bullet1 Question   Midwifery's current policies on the umbilical cord clamping, what are they?

Midwifery's current policies on third stage of labor and the timing of the clamping of the umbilical cord clamping, what are they?

Revised:   Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:00 PM.   

For reference convenience, this URL is:

www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-957.htm


From: Donna Young, Natural Birth Education Advocate

To: Registrar:   registra@cmbc.bc.ca

Cc:   admin@cmbc.bc.ca  

Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:23 PM

Subject: Policies of BC Midwives per training and protection to Canadian babies and their mothers, too.

Natural Birth Education Advocate,

Box 504,

Dawson Creek, BC V1G 4H4

Tel:  1-250-782-9223


November 3, 2004

Registrar,
College Of Midwives Of British Columbia, Board Members
Room F 503, 4500 Oak Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6H 3N1  (Note:  COM have recently moved, please check for the new address).
Tel: 1-604-742-2231 Fax: 1-604-730-8908


TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COLLEGE BOARD MEMBERS:

Standard of training on third stage of labor & support of midwifery by MD's in BC

re: CURRICULUM AND THE POLICIES OF MIDWIFERY, AND SUPPORT FOR THE PROFESSION:


Hello,

My name is Donna Young. I am a mother and a grandmother. Not too long ago, my daughter birthed her second child with a midwife. This birth was in Canada, in year 2003. It was the first home birth in 90 years. My grandchild's birth just missed my own mother's Canadian unassisted birth, back in 1913, by three days.

While I liked the idea of a homebirth, as a grandmother, and supporter of natural birth, and primal birth tradition, or expectant management, now known as or called Lotus Birth, I do have some concerns of the policy of training of any midwife in Canada. I am, therefore, asking if you are following in BC, any National Standards of care and informed choice on third stage of labor, and how soon you inform the mothers of all options of choice when the child is born, for the best interest of the child.

I am concerned that mothers are not informed of the legal duty to not impair their child, or enter a contract that weakens her child by early umbilical cord clamping and sending the baby's deprived nutrients of blood to others, or burning it. I am also concerned with a lack of unity of the highest possible standards in midwifery across Canada. The amount of blood can be visually known to be from 20 to 50 % total blood volume deprived the child. This may be from 60 ml to 180 ml, as is a normal collection alleged by Cells for Life, Markham, Ontario, Canada. The risk of over one half of the baby's deprived blood is based on the facts that a nine-pound baby only creates a total blood volume of 300 ml, or 10 ounces. Even 20 % total blood volume deprived a child is sufficient to put a child into shock. This is according to the case-law of Chow, Ontario, Canada.

I am sure many mothers are not properly educated on their legal rights to have a signed birth contract. Some may even be deceived by past and current information on stem cell collection and how their own baby can be violated of security of person, if they are not told the truth of visual evidence, their babies are weakened if they are clamped before the natural pulsation of the cord ceases, which is visually seen, in many instances, to be up to 20 minutes.

I wonder if the mothers are truly told the truth that there is no need to be tying, or cutting the cord, for merely, cosmetic reasons, and not for any medical need, such as the cord tore. Nor, are the mothers and the fathers told of their legal duty to protect the child's equal right as a Canadian Citizen to full blood transfusion, as would be provided by natural birth, if no interferences by the care giver is imposed by policy, protocol, or procedures.

Protocol who takes civil and criminal liability no harm done to the child of unnecessary endangering?:

There is an apparent teaching that there is a need to clamp the cord early, if oxytocin, pitocin, syntocinon, Toesen, is used. The fear was put out by the World Health Organization , (Review 1998-2004), stating if oxytocin is used, they feared damage to the infant's brain, and made immediate cord clamping essential.

The women are not told that this man-made drug is dangerous before injection and the risk of causing their child to be anemic if the umbilical cord is early clamped, and the child then brain damaged if oxytocins are given during birth, or labor care. Many women may be induced with forms of oxytocic drugs.

Were you aware of this training and teaching in the WHO's references on this issue, back in 1998, and yet current, today?

WHO did not give a medical reference or clinical study to this fact brain damage by the use of man-made oxytocin. It is often said to be identical to the natural hormone, but that is not true, for it has dangerous preservatives in it, called Chlorobutanol. In fact, I believe there are Class-actions pending as to the dangers known of this preservative. Canada's supply of Oxytocin has Chlorobutanol in it. It is known to cause thyroid problems. Were the midwives informed of the dangers of this drug by the drug companies, or by their trainers, before they were/are approved to carry this drug product, to all homebirths? If not, why not? Are the midwives aware that even giving the child hope of revival by giving the child oxygen, a child of low blood volume will not be revived, for long. (See Chow-case-law, Sommers and Roth, Ontario Canada).

Anemic conditions thought to be a problem for all women:

Protocol of training:

There is also a teaching of all women being anemic, or the fear of it. Therefore, oxytocic drugs are being directed to be used, and this, fear and the timing of the injection is again, when the child is yet on the cord, is then causing immediate umbilical cord clamping.

Such precautions seem to be one-shoe fits all, and treating women all the same as a standard of care set by the International Confederation of Midwives and Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as to a press release I read, November 7, 2003, put out by USAID.

Did BC College of Midwives or any Canadian medical group, to your knowledge, ratify this first-ever joint policy statement? If so, what date and what was the rational to have done so? Do you agree, bleeding, in most instances, does not begin until after the placenta is expelled? There may be bleeding as to tears or episiotomy.

I would think third stage of labor and the actual birth care and treatment to the mother and child should be in an early signed Birth Contract what is or not done to the mother's body or her baby or babies and all risks known and information offered by the drug company that makes available oxytocic drugs.

Is that not possible, the right to dissent from policies set by medical groups, governing, internationally?

THREAT TO WOMEN OF AN ENGORGED PLACENTA, LEAKING:

The early clamping with the placenta in the birth canal, risks an engorged placenta then leaking of two bloods, the fetal-maternal blood mixing. That is a risk to her future health and future babies, requiring medications, of Rhogam, themselves. This, too, is a threat with human hormones in them. The threat of anemic conditions to the child, are obvious and can be visual as to the amount of blood drained from the placenta, which can be up to 60 percent total blood volume. See references below from qualified nurses manual.

The child may take one breath, and die, or go into shock requiring oxygen and blood from another source. Most midwives are not carrying blood, and Ringer's lactate may not be sufficient, when whole blood is needed. Are midwives trained to do immediate transfusion from the umbilical blood vessel to the child's internal blood vessel, for infusion of the placenta blood,  now cut off?

BC STANDARD OF CARE ON THIRD STAGE OF LABOR PROTOCOL:

Now that midwifery is more established in British Columbia, I am looking for a standard of third stage of labor care and if you are using a particular Nurses Manual, or Doctors Manual, or Policy of any one particular organization on child birth. I would like the latest edition, if possible, and where I may order the copy of the textbooks used, or your own manual.

NO FEAR OF NOT HAVING A DOCTOR IF MIDWIVES ARE INVOLVED IN BC:

KELOWNA, BC: NEWS RELEASE A BC DOCTOR TERMINATES CARE FOR TWO WOMEN WHO USED MIDWIVES:

I am also wanting to know what the current ethics and attitudes are for the support of women to choose their own care-person for child birth, and for homebirths, as to one doctor reprimanding the women by then stopping medical care, as to the recent public concern of Dr. Shawna Koehle. I am wondering if you are representing midwifery and freedom of choices so that other doctors do not follow this attitude they can NOT continue care if a woman uses a midwife, rather then birth in a hospital with a doctor or in the home, with a doctor.

NO APPROPRIATE INFORMED CHOICES ON

Third State of Labor and Timing of the Clamping of the Umbilical Cord:

I am concerned mothers are not informed of their right of choice of primal birth traditions, no clamping or cutting of the cord for cosmetic removal, or the right to leave that, if done, until after the completion of the child's birth, and that can be hours later, at the informed consent of the mother.

RIGHT TO KNOW AND BE INFORMED, NO CLAMPING OF THE UMBILICAL CORD, NEED EVER BE DONE:

How they did this care, for example, of my grandmother's pioneer birth, was they birthed in the warmest cleanest room possible, and did not tie or cut the cord, ever, in some instances. They put the placenta in a diaper, the wisdom of their ways, was nothing on the cord, so no navel hernias, nothing to sever the cord from tying, so no blood infections. And the baby, got all immunities for complete transfusion into the expanding lungs, through the cord, the fetal to neonate's heart's circulation transferring the placenta blood into the child. This is the child's blood, and none others. Many mothers-to-be are not factually told this transfer is controlled by keeping the child warm, the child must be wrapped head to toe,  and the child, himself/herself controls when infusion into their expanding lungs is complete, when the child's needs are satisfied. That satisfaction to the child cannot be guessed at and the medical persons risk internal damage and shock to the child, by clamping off, tying off, or hand-squeezing off the umbilical cord. Revival of any born compromised child, and all children are born bluish as to the fetal circulation system, is best allowed to be revived on the umbilical cord, should the heart be stopped, at the time birth, or a still born.

PERSONAL FAMILY EVIDENCE OF HEALTHIER EXPECTANT MANAGED BABIES - Lotus Birth:

My two living parents, born of unassisted births, 1913 and 1914, yet live, are our family's evidence expectant management works.  And,  I would say longevity and 66 years of marriage are attributed to starting life as true blue ribbon babies, so they were healthy, wealthy, and wise.

The only visual reason to interrupt the natural circulation between the gas exchange and blood volume exchange into the lungs, is if the cord had torn. That is seldom the case and suggests a rough handled child, for example, a dropped child, for the cord to tear.

There are many bogus reasons excused to interrupt the fetus/neonate's circulation system.  Those fears mostly commonly used are:  fear of jaundice, a small child, or premature infant, bleeding to the mother, thick blood, fast flowing blood, or short cord, or making room for the second child, if the first is a twin, cutting short their means of full blood infusion, into the expanding lungs. Lungs, like the placenta, take a considerable amount of blood to operate, well. The twins make their own share of blood, and they know how much, individually to each of their needs, to receive for their own particular blood needs. Not even a c-section child or a premature child, needs to be clamped from the cord.

We are wanting mothers to take the trainers of the midwives to a hearing for possible assault, and battery on the child, but some persons are saying the midwives and doctors are trained by protocols, procedures, and policies, and excused of their personal and voluntary decisions if they follow policies. Is that true? Is that ratified by any law of Canada as it seems to undermine informed choice and possible the criminal code or, perhaps, battery, if the legal guardian was not advised of the risk taking.

COLLEGE OR SOCIETY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING TRUTH IN TRAINING, ETHICS, AND LAW AND INFORMED CHOICES TO PREGNANT WOMEN AND THEIR CARE AND BIRTH CONTRACTS:

I wish it confirmed what executive of policy makers or contractors with the Ministry of Health in British Columbia, or their association, are taking the legal responsibility in the third stage of labor training and practices.  Is the College making the policies for training and accepting the legal accountability to that trainer's expertise? In the clamping of the cord, it is NOT opinion, it is visual evidence of risk taking, and if the evidence of the placenta is being destroyed, and care and treatment is not factually recorded, who is taking responsibility of the training of the midwives. This if they do not record position of the child, when the cord is clamped, and condition of the cord when clamped, (red, firm and pulsating) ;and the time the cord was clamped.

I am also asking if midwives know to put a sponge or finger between a tight cord around the neck, because if one can cut a cord, there is allowance to put a finger or a sponge to keep the cord from damaging the child, otherwise, the child can be revived on the cord, not being tied off or clamped, and this information of revival must be factually discussed, long before the 8th month of the delivery of the child, ideally, thirds stage of labor is discussed for emergency births, early in the pregnant, the first few months, I would think would be most wise.

WHAT POWERS OF CONTROL ARE IMPOSING EARLY CLAMPING AND NOT TAKING LONG-TERM LIABILITY FOR THE INTERNAL DAMAGES TO THE CHILD CAUSED TO BE ANEMIC?

I was also told the midwifes, without informed consent of the risks of early umbilical cord clamping, are making this decision, at their own convenience. It is called protocol.  That is not allowing true informed consent, in appropriate time, to the true legal guardians of the child, the two parents. The doctors are too, in BC, are using MD Consult as a defense by using the opinion of Dr. Gabbes. His opinion, while not the official policy of practice by the BC -CPS, is used as defense. Therefore, no doctor doing early clamping is being questioned as to early and instant clamping during a c-section or for any vaginal birth, and this is for full term or premature child.

The Colleges, apparently and contrary to their duty to protect any one person from harmful medical training or practice, a contract to their Province, Territory (or State), does not interfere with the policy set and studied.  The BC-CPS told, me personally, in a letter, that they do not like to spend $15,000 a day, if the doctor can provide a defense. And the BC-CPS have put up on their own Library references, on this issue, when to clamp the cord, and reference to MDConsult, a U.S.A. internet data base.  Dr. Gabbes said it was the "convenience of the medical person, and said the blood in the placenta, trapped there by a clamp, was not important, in most instances."  !!!!

Well, tell that to Michael Chow, (case-law, Sommers and Roth, Ontario, Canada). Why was his placenta blood not important, in most instances. This child is living blind, deaf, (mute) and paralyzed. Why? It was because his lifeline, the umbilical cord had been immediately cord clamped for a cord around the neck. Following that, he went limp and could not be kept breathing being now anemic, too low of blood volume and pressure, and he was given oxygen for the first 7-minutes of his life, and could not stay alive, with oxygen alone. Then, his delayed revival with whole blood for 46-minutes, later, kept him alive, but very compromised.

Tell others that oxygenated blood is not important, or quantity of it to the needs of the child's own birth size. The circulation cut off happened also for the Ing-chow-case law. His situation was for the use of mid-forceps. And tell about the Crawford case-law, that she too, was likely damaged by early clamping after dystocia. She was not likely revived on the cord, as would be logical, even for dystocia, her head born, and her body compromised in the birth canal.

All these case-laws are handled by Sommers and Roth, Ontario Canada. Do midwives carry appropriate insurance for medical malpractice of damaged children if they interrupt the child's circulation system, following policies set by SOGC. Policies in question directing immediate and early clamping, are #71, December 1998 and #89 May 2000. Do you follow those policies in home births? Would you follow them in a hospital, where most doctors have back up of revival, but should not needless endanger the child, just because they can revive a child, and send home a living baby, eh.

This is an American training, and I have not found the exact manual of policy or textbooks used by licensed doctors or experts, that may govern over and rule over the midwives.

DISCARDING OF THE PLACENTA, CORD, MEMBRANE OF THE PLACENTA, AND PLACENTA BLOOD:

Some of the medical persons are assuming appropriate discarding of the placenta means they and their team can syringe out the placenta blood and sell it on the open market for a collection fee, and many are registered at private cord stem cell blood banks, and can treat the blood taken with heparin and send the blood anywhere, in the world, within 36 hours, because the airlines carry blood, now.

REVIVAL OF BABIES AFTER EARLY CORD CLAMPING PRACTICES, USED SINCE THE 1980'S, INCREASES AUTISM IN CANADA AND RAISES THE COST IN HEALTH CARE TO CHILDREN UNDER ONE YEAR OF AGE.  THIS IS FOLLOWING EARLY CORD CLAMPING -- THE TRAINING OF MOST MEDICAL PERSONS, TODAY:

For the interest of the public, one in sixteen babies are being revived, are documented in a Canadian medical review and the children under one year of age are having medical costs compared to the next highest medical group, in first place, the Seniors.

Endangering practices and protocols.

There is on record, that one midwife's services, not in BC, has had three out of seven children born with CP. That is not a genetic disorder. CP is caused by mismanagement of the child's birth, brain and muscle damages, that can be caused by use of drugs and early umbilical cord clamping. There has to be concern of the policy and procedures of training and information in the textbooks if the public is being best served, or if the public is facing massive increase of internal problems, due to harmful birth practices, not taught, or believed taught to midwives, doctors, doulas, ambulance medics, doctors and surgeons. NOT one baby needs to have their umbilical cord tied, unless, it tore. There is visual evidence of that fact.

The evidence has been documented and debated since 1801, as well, and the better training manuals indicate do not clamp the cord, tie it, or hand-squeeze, until all pulsation ceased, and expectant management is not touching the cord, until the placenta, has naturally been birthed. This right of informed choice must be respectfully shared with the mother, long before the 8th month for appropriate informed choices, I would think.

Thank you for referring this issue of concerns to the controlling group of those setting policies and training to the BC Midwives. I am wondering, also if the Cochrane Library Collaboration policies, or clinical studies, or any other Policy, or Joint-Policy Statement were an influence? I would like specifically, the committee names for any approval of such policies directing interruption of the infant's circulation system by early cord clamping.

I am sure you are aware that the Lippincott Nursing Manual indicates that up to 60 % percent more blood is in the infant's person, if delayed clamping is allowed the child. This is the third edition as well, I confirmed that blood volume in the 7th and current edition, 2000, as to blood volume for the newborn child.

If you are under obligation of other medical professional groups who may share in the setting of the training and policies of the College of Midwives, you are welcome to share this letter, to all whom this may be of interest.

I would be willing to send supporting Sworn-to-be True Declarations of impaired and compromised children who are all victims of early umbilical cord clamping, some seriously injured, with CP and HIE. Others have evidence of nutrient deficiencies and latent evidence of growth delays, learning and behavior problems. These impaired children all had in common, early umbilical cord clamping, imposed on them. It was expected to be tolerated, by the parents, and not questioned, simply because the child lived or was revived. Again, as to the case-law, the Crawford adult, taking 21 years for her injury compensation, was resolved in 2004 for $10 million; the Ing child,  resolved for about $14 million (mid-forceps injury); and the Chow child (resolved for about $8 million) are such evidence of children who had their circulation system interrupted, but the heinous policies and training, yet continue.  

Any revived child is an impaired child and compromised to cell injury by lack of nutrients, fluid and/or oxygen and other blood suspensions, that are then left in the placenta blood, by choice of the medical person or persons, attending the child's birth.  The hospital's policies often pattern themselves after the Tri-Council Policy Statement of August 1998, that once an organ is removed, without informed consent of the true guardian of the child's organ, the placenta, the placenta, its membrane, the cord, and the placenta blood can be used for human transplant tissue, such as, stem cells, without informed consent of the parents.  If there happened to be disease, there would be a conflict of interest why organs and tissue were used and the parent's not informed their child's blood was contaminated with disease, and why it was used in experiments, and not burned as appropriate discarding.  

The safety of the public and the cost of higher medical costs and higher education costs for impaired children is not a first consideration, in that instance. And, the Nation's provision for the equal protection and the legal rights of security of the child is not being upheld by the current practices and policies, apparently, evident in the current trends of training of most medical persons, today, in BC.  

There is concern that older doctors, previously trained in waiting until all pulsation of the umbilical cord ceased (stated in a letter to me by the CPS-BC, April 1999) are going with the current trend of early umbilical cord clamping.  These trends, apparently, are being set by The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Policy #89 May 2000 . They had referenced their research to the ACOG's Bulletin #216, November 1995, that directed all babies umbilical cords be immediately cord clamped.  The reason was for doing a pH test, which does not need to be done by amputation of the cord.  Another of ACOG previous and questionable Bulletins is #138.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) are leaders in medical practices, world wide.  

The duty of correct allowance of full infusion by the means of the child and approval of the parents would seem the duty of all Colleges involved in the training and practices of the medical persons, and to whom, may be influenced by such policies, for example, the BC Reproduction Care Programme and the BC Justice Institute involved in training of medics.

I am appalled to read on the Internet, that the 9-1-1 Dispatchers, are advising the use of dirty shoelaces to be used to tie the umbilical cord, as imperative need.  This is even when the cord is not torn.  They likely allow for the use of a dirty object to cut the cord, as well.  

One of the Sworn Declarations, I may submit as evidence of a seriously damaged child, shares the child was early clamped by an ambulance medic.  To do this to an already compromised child, he used a dirty rubber band. He also experimented on the mother, placing a finger in her anus and then a finger in her vaginal area  and was experimenting to release, in this manner, the stuck child.

There was no intervention by her midwife. In fact, the midwife had unskilled persons twisting and manipulated the mother's legs. When the mother was birthing, to her belief, satisfactory, the midwife had screamed at the mother. This was when the child's head was born.  The mother had been birthing in a gravity position in warm water. The midwife then directed the mother to place herself on her back. This is known to be the worst possible position as it closes the birth canal up to 30% closure.  Then the midwife called 9-1-1 in a total panic.  Time was wasted with a now stuck child and a frantic mother in severe pain.  When they arrived, the midwife turned over the care of the mother and the child to a lesser-trained medic.  There was no oxygen being given as the midwife forgot most of her supplies, at home.

This medic had not discussed his intended procedures, for consent.  He wasted valued time to release the stuck child. One has little time to prevent oxygen debt to the brain and central nervous system for shoudler dysotica.  Finally, the medic agreed to transport the mother, to her previous requests, to the hospital.  

What is regretable, is that the birthing mother's midwife had not accompanied the less-then-qualified trained medic in order to assure the safety of her client and/or the well-being of the child, regarding, at least, the timing of the clamping of the umbilical cord.  Previously, in another homebirth, the midwife had not clamped the child's cord for a good 20-minutes and this was to the satisfaction of the mother.

In this situation, it is apparent that the medics knew of better and cleaner habits because, after this woman's and child's care, they spent an alleged six-hours to clean up the ambulance for fear of air-borne blood diseases. They had to have training on virus infections, yet, they used questionable objects to tie and/or clamp the cord. The tying of the cord was NOT a necessary procedure, unless the cord had torn.

There should be some standard of knowledge and care, shared internationally, about that fact of causing babies to be anemic by early cord clamping.  This fact is visual of the amount of blood deprived the child by early cord clamping.  The evidence, the engorged placenta, contains the deprived blood, if the placenta is not destroyed of such facts -- visual to be from 20 to 50% total blood volume deprived the child. (See Policy #71, December 1998, by SOGC).

Surely, all medical persons know not to be cutting the cord with dirty gloved hands and with dirty clothing on and a dirty rubber band, and/or unsterilized clamps.  Surely,  all medical persons know they are risking the child to virus blood infections, and the mother, too, in tying and cutting the cord in unclean surroundings and/or with unclean objects.  Would the midwife known it was not wise to use questionable and unsterilized objects, had she remained with her client and kept the medic from tying or clamping the cord, rather than revive the child where is and how is?

Surely, all trained medical persons known of their duties to use a sterilized clamping and cutting tool.  But in this situation there was no respect to this child, that would have faired much, much better, had they revived the child, weak in pulse, on her own sterilized infusion means of blood from her placenta and cord, into her expanding lungs.  

All the medics were required to do was to supply transportation to the nearest hospital and to give warmth, massage or oxygen administration to the child and/or mother, or both. They medics could not be faulted, then, in their care.

I question why a midwife would not direct the immediate transport, as she was not prepared to do an episiotomy. There was little time to experiment, to prevent serious brain and central nervous system which were becoming apparent. This particular situation, I believe, is under consideration of compensation to the family and the child who is suffering with CP and HIE. The risk factor, also, was that neither of the medic or the midwife were carrying liability insurance for their decisions and choice of actions. Both believed they would not have culpable accountabilities if they lawyers would not sue them, for lack of money.  

Midwifery is universal and for this reason there are concerns of practices going on in BC, for example, pushing back a child into the womb, for a face-up birth presentation. The public should know the training of medical persons involved in child birth.  In other parts of Canada, and perhaps in BC too, the fear of bleeding is being used to clamp the umbilical cord, while it is yet pulsating.


In this BC situation, the pushing back the child into the mother's womb, it resulted in the tearing of the mother's womb and serious infection following.  

The training and policies used by the College of Midwives and those that influence their training should be reviewed and corrected if the trends of birth care pose any risk to the mother and the child.  

Does the College keep track of legal case-laws involving births to make improvements in training and concerns of the members of the public and representation of others involved in research?

I would recommend the corrections of policy and past training to be made public, as well, and be carried by International press media, as an influence to Third World Developing nations that may, otherwise, be misguided by shared American and Canadian ways.  There are many concerns, shared and proven, in the past, to be endangering to the birthing-mother and the child. (See Doris Haire's Statement  and link, below).

It is imperative that mothers are informed of the risk of narcotics that are used to delay labor, such as Demerol, a morphine, and the risk of the abortion drug, Oxytocin, with its preservatives, that is used to quicken labor and adds to the strength of contractions, often suffocating the child in the womb, for lack of oxygen. Oxytocin is often used for the belief it stops bleeding, if the mother loses blood or is anemic.  But oxytocin is often imposed without other known risks of interrupting the heart beat and risks to the thyroid.  

Are such drugs being used with any signed-risk acceptance of their known risks and long before the mother is near the birthing-date of her child, or multiple births?

I would think that informed consent, implies true informed consent and sharing of all risks and what may be safer options and choices of the mother to reject active management and to know and to accept alternative choices, such as what our grandmothers had, and had no problems, as long as the environment and care were clean, proving natural natural birth education and practice, results in blue ribbon babies.

I would appreciate a written reply, at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Donna Young

Natural Birth Education Advocate

Box 504

Dawson Creek, BC

V1G 4H4

Canada

tel: 1-250-782-9223

email: dyoung@pris.bc.ca

copies to:

bonnie_allen@cbc.ca

soundslikecanada@cbc.ca

Other: bcc to mothers with impaired and compromised children, drugs and early umbilical cord clamping are involved, in most situations.  This is active management and in most situations, alternative and safer options were not discussed early in the stages of pregnancy, nor were Birth Contracts used or signed.

_______________________________________________________


References of Study:     www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-110.htm     This link shares other links to the World Health Organization and links to SOGC's Policies, that are directing early and immediate umbilical cord clamping, without right of declining that interruption of the child's circulation system, that must be examined for possible child abuse, if followed, and not dissented from .

There are also legal-case-law precedents given and they are, suggesting, too, if there is no true informed consent, medical battery  may be the right of the mother of the child to allege and to press charges on all those who have aided and abetted to endangering of herself, and her child. We must ask, ourselves, what "informed"  mother would agree to weaken her baby to anemic conditions or the risk of it?  This is when safer options ought to have been tried or suggested, or prepared for.

I share this web site,   www.lotusbirth.com    because most incidents or reasons for using  "active management" training is mostly done with no true information supplied for Lotus Birth, or Expectant Management.  Unnecessary risks to the birthing woman and the child are being taken.  This is true to allergic reactions in the use of any drugs during labor, and all drugs and gases cross the placenta. But they are currently part of the trend to require the mother to submit to.  There are other safer options that ought to be made known and shared, as well as the legal right for the birthing mother's   right to decline procedures  or policies intended.

____________________________


Petitions or Prayers for Expecting and Birthing Mothers and their Baby or Babies:  

(1) Protect Babies and Mothers, Too:

  www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/102580814


(2)  Better Education for medical persons attending a child's birth:

  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/954816565


(3)  Declaration on the safety of No tying or clamping off or cutting the umbilical cord:  Dr. Sarah Buckley:

www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-314.htm


(4)  Risks of Western Societies trend to "active Management" reference to Doris Haire's

"The Birth Without Borders Conference, Sponsored by UNICEF in Chiange Mai, Thailand, March 1, 1997" Link:

www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-499.htm


(5)  Unassisted Births, the babies thrive, Quotation of Dr. Mavis Gunther, UK, 1957, Link :

www.lotusbirth.com/doc/FEB2003Lotusbirth-664.htm


(6)  Medical Organization to work with lay persons and to stand for Better ethics, medicine and upholding the Nation's Law and Declarations, no form of discrimination to women and to give the best the Nation has to offer the child: Link:

http://www.medicalveritas.com/pages/2/index.htm     (An excerpt is below):


Statement of Purpose

 MVI:

(1) recognizes that medical modalities promoted by public health departments and authorities are often compromised by conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and other political and personal agendas.

These areas of detrimental influence include, but are not limited to, the following:

*vaccinations
*pharmaceutical drugs
*pregnancy, childbirth and child care practices
*treatments for cancer, AIDS and other diseases
*food additives, pesticides and herbicides
*water fluoridation
*dental procedures, including amalgams
*medical procedures and surgeries

(2) investigates health studies done for the benefit of profit rather than public health.

(3) encourages independent research into disease and the effects of approved medical modalities whose “proven" safety may be potentially flawed.

(4) publishes data by independent researchers, as well as observations by parents and others.

(5) values the experiences of laypersons as a means of encouraging physicians and scientists to consider medical evidence instead of medical theories.


(6) exposes medical falsehoods by looking more circumspectly at the available evidence.

(7) confronts dishonest and harmful medical practices by providing honest research, data, analyses and conclusions.


(8) challenges the medical establishment and government health agencies to adhere to their role as protectors of human health, not as purveyors of harm for their own gain.

(9) promotes proper diet and nutrition as the first line of defense against illness, supporting wellness rather than continuous disease and treatment cycles.


(10) promises never to acquiesce or enrich itself at the hands of those wishing to silence the truth

(11) resolves to maintain its primary goal of mitigating healthcare problems by creating a new paradigm through a synthesis of all primary healthcare paths, eliminating aspects not standing up to close scrutiny.

(12) supports initiatives toward all healthcare providers, including naturopaths, dentists, physicians, midwives, acupuncturists, homeopaths, chiropractors, massage and physical therapists, caregivers, parents, nurses, and others.

(13) educates and empowers medical professionals and laypersons in ways to protect their own health that will have a dynamic impact on improving medical treatment worldwide.

(14) pledges to seek out the truth and demonstrate the wisdom to effectively convey it with compassion from the heart.

_________________________


DONATIONS TO HELP KEEP THE SITE AND A WEB SERVER MAINTAINED:

Donations for this volunteer research would be appreciated.  My research began in 1998.  Funds are needed to assist in my limited income as a Senior Citizen, age 62.  My costs are for paying for a web server and assistance at a cost of $231.00 from my Pension Cheque of $239.00.  

I have attempted to challenge mothers and their spouses to become educated in natural birth. If our grandmothers were emancipated in child birth, and birthed in their own homes, with or without assistance, we can too.  

Women after the 1920's, did get their vote but the politics for profits took over the baby business.  The truth is, those that birthed prior to the 1920's, our grandmothers were emancipated to have births without drugs, and in their own homes.  By being more relaxed to their own home environment women managed fear and labor discomfort much better.

 They managed by freedom to move around, to nourish themselves during labor, for strength, to birth when the baby was ready, and not to a busy doctor's time schedule, to birth in warm water births (this is NOT new) ; to not need drugs to manage labor discomfort ; nor to have to have, routinely imposed, the cutting of their bodies (c-sections were for true emergencies, and were only 3 to 5 percent of all births, not at the disgraceful 26 % and rising c-section rate to date). The pioneer mothers caught their own babies, or their spouses.  And, by being in no rush to tie or cut the cord, the babies, not science, received their own nutrients in the placenta blood.

Today, babies by the current trend of the training of all medical persons, are being harvested by being early clamped on their umbilical cords.  This risk taking is being allowed on the premises of the birth institution or by the medical person.

The financial compensation to taking the baby's deprived placenta blood and the placenta, are not known to the parents. But that information is availabe to them, simply by checking third party billings. They can find out who is actually selling the separated stem cells from the placenta blood. The tissue and cells are valued for cloning, and the total value of the placenta and cord and blood and membrane, may be as high as $180,000,   more or less.  This approximate value of the placenta, which can be ground up for valued tissue, is based on what Australia paid for a few ounces of stem cells, $30,000.  So if six ounces of tissue can be obtained from a child's placenta and deprived blood  all may have a wholesale value of the said amount.

The placenta, at the request of the parents, need not be detached from the child and it should be kept warm with the child. It may be safely left with the baby, for hours, or until the parents wish to do their "own" cosmetic removal, using a professional clamping and cutting tool, such as can be provided by Dupont.  In the meantime, the child should not be taken from the observation of the parents. This is because it was witnessed, the midwife was syringing out the placenta blood before all pulsation had ceased.  The midwives, and this is true of other caregivers, wanted the blood from the placenta, even though the parents requested the primal birth tradition, or Lotus Birth.

INTERFERON CELLS:

There is much value in the other suspensions of the plasma, white cells, mature red cells, minerals, vitamins, hormones, enzymes, platelets, and possibly and distressed released interferon cells.  Interferon cells are increased in any distressed person.  Interferons are the Grand Daddies of the virus fighters. They come out only if a cell is dying or the cells around it are being threatened.

All drugs, illegal or medicated drugs can distress both the mother and the child, along with flat on the back and semi-birth positions. By imposing on the child, early umbilical cord clamping, the baby is going to be weakened by having less white cells, red cells, and interferon, and platelets that are all needed to keep up their natural immunities.  Why risk it?.  

If I have benefitted you, in any way, please, consider a donation of your means.


A Money Order, for your own security, may be sent to:

Donna Young

Box 504

Dawson Creek, BC

V1G 4H4

Canada

Tel:  1-250-782-9223

_________________


WANTED:   PERSONAL BIRTH STORIES AND PHOTOS, OR VIDEOS:

I would also like to have your personal birth story and any supporting videos, or photographs with permission to put them on the internet, or your own link to a web page.  I am seeking positive birth experiences undrugged births (no pitocin, or oxytocin) and using instead, warm water births and the birth followed by  full delayed umbilical cord clamping.  

I am also seeking positive c-section birth stories that the doctor did not tie or clamp the cord and allowed the baby full infusion and/or removed the baby as a sealed-unit. See the T. Peltonen  research, 1981, at www.lotusbirth.com   that this may be done, keeping the baby intact with their placenta and the cord.  This is true even for premature babies or any full term, however they are born, or wherever.


METHODS OF CARE OF COSMETIC REMOVAL OF THE CORD AND THE PLACENTA:

If you did the placenta and cord cosmetic removal procedure by preference, not of any medical need, such as the cord tore, which may suggest incompetent or rough handling of the child,  I do hope you used boiled scissors and boiled string.

The pioneers also used a tad of iodine on the wiped off umbilical cord, and put a tad of iodine where the string was tied and the cord cut.  The risk of infections of a cut cord are in the 5 to 15 days of healing of the cord, there is also risk of navel hernias of clamped cords.  There is no harm to allow the placenta and cord to fall away, naturally, untied, as nothing gets into the cord if it is not tied or cut.  The falling away takes from 1 to two days.  Just remember, keep the cat away, eh.


REMOVAL OF FLUIDS FROM THE NOSE AND THE MOUTH - LYSOZYMES:

The pioneers did not use aggressive means to clean and wipe the newborn mouth and face. They simply used a clean washed hand or a clean cloth and gently wiped the nose and mouth of the child and his/her face.  Today, fluids of any source have value, and the aggressive removal of the fluids of the nose and mouth can damage the baby's voice box.  The science lab may be seeking enzymes, the Lysozymes. The are like Interferon, because they fight germs and virus that enter the body by the mouth or nose.  Protect your baby to gentle after care of birth, the best you can.  


Have a Signed Birth Contract

You bring out the medical persons intentions and training out into the open  by taking in for discussion a Birth Contract, when you are planning a family or are first discovered to be expecting.  Any birth plan is not the same thing, it is merely given suggestions of your idealism and has not confirmed commitment of your own determination and will be set aside if you sign "appropriate care forms" or "appropriate discarding" of your baby's placenta, cord, and other body tissues; and you and the child may be subjected to injections of "stuff" that contains heavy mercury metals in them, like Thimersol.

It is your legal right to know what you do not want to happen to your body or your baby.  Because of the harvesting of the placenta for profit, many doctors will be militant to not allow the placenta to remain with the child.  Take the issue to court, but do not wait for the situation to happen. In the protection of their baby, before a PKU was imposed of even a tiny needle in the newborn's skin, they couple took the PKU test to a Dublin, Ireland Judge.  He ruled that if the medical persons put a needle in their newborn baby, he would have called it battery.


THE MOTHER'S RIGHT TO BE IN CONTROL WHAT IS OR NOT DONE TO HER PERSON OR BABY:

The mother must always remain in control, unless she becomes unconscious.  Be aware that if you end up calling 9-1-1 they are NOT responsible persons, it seems, but may exploit, even if trained, by their use of the Good Samaritan Act.

These 9-1-1 persons, by what is being told to others who have used them, do not take any responsibility of their care or treatment to the mother, they try to avoid both civil and criminal accountability by using the Good Samaritan Act.  Again, it is the Courts that will rule who is exempt of the type of care of services given and its reasonableness. Or, if the medic, without his/her procedures made known for informed consent, or rejection of his/her intent was imposing any of their own ideas and experiments, thus, not competent in skill and would be exploiting the mother, as to their qualifications and training in the mother's care and the child's.  Then, they intend to use this Act, making them not accountable. They then leave the mother with a damaged body and/or a damaged baby and walk away from all liability.  This does not seem equitable and/or fair. If they are not accountable, perhaps, their employers are.  That would be the City for allowing and contracting for the 9-1-1 services in their area, and if they are competent and ethical to stick to training and not experimenting with another's person or the baby.

Today, the 9-1-1 Dispatchers are apparently not competently trained, equally. They are following some form of rule of procedures written out for them and they are not good for the baby or the mother.  This is because, rather than just transporting the mother, if she is seeking a hospital birth, but births on the way, they are risking the mother and the child to internal injuries of infection by clamping the cord, needless, as well as recklessly. For instance, 9-1-1 Dispatchers have been found on the internet telling others to tie off and cut the pulsating umbilical cord.  And directing to use any dirty thing.  They were making it sound the tying of the cord was the most important thing to do in a child's birth and were excusing the use of dirty shoe laces. They were directing the tying off the cord when it was not torn.

FACTS:    At one time, the emergency care of medics and any other person, was just to transport the mother to the hospital.  If the baby was born, on the way, the emergency caregiver (s) simply were required to keep all warm and no one was advised doing anything with the umbilical cord, other then when the birth was completed, and the cord was long enough, to unwrap it, if it was around the child's neck, carefully, not to pull on it.  


Proper care of the cord around the neck is to merely put a finger or sponge between the neck and the cord to prevent neck injury.   Babies, breathe through the placenta. The umbilical cord is transporting oxygenated blood into the baby's expanding lungs.  This is true if the placenta is yet attached inside the mothers body. One cannot know that in a vaginal birth.  When born,simply keep the cord, relaxed and close to the baby.  Be sure to wrap the placenta, not pulling on the cord, too, in a nice warm towel. The baby is already in a nice warm towel, and together the baby and placenta can be given to the mother to hold.  The placenta need not be detached.  It risks infection to the mother and child if this is done, and without sanitary skills to do it safely and not getting any germs in the baby's blood stream. If the cord is risked tied with the placenta yet inside the mother, the mother, too, is risked to virus infection by what is used to tie and cut the cord.  Virus can be fast or latent in action.


WARMTH IS ESSENTIAL IN ALL BIRTHS:

Keep the birthing mother and the newborn child warm.  Do use the cleanest of everything required, towels, blankets, for example:

To prevent hypothermia of a newborn child and to the mother getting a chill and it is essential to the child's full infusion of blood from the placenta into the child's expanding lungs.  This infusion is documented to take some babies up to 20 minutes for a previously compromised birth. This may be shoulder dystocia, causing a compressed cord.  Or, it may be a drugged baby, by illegal drugs or medication drugs. They will often require more time on the umbilical cord for blood transferred from the placenta to the expanding lungs.

Some babies will have to make up for the oxygenated blood deprived during the birth, so do not rush clamping the cord, unless it tore.  The baby to transfer the blood into their expanding lungs can only be achieved if the baby is kept warm.  


REMEMBER, CHILD BIRTH IS NORMAL AND NATURAL IN 93 TO 95% OF ALL BIRTHS:

You cannot get into trouble for following normal natural birth method of care to the mother and the child. For normal births, it is preferred. Child birth is natural, and can, often be, as easy as 1-2-3. This is if one is educated competently on the fetus to the neonate circulation system and do not interfere, unnecessary, with natural birth processes by tying off the umbilical cord.  

Most animals flee man as man often does not know what they are doing and meddle and cause internal injuries to animals or children, if they touch the placenta and the cord; or touch the mother and child with unclean hands and not having the cleanest clothing on, possible.  Cleanest and warmest room and everything else is what natural birth is all about and just leave the baby as a sealed-unit. Most animals, by their logical sense and care of their offspring, do not get Autism,  CP or HIE, too, as is the case of many human babies being born to modern trends of science, today.


VICTIMS OF ACTIVE MANAGED BABIES:

If you have a compromised and/or impaired child, a victim of "active management" I would appreciate a Sworn Declaration of the facts of the birth, witnessed if possible by others.  The mother seldom knows the care of her child or the management of the umbilical cord.  Some doctors do demonstrations on the umbilical cord by hand-squeezing and letting go. This may cause heart problems of murmurs.  Most mothers, in birth institutions have not had a mirror put up for her own testimony of care and treatment to the child and the child's umbilical cord. Most fathers are kept to holding the mother's hand, so do NOT witness the child's birth or care, so do not know if instruments were used, like forceps, or vacuum, in some situations. Try to have videos and pictures taken of your child's birth, by an experienced person. This is your legal right and doctors and hospitals cannot make policies to prevent educational filming. They too, with your permission, can film the birth, too.

The Sworn-to-be-True Declaration, subject to perjury (a Criminal offense) must be witnessed by some person you authorized to witness the signature of the person making the Birth Declaration.  In Declarations you are stating your belief and opinions or experience. This means all is true and you may name the persons involved in the birth, or who witnessed the birth.


PROTECTING A COMPROMISED CHILD OR ONE VIOLATED BY EARLY UMBILICAL CORD CLAMPING :

I recommend, if I were you, with a victimized child, to File a Writ of Summons , for civil financial compensation, if you found your child weakened after birth, or days, weeks, months, or years later.  Many internal injuries are latent.

Confirm with whom your birth aid studied, their textbooks used, and policies and trends of their licensing boards.  

I would, if I were you, having a impaired and compromised child, consider filing a Laying of Information , using the Criminal Codes for medical trends that really are Child abuse or endangering to a minor, in your country. It may be a novel of an idea, not used before, but in your Civil Action, why not ask for a question and ruling on what is child abuse. The method may be called a Voir Dire.

I would never suggest to another any legal litigation that I have not attempted myself.  I have made official complaints of criminal violation to infants. At the present time the investigations are stayed, not investigated.  This is because I believe that the police are not trained in child birth and unnecessary policies or trends endangering any one child.  The police, at this time, until the matter can be taken to a Judge, are believing the policies, protocols, and procedures of a medical person are above the law and not to be held according to the law, culpable, if a reasonable and educated person on the fetus' to neonate circulation would NOT interrupt the circulation system, or inject anemic babies with vaccinations that are of adult size.

The truth is no person of any professional status or of higher government authority, ever, Not even the Queen, is above the law.  The Nation's laws set the standard of care, and the Judge, the Court determine what is a reasonable action of a prudent person.  Therefore, all policies, and procedures must abide by one standard and that  is " Do No Harm ."  I hope you agree.

If you do not protect your baby or babies, no one else will, either. Using the courts is preferred. It is civil and not an aggressive action to use the courts to assure that no injustice goes unopposed. Freedom come into the Nation's laws.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is for all individuals.  The security of protection and the enforcement for protection is regardless of a persons age, sex, color, race (blood types and mixed races are most prime, European and Asian Blood mixes are most sought after); and no bias as to marital status (rich or poor, married or not married), or to a persons mental or physical disadvantage.  


AGE, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL DISADVANTAGES BY THE CHARTER :

Often the premature babies are most often sought for early cord clamping and many samples of their blood, thereafter, as they have the most stem cells, then do full term babies.  If the premature babies die, after the care of a medical person, or any baby, for that matter,  they are not likely to be investigated as to inappropriate medical care.  This would be to a weakened child as to early umbilical cord clamping.  The medical persons are apparently being covered up by the medical policies to control the Coroners.  The investigation has often been to only allow next of kin to investigate, and they may have a conflict of interest of the care of the newborn child, as a citizen to have equal security of person and care.  


VOLUNTEER AUTOPSY :

It has been my experience to find out that some medical groups, or now hospitals are doing their own volunteer autopsy. This may lead to bias and cover-ups, if a person died of an enhanced death by drugs.  

The hospitals, as they privatize or come under this influence what they do is no one's business, but the policies of an private corporations policies, being self-governing.  The threat is that when they do there own self-governed cause of death, they are releasing no summaries of the results, to the public.  

I am basing this on concerns of my own small community and its attitudes for non-disclosure and cover-up of medical treatment to those others were concerned about, outside of the family's care and treatment to them.  If we protest gassing of a child by her father, tired of looking after a physically injured child, at birth, and he serves time in jail, how can drugging a person to death, be allowed, just because a professional person approved the enhanced death, and against the deceased person's will.  Euthanasia is a forced death, a duty to die, being alleged imposed by family and doctors, agreeing a person has a fatal disease. They may not. And miracles do happen.  In Assisted Deaths, the person is making the choices.

Smaller communities have the most fear of not having any medical persons work in their area, or limited care.  For this reason, rural areas may be subjected into more silence when a loved-one dies, and the medical care or treatment is questionable.  There may have been imposed an enhanced death by insulin shock, injections of heparin, and narcotic drugs, starvation and dehydration, all done to assure a quicker death.

Informed choice is not involved by the policies and values of the medical person.  Many have no faith in God and have no qualms of using the deceased cells and organs for another's cause.  Many Christians do not believe in donating tissue or blood for transplants or science experiments, nor do they accept the same.

For doctors to seek a person's death may be political for profits of the value of the organs to another.  Consequently, this type of death in a controlled environment are not investigated by the police as they believe the doctors have an implied license to kill, or to commit euthanasia, as they see fit.  Some of the doctors, too, do include members of the family in the participation of enhancing a persons death. Such as I seen the holding down of person and injecting them against their known will.    Where the cause of death is by the same persons, or their medical friends, not supervised by the Coroner's office, might many persons be now harvested, and not just the newborn citizen?

The taking of organs, without consent was experienced by the parents of Allan Yurko. See Yurko Project.  If the hospital will allow organs taken without permission for an infant, they will allow organs taken of the deceased without their consent or that of the next of kin.  When a cause of death of autopsy is done, the public will not really know or trust the medical person, the Coroner's office or voluntary investigative cause of death done by any hospital's staff.


CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OF CARE:

Let us consider, if the State, Province, or Territory had the legal means to actually become the legal guardian of the person, they do not take legal action or criminal action against their own negligence of care with that guardianship.  How then do such risk of negligent care get into the Courts, if the care is deemed criminal, as well as civil violations?  


CARE OF THE PATIENT :

How many States, Provinces, and/or Territories, have removed an informed person's right of interventions by removing Next Friend from the legal process.  This means they have stopped any one member of the public of raising a concern.  This means a possible threat to our society not having any voice of possible questionable trends now being take by medical persons? It may mean the undermining of the Nation's duty to the individual of equal protection and security of person, too.

If this is being allowed in any Nation, it makes our medical care services not the best practice possible, least risk of harm, but something other then what we have hoped for in Democratic societies, and our influence on other countries, not democracies. How can we say, "Follow Us" if we show disrespect to others, by age, sex, color, race, marital status, or by mental or physical disadvantage?

These views expressed, of course, our my concerns. But I have arrived at my concerns by witnessing questionable care of my friends or that of their children. This is in birth, in abortions (the embryo and fetus used in science without informed consent, as appropriate discarding forms signed). The animals have more rights and protection then the human being, it seems.

My views are shared on my personal knowledge of medical care services, trends, and policies that are most upsetting because I have witnessed persons threatened of life, or heard of that care provided, in the area's care services, this is for emergency born babies, to the elderly's care.  

In one local situation, the person, an elderly lady, had no real fatal disease, but was alleged to have had, by two collaborating doctors. She was age 76 and yet lives because another doctor reversed the care. This new doctor was called in for holiday reasons of the other doctors, not availabe. He was ethical and honest, apparently. He stopped the increased drugs, to quicken her death.  What bothers me is that there was no internal investigation of other prescribed enhanced death by believed fatal diseases requiring stronger drugs and dehydration by taking the patient's means to beverages and supplements were denied.  Was this 76 year old's Estate a desired Asset?  Who knows?  But if a factor, the right of Next Friend, of any individual having a concern of care of any person, any citizen is now being blocked, at least, in BC, for making a policies, believed, to block a Court's investigation or Inquiry, or Hearing in the care of any Canadian citizen.


VULNERABILITY OF MEDICAL DRUGGED DEATHS IS TO ALL AGE GROUPS:

I have seen others, a male, age of 47, who was on a disability claim and euthanised against his Will.  He, too, was alleged to have a fatal disease but was much improved by food supplements and gentle massage to improve circulation.  His jaundice cleared up and the next day he was walking around and knew his friends, that he did not recognize the day before. The beneficial, and last hope food supplements, eaten of his own free will, were then stopped by the nurses following a doctors policies and the next of kin, his siblings, who were controlling who could visit this sick man, rather than himself, when he was out of the induced coma.  He was never allowed to know his friend were there to take over his care, if he was allowed to dismiss himself out this hospital. That chance never happened, nor to have his own Minister for prayers.   

This person was denied his own privacy to his friends because his siblings were guarding him and denied him those Constitutional Rights. The rights of this man were allowed to be violated on the premises of the hospital, not assuring individual rights were upheld.

It was observed his preferred water and food were taken away, denied him.  The excuse was they did not know of the quality of the sealed products.  But we knew the quality of the drugs, given, they intended his death, not that the nurses giving the drugs, cared about that.

This taking away his needs for life caused him then the dehydration of cells, lost weight, and the drugs given and insulin shock, were closing down his system.  The hospital then would say, natural death, eh.  

It was observed that even by the Palliative Care person was not there for this man's own protection.  But he saw the man struggling against induced insulin shock, leading to a comma but when out of that state the man was known to be rejecting the pills and the IV's. The family, not the patient, were allowing all these care against the man's control and wishes. Had he wanted an assisted death he sure did not share that with his friends.


PATIENT CARE FORMS NOT RESPECTED:

When members of  one's own family have disregarded the persons own signed care form and the hospital allows that change on their premise, against the person's known will, and allowed the enhancing of the person's death, it is a shame on our Nation, or any Nation.  It is a shame to our communities for they do not enhance trust if we become vulnerable.

I saw the hurt in this person's Will to live.  He knew his siblings did not respect his rights and were denying his last Will to his legal rights of equal protection and security of person.


POLICE IGNORE DUTY TO PROTECT, EVEN THE SICK AND VULNERABLE:

When the police were questioned about a persons right to reject medical imposed treatment, the young RCMP officer, no doubt, fearful of his own health care, if needed, did not want to make waves but instead said he believed what was being done to this man, although, seen as against his will, he believed it to be legal putting down a human being, by others, as long as that care was done in the local hospital. Yet, if a person kills their child or another, outside of a hospital, the police press for wrongful death or homicide investigation, even first degree murder charges are considered.

The police, implied doctors and their procedures, protocols, and policies were not accountable for a hearing.  Nor, the aiding and abetting of resented care imposed with the help of siblings, knowing it was not a cure, or treatment, but quickening death.

In this care situation,  the true next of kin and Power of Care, was not there.  The person had never passed his care to his siblings, it had been in the control of his trusted parents, who let him down.  But parents were blocked from receiving  telephone calls by concerned friend who were willing to take over the burden of care, not just leave a burden with the family.  Their offers to take on the care, even in their own homes, was denied to be told to the alleged terminally ill person.  The concerns of the friends were that the siblings were taking away the person's right of his control of drugs and choices who visited and who did not and his privacy respected.  


NEXT FRIEND AND/OR Legal Intervention blocked by the inaction or unwillingness to help by the Lawyers in the Area:

The courts for intervention were said to legally blocked the means for an emergency appeal by Next Friend, to confirm the person's Will and his care. What now is happening in British Columbia, Canada, as to my perception of these shared concerns is that there is no means to question the medical professionals groups, organized, but the individuals are not.  In British Columbia, the sick, the vulnerable have no Next Friends as to relatives collaboration with doctors, when years ago, when others say their friend having the plug pulled, they threatened liability to the hospital, and used the court to take responsibility.  Their friend pulled through and lived many good years, and well too.  That is not perceived to be allowed, these days, the family can collaborate in a person's enhanced death with two collaborating professionals.

The law firms alleged it would take three months to examine the person's care, needs and protection, who was vulnerable to death, at any time. This was if it were true he actually had a fatal disease, as alleged by two collaborating doctors.

In any case, the Application would have cost, and wanted up front, some $20,000. This was too much for the concerns of just friends, to raise in short notice, in time to spare their friend or have a hearing of his Will known of medical care.  

The need to involve the Court was to question if others were causing unconsented to euthanasia-imposed death . When we have collaborating doctors and family siblings controlling the situation what we have is a situation of a "duty to die" for other's benefit, if told they are told they have a fatal disease. The doctor's names, in this man's care, were kept secret, not posted on the euthanasia-door.  They were, then, by the policies of the local hospital,  not being approachable.

Their hospital's policies of care and orders were not allowed to be questioned and stopping voluntary patient's acceptance of supplements, when he was with friends to be there when out of the induced coma. The policies of care, increased drugs, were being required to be followed by practical nurses.  The duty of the head nurse was to assure the increased drugs were followed, on schedule, as to a doctor's prescribed plan.  

All of this, as to my understanding of the situation, was outside of the approved care and Will of the patient, himself.  Others shared their concerns, that they witnessed the patient's own rejection of pills, and the IV's being pulled out.  The Palliative Care worker, assumed their for the patient's well being, was really there to assure his rejection of IV's and pills were NOT successful.  As this man had short term memory problems, he would not be able to call his friends, nor was their a telephone in his room.


MOTIVE OF A CAUSED OR ALLOWED DEATH MAY BE WANT OF THE ORGANS, CELLS AND TISSUES FOR TRANSPLANTS, AND COMPENSATION OF BIG DOLLARS TO THE SUPPLIER OR THE FINDER OF THE SAME:

Since the public is not being protected of no record of where tissues are coming from, and no record where and to whom cells and organs are being shipped, diseased cells may be used, if deemed by two collaborating persons, they are okay.  

This I know to be true from a personal family situation.  A relative's eye was taken out which was alleged diseased with cancer. However, nothing really confirmed that by two opinions before the operation was rushed, the very next day.  After the fact of the removed eye, one lab report said a disease.  One lab report said unknown.  One lab report said no disease.  In this instance, that happened in Vancouver, BC, the doctor was putting in corneas on a regular basis. In fact, 18 transplants in one day, sometimes, were reported, after an Inquiry was held.

One can see how the lab reports were used: One confirmed a disease required the eye taken out, to back up the doctor's opinion.  One report allowed the eye to be used in a transplant as it alleged, in their opinion, the eye was healthy.  The unknown lab report would be ignored.  

What did my relative have? A detached retina and no disease. She had received a bang on the side of the head shortly before her severe headaches. A detached retina could have been corrected. Yet, this doctor, until he was stopped by an honest lab worker reviewing his track record, was actually going to remove my relative's other eye, for precautionary measures, he said.  How evil he was.


THE POWER OF TWO DOCTORS COLLABORATING:

This power of two of medical persons with their diagnoses not questioned, and their orders of the dying's death followed by practical nurses and some registered nurses, may have motive in removal of organs, and even in the enhancement of the death of a person, medically influenced and controlled.  

The motive is in sciences use of stem cells, and other tissues, and organs to be transplanted.  Are they being removed, without informed consent, from the dead, in Canada?  This was found true in other Nations.  What will the ethics of doctors coming from other Nations be, as to our alleged shortage of doctors and doctors, of the past, who were trained in, perhaps, higher ethical standards and duty of respect to others.

Is this organ stealing, no informed consent, happening also to those now involved in the medical operations and in child births, and/or during any autopsy, after death, when done outside of the Coroner's observation?

This is when the hospitals and their own doctors are not questioned by independent medical persons, or the right of any one person to raise a cause of concern to the Courts, as the last hope of keeping the Nation's law active and enforced by duty, implied.

In the taking of cells from the sick, the Interferon cells are what are most sought for cloning of more cells.  Please see on the Internet the story shared by John Moore's case-law .  The settlement, eventually, was out of court.  But the facts of the case were $3 billion dollars were received in conflict of interest by removing cells used in science research.

The cells were taken with no informed consent by the owner of the cells for use in science. The cells removed from blood samples and from a spleen, were used and not burned, as believed what appropriate discarding means.  NOT so.  

The doctors mean it to mean they get the tissue and organs to do with them as they please, and no informed consent. (See the Tri-Council Policy Statement, August 1998).

In this case-law, it was revealed that  Interferon was working in the hairy-celled leukemia tissues and were then taken (no consent) and cloned and were called, something like the MorLine.  Moore wanted  his cut, too.  The facts revealed were that within three months of the patented cell-line, $3 billion dollars was shared by the doctor and his interest in the medical lab, the doctor had referred his patient to. The patient thought the doctor was taking special care of his health.  Actually, special care was for the lab and the doctor's own business ventures.


DO POLITICIANS HAVE MEANS OF HAVING CHECKS AND BALANCES ON THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL GROUP:

Today, the politicians are allowing bogus policies to excuse early umbilical cord clamping. Many of the organ groups are private enterprise. The stem cell blood banks are on the stock market exchange.  What is happening is they have no respect to families, today. The woman's body is being used to give birth to a child where there is a conflict of interest to do unnecessary interruption of the circulation system. The motive is to take the placenta and blood trapped in it for stem cells. The politicians believed this does not hurt or weaken the vulnerable child.

This gives opportunity for the placenta to be sold and all its tissue and cells, to the highest bidder and the parents none-the-wiser to a weakened child, or even to a child that died.

The hospitals are silent and put pressure on the early cord clamping to be their policies.  But when an ethical doctor stops early clamping, there is seen a reduction of revived babies, today, in Canada, the revived babies are 1 in 16.  Is harvesting of any person's body, without means to defend ourselves, legal?  Is it Just?  

Only the Victims and their Next of Friend, who just may be the parent, can stop this violation and breach of fiduciary trusts now going on, and apparent, at least to my research and information supplied by others on medical concerns.


SHARING CONCERNS AND SHARING IN BURDENS:

If you have similar concerns, on conception to the birth of a child and to the death of any citizen and you believe that the rights for equal protection to all, was not respected, please feel free to write.

Again, if you can, any donation would be greatly appreciated, as well, to support my financial needs of the costs of running a web server and to continue to help others,not informed how to have legal rights to natural birth education and who now have impaired and compromised children.


WEB SERVER SPACE - HOSTING FOR YOUR OWN WEB PAGE:

If you wish to support my efforts by wanting your own  personal web page and your own email address, please contact me. I will give services for a limited special:   $5.00 USA funds , per month and for a one year's contract, paid in advance. Registration of the Web Name is extra.     My services do not have advertising or pop ups.  I am also able to optimize your web pages if you are seeking donations for a compromised child or you are rising funds for legal-case-development.


Thank you for visiting www.lotusbirth.com  Please travel down the Table of Contents for other titles of concern.

Contact: dyoung@pris.ca