signed the Human Rights Declarations, since 1948.
The practices of many medical persons, of either sex, have been to keep secrets of their training, not made public or the risks of that practice and safer options known or made known in child birth.
We must questions why, for so long, that the public at large, most of the public, was vulnerable to blind trust, and that has been breached on the medical persons involved in births, on this issue.
Women mostly were expected to comply to the demands of the medical person for the control over her body, when birth is natural and can be hand's off. Women have birthed fine, without help, even birthed unassisted in trees, when caught in a flood condition.
Most unassisted births, the babies thrive. That is the conclusion of leaving the cord unclamped by Dr. Mavis Gunther, of the UK. In her report, 1957, she qualified umbilical cords will pulsate for some vulnerable babies, up to and past 20-minutes.
We must question doctors following blindly, protocols, of immediate and early clamping because the visual evidence is in the placenta, the amount of blood deprived the child. But, they and the hospital where the felonies have occurred, collaborated to destroy all evidence.
A medical reference to opinions on clamping of the cord link is: www.cordclamping.com
ARE NURSES ACCOMPLICES TO CHILD ABUSE ON CLAMPING THE UMBILICAL CORD (S) ?:
The nurses, while the doctor held the child, were mostly the ones to clamp off the yet pulsating cord. They could have objected by duty of their standards of care, best practice possible, least risk of harm. They have means to deal with training and policies of doctors if they do harm to any person, or the risk of it. The fear of one's career is not an acceptable excuse, I would think, to be used in a court of law.
As to the missing factual reports on the condition of the cord clamped, it is my theory that once the nursed was implicated in the deed, (believed a felony to be determined by a court of law), they failed to record, along with the doctor the condition of the cord when clamped (pulsating it would be red, and firm); and failed to document the time of the cord when clamped, and the position of the child when clamped, and injection of oxytocin, when the clamping was intentional to follow injections of oxytocin, but the mother NOT so informed.
The nurse as well as the doctor, and this is world wide, did not factually document the care and treatment of the child's lifeline, the umbilical cord, which is an obstruction of justice. The missing information was not on the child's own medical charts for the child, when an adult, to seek out information of what happened during their birth. Most information is not given to the mother, but must be found in what is available by the Hospital's Birth Records, or the midwife's, if she kept any, as an implied duty.
Why is important information of the care to the child missing? Well, my theory is that it would,
make the tracing
the internal damage to any one child more difficult if all evidence was destroyed or not documented.
It is a criminal
offense to obstruct justice by destroying evidence.
Parents, who do not like to compare abilities of children and if the information of the care of the child was not shared or documented, the parents could also not reconsider the birth practices and which of their babies had early cord clamping, and which of their babies had natural allowance of no interference of the circulation system. The difference of undrugged and unclamped babies can be seen in the ease of learning and in behavior and in general health patterns of the child.
The destroying of the placenta, quickly taken by the hospital's staff, prevented independent forensic testing that the drugs told the mother would not cross the placenta and go into the baby's brain, would have had their trace elements of that drug found, and quickly after injection or gassing of the mother, in practices, of active management.
NURSES HAD PAST AND PRESENT VISUAL EVIDENCE OF HARM TO THE CHILD BY EARLY CLAMPING:
The Nurse Manual, most commonly used, again, is the Lippincott Nurses Manual, current edition, under infant's blood volume (3rd to 7th edition) and this textbook reports, 60 percent more blood in the baby, if the umbilical cord is not early clamped.
KNOWN KNOWLEDGE DENIED THE PUBLIC'S INFORMATION BY EXPERTS:
Policy #71, SOGC, states 20 to 50 percent total blood volume deprived the child by early cord clamping (about 30-seconds). SOGC states up to and beyond six months before the volume of blood and pressure is about normal. They implied the child was a little anemic, not as badly as when first born, concealed, eh.
ANEMIC BABIES MADE VULNERABLE TO AUTISM BY VACCINATIONS OF MERCURY, THIMERSOL:
This low blood pressure and low volume (low oxygen) means anemic babies, low in oxygen and nutrients of the blood were compromised, even more so, if injected with bacteria of vaccinations that thrive in low oxygen plasma and cells. This means that some babies who were yet anemic when injected with many vaccinations on one day, could not survive. See Yurko Project, this child had 6 (six) vaccinations injected in one day. This anemic child died two weeks later.
The doctors were not charged in causing a wrongful death, the father was. Alan Yurko is now out of jail, he admitted as a father, he was at least guilty of failing to protect his expecting spouse, during birth. His child was taken 5-weeks premature, pitocin was used and early clamping was imposed on the child. The child was in revival. Alan Yurko admitted, too, that afterwards the care, as he might have done as a father, protected the child from injections of six (6) vaccinations in one day. Alan Yurko has accepted the guilt of most of us. Allan Yurko accepted culpable blame, which if he is guilty, we all are. I believe he is due a pardon, eh.
WHO CAN DONATE BLOOD FOR OTHERS:
The health care authorities have stated a person to donate blood for others, or tissues, organs, must be over 110 pounds, finished growing, not visually or tested sick, and can give informed consent. Babies, the neonates are not in this category to have any duty to donate blood, to mothers, to fathers, to siblings or to strangers. We weaken them and take advantage by them being vulnerable being moments old, when many are early clamped. The motives are to the medical persons involved, and their institutions and to the governments from the local communities to the Federal levels why best practice possible, least risk of harm was not extended to the trusting and vulnerable, the pregnant woman and her newborn child, a citizen, both citizens, for equal security of person and equal protection of all laws.
WHO GIVES BLOOD FOR SICKNESS OF THE HUMAN RACE?:
The only person that volunteered to donate his blood for our dis-ease, was Christ. He was an adult, to give informed consent to take his life. Babies he required us to protect them, to every drop of blood to every hair on their head. May Christ have Mercy on us for our negligence, which the courts say, we have No good excuse for visual negligence, eh. Even the placenta can be tested for forensic traces of elements of drugs given the uneducated mother, when warm water and movement would allow her own system to produce pain controllers, so she birthed normally, naturally and had more then a living baby, but a blue ribbon baby, that our grandmothers, produced, so long ago, prior to the 1920's, eh. What do you say?
Contact:
Donna Young,
Box 504
Dawson Creek, BC
V1G 4H4
Canada
Tel: 1-250-782-9223
EMAIL: dyoung@pris.ca
Original Posting: October 21, 2004
