Emergency Birth

EMERGENCY BIRTH -- Let Common Sense Be Your Guide -- Why Should Logic Change if a Mother Birth's in a Hospital or with a Medical Person?

Some ambulance attendance and 9-1-1 counsellors are being trained in the trend to clamp a pulsating umbilical cord. Even if they are doing that skillfully and with sterile instruments, they are likely not in a situation to undue the harm of causing a child to go into shock by their judgment wrong as to a satisfied need of the child to full blood transfusion. That transfusion was stopped by the medic guessing when he/she felt it was alright to clamp a pulsating cord, and imposed their judgment call on the child of another.
ONE WEB SITE WITH QUESTIONABLE DIRECTIVES, IT HAS A FEW GOOD POINTS, BUT READ BETWEEN-THE-LINES AT:

http://www.healthcentral.com/mhc/top/000009.cfm

The MEDICAL PERSON intended to walk away from long term effects on the child having possible subtle to serious latent internal injuries. The medic has simply satisfied themselves that the child lived, as doctors and nurses do this all the time, don't they? So why not them, too. That was the explanation given to me recently by a Red Cross Instructor of safety teaching. Herself, very pregnant and unsure if she would do for her child delayed clamping, but was allowing medics to be exposed to hasty clamping of a still pulsating umbilical cord. Herself she was "trained" and knew to allow for gravity to assist the child down the birth channel, but her students were being told to force the woman on her back the most risk-taking of positions to damage the child, as the pelvic bones are not opened the widest in flat or semi-sitting position births. While this woman was educated factually of gravity assisting the birth, her students would not be advised the Red Cross publication was dominating false teachings on position and clamping of a still pulsating umbilical cord. The lady birthed her own child, safely, in a hospital at the end of April, 2002. It is not known if she had control over the infant's life-line.
I have reviewed some Emergency birth directives, of current editions. They are not careful as the 1940 book I have and a book published in the 1960's on Emergency births. These books did NOT direct anyone to do hasty clamping on a still pulsating umbilical cord. Facts of Science to NOT change, unless motives have changed and ethics and accountability to the law have changed.
The emergency birth message was straight forward and simple: Birth in the warmest room of the home. Have clean towels for the baby to be wiped down. Do nothing with the cord until the placenta is expelled. If after the cord ceased pulsating, use boiled scissors, boiled string, for tying the cord and cutting it. Iodine was put also on the string and the scissors and on just the area of the skin where the cut would take place. Mucus was dealt with by holding the child on an angle, or by its heels, and removing mucus with a clean towel, or clean fingers, gentle removing mucus from the mouth and nose. There was no gagging of the child by syringe bulbs, causing heart attacks and strokes to the child gagging on such invasive treatment.
This tying off the cord and the cutting, of course, is an unnecessary amputation when the cord will dry and fall off with the placenta put in a cheese cloth and kept close to the baby until the cord dries and falls off in two or three days. No infections, and the child has all its blood inside its body, and all is well. This rather then the blood in some research lab's test tube.
Such was the care of my two parents, still living, and pushing 90, born in log cabins, on the farm. No clamping cutting of the cord is likely the reason of their strong immunities and long life. Not so their first born daughter, likely a victim of giving blood to the II World War, as my mother has NO recollection of what the doctors did to any of her four children, as is the case of most births in hospitals of any woman of the past, or today. Women in the past as well as the present were NEVER educated on their body or the birth of the child, or the infant's circulation system and the care of the placenta and cord after the baby's birth.
The facts are, there is no need to change no clamping or cutting of the infant's umbilical cord, at any time, in any Nation. The reasons for doing so must be justified and before a court for violations of the child's rights to have remained on the pulsating cord, as long as nature was doing something of benefit to the child.
Opinions of doctors and nurses when to stop that benefit must be reasoned on a case by case basis involving both doctor and the nurse involved in violating the child's rights, even if they say no harm was done. No outward appearance of harm, such as a physical deforming was not done by hasty clamping. But internal, that is likely and associated with the various mysterious diseases of our Nation, today. The facts are otherwise, of subtle and internal latent problems that surface days, months, or years later. The medical persons/s had no good reason to interfere with the natural. You cannot not sue natural process. But clamping, tying on a pulsating cord are NOT warranted, in most instances. If a cord broke during birth, that may need a clamp, and the child can still benefit from vein to vein transfusion of its own blood, if this is a hospital birth.
There was factually no reason to change the method of no clamping or cutting for a hospital practice, and motives for the change, are dubious, and not facts of science. It is time efficiency, discrimination to weaken the child, or to take the baby's blood, of the likely motives involved. The facts of the change came likely during the First World War, 1914-1918, (See blood history) from home births to hospitals. Blood is likely the reason for the change and not necessarily that the doctors wanted the midwives and next door neighbor's low paid help to the birthing mother. But, putting the mother in secrecy of care behind closed doors, when that was not done in home births, provided likely the Nation to take the baby's blood. Millions of babies born, and a cup of blood from each of them, put in a blood bank, all adds up to a tidy supply of healthy blood. But the strong were/are picking on the weak who had/vave no self-defense.
It was during the First World War that drugs could keep the blood from clotting for many days. Today, with freezing, the blood separated into components may keep indefinitely. The transfusions before the chemicals to keep the blood thin, and NOT to clot, had been done live, vein to vein.
When the mothers went into the hospitals, during the First War, they were brain washed it was safer. Many had no choice to believe that for there was a political and concentrated attack to state that midwife services were unsafe. Yet, no evidence supports hospital births with doctors were safer then unassisted or midwife assisted births.
The facts are babies were mixed up in hospitals. Blood infections in cut cord caused the death of many. Only the use of antibiotics spared children born in the hospitals. The births were unwitnessed except by nurses who did as they were told by the hospital administration boards. Some mothers being drugged during the birth, woke up to be told "their" baby died. Many had to believe that by faith, and not by facts now available of DNA testing. Some persons today, suspect, they have another family out there, if they wanted to investigate their suspicions they are a mixed up child.
References to Emergency care of a child's birth comes from: Modern Home Medical Adviser, Edited by Morris Fishbein, M.D., Collier, editions 1935, to 1940. pages 171-173; Good Housekeeping's Guide for Young Homemakers, Harper & Row, 1966, pages 45-47
The rule here ought to be, on the pulsating umbilical cord, "If it is NOT broke, don't interfere by fixing something you know "nothing" or "little" about." After all, how will the meddling medic, or EMS, who clamps a cord off or a doctor, in an home birth provide for a blood transfusion if the child goes limp and is suffocating for lack of both fluids and oxygen that was being provided naturally by a pulsating umbilical cord, they stopped. One evidence of full delayed clamping is for of the child is it is not dehydrated and has a good pee. And it thrives and has good immunities. This is also acknowledged in Dr. Gunther's conclusions, on this web site.
This hasty clamping may be a situation that they did NOT think standing on their feet. What they were doing is being indifferent, in absence of proof of the facts of the necessity to clamp a functioning organ, for want of good facts of science. Fears and myths that are absent in facts put a person in a vulnerable position of being sued if they interfere with nature. You do not copy bad medical practice, no matter who directs you to do so. You report the wrongful medical statements, legally, as is necessary to stop it from teaching others.
The person would be interfering with natural process if they hand squeeze, tie off, or clamp a pulsating umbilical cord.
I would think even emergency medics have a duty to do more research and review something that is not natural or interfering with the natural. So medics trained to clamp the pulsating cord, if they act with invasive management of the child's lifeline are noted by by-standers or witnesses, are going to have include the author and publisher of the book and their original instructor of their certified course, that told them or directed them to do that method of questionable interruption of the infant's circulation system. Most books are likely to have a disclaimer putting the liability on the person doing the practice only accountable and on their own for their own judgment and decision.
This accountability because by the means of the clamp they have imposed a treatment of care on the child. By positioning the mother, flat on her back, and other wrongful teaching, for them to catch the baby, they have forced the mother to birth on her back, forced her not to be allowed to relieve herself, by telling her she cannot go to the washroom. They have taken control over the mother's body, that I liken to a rape. She is NOT sick. Her choices should be her "own." NOT an order by a medic. It is not information to the mother to make the choice herself, which this information should have been taught to the mother, long before an emergency situation is taking place.
Birth, again, is NOT a sickness, but a natural event. But in a hospital birth, the woman is treated like a basket-case, transquilizers, pain killers and she is not truly educated or informed. She is being manipulated.
On the side of caution, to go for natural birth, one cannot sue any person who steps back and allows nature to take its course, in a normal birth situation. This is done by allowing natural care of the birth to present itself, you cannot and should not stop the birth of the child, happening. After all, long before there were direct-entry midwifes, doctors, and medics, mother's were birthing without assistance -- no clamps, no syringe bulbs, and the mother chose her position to birth her child, no knives to the mother's vagina area, risking nicking or cutting the infant's scalp, causing infections to one or both.
Books that have directed medics to interfere with the pulsating cord are put out by the Canadian Red Cross, First Aid, The Vital Link, Second Edition. Revised Edition Contains Year 2000 CPR Guideline Updates, Section: Anatomy and Physiology of Childbirth. They state: "Complications are rare, with most births being a normal, natural process." Chapter 13, page 162 Sudden Medical Conditions. First Aid, Emergency Childbirth, Care during labor: 1. Call EMS immediately. 2. Help the woman be as comfortable as possible, typically by lying her back with knees raised or on her side. (only on her side is a safe position, see Poster, Don't Clamp the Cord , that demonstrates the pelvic bones area. The tail bone points inward. If it pointed outward, we wouldn't be able to sit, comfortably. It is best if the tailbone is in a more open position by a standing, a forward sitting position.
Flat on the back or semi-sitting is the most harmful of positions to birth a child, but traditionally, doctors for their own convenience forced a mother to birth that way and on a high narrow operating table, feet tied in stirrups, and they often then sliced the woman's womb to make the opening of the vaginal wider and for easier to put forceps on the baby to pull the baby out. That is an unnatural intervention of natural child birth. See Also Anatomy of the Human Body for the description of the pelvic bone and joints and muscles that will move for the child's birth.
Page 163, "If a bulb syringe is available, suction the baby's mouth and nose to ease breathing. If not, use a cloth and gently wipe away from the mouth and nose. Only the latter, the cloth, is safe for the baby if the cloth is clean. The bulb syringe can cause a baby to gag and have a heart attack. It is NOT normal. The bulb syringe is an intervention of the natural. Ever gag at the dentist's office? You can take control but the baby can't. Gagging may cause the baby to be breathing on its own before proper perfusion of its lungs with blood and fluids, and the blood oxygenized still from the placenta, if it is still attached.
Care of the Mother after birth: 1) Keep the mother warm. (True) 2) Leave the cord in place and do not pull on it. "Clamp or tie the cord while waiting for the placenta to be delivered." This latter is criminal assault directives on the child if that cord is still pulsating, firm and red. Why? They fail to mention the cord should cease to pulsate and to do this treatment is unnecessary, in any case.
They do state do NOT cut the cord. It makes no difference to cut the cord or not, after the clamp has done the damage. Let the placenta and cord drop onto a clean towel, and keep this near the baby. The doctor will want to examine it later. True statement. But they have the placenta, likely full of blood, while it remains attached to the baby, as they were NOT specific to state leave the placenta umbilical cord alone until all pulsation ceases, or for the placenta to be expelled before touching the cord.
All that is really necessary is to put the placenta and cord still attached to the baby in a clean towel, for the doctor to examine and the mother to decide if the cord is clamped or cut, or NOT. Her choice.
These medic books state "DO NOT CUT THE UMBILICAL CORD." That the ARRIVING EMS PERSONNEL WILL TAKE CARE OF THIS. Again, the EMS are trained to do invasive treatment and impose this on a child when cutting or clamping the cord are NOT necessary procedures but are interventions and violations of informed choice no harm done by NOT clamping or cutting the umbilical cord ever.
WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION BOARD'S OCCUPATIONAL, A Reference and Training Manual, "WORKSAFE" in their Appendix A, Emergency Childbirth and Infant Resuscitation, they make a time statement on labor, limiting it to 12 to 15 hours for a "first" child. By putting a time period on birth is determining what is normal or not normal, and all children are different. But they correctly state the mother should be placed on her side. But they state on her "left" side, as this relieves pressure on the aorta and vena cava and will ensure that the baby has a good blood supply.
Personally, I always have slept on my "right" side, thinking there was less weight on the heart to function better then having weight on it. At another source, the putting the mother on the left side was for the convenience of the ambulance attendant to look after the mother, if transported in the ambulance. So more information is needed to know what the facts are on the pressure on the heart, left side or right side? But I do agree, on the side is much better then flat on the back or semi-sitting that keeps the pelvic bones and joints closed by 30 percent. These latter positions, then, in some cases, requires the cutting of the woman's womb, leading to extracting the child out of the womb, like they were a tooth. Risking of course brain damage to the child or muscle damage to spine. In other cases, the child had mid-forceps used and the oxygen deprived, see the Ing Case-Law at connected to the Chow Case Law firm.
Worksafe's book, did correctly state to watch for "maternal distress -- shock from loss of blood and dehydration from a long, difficult labor. The correctly state to watch for "Fetal distress--if the baby is deprived of oxygen while it is still in the uterus, it will pass meconium (feces) into the amniotic fluid (the meconium will stain the amniotic fluid yellow, green, or dark brown, depending on how much the baby passed).
Meconium...it is present in the amniotic fluid but many doctors and medical persons have used the meconium staining as an escape-goat to justify immediately clamping the infant's umbilical cord. That is not a legal justification to clamp the infant of its pulsating cord, and must be questioned for both civil and criminal liability.
The meconium is NOT in the blood and oxygen in the cord. The meconium is factually stated above, as poop in the amniotic fluid, and this information is known by the Workman's Compensation author's, it is likely known to all medical persons involved in maternity matters, or out to be. Poop, as above is indication the infant was put into distress. Drugs can put an infant into distress, even some herbs or home-treatments taken by the mother, tired of being pregnant, and rushing nature along. A distressed infant is one that fears it is dying, so close to be being born.
Dying infant: Drugs other then herbs taken by the mother and given in a hospital situation: Oxtyocin, Pitocin, Misoprostol, and Cytotec. Facts of science can test them present in the infant's amniotic fluids, urine after birth, and in samples of the tissues of the placenta. If the mother's system was poisoned by giving her drugs during the labor stages, then, the child was fearing for its life by such poisoning. You have heard the expression, "Scared the Shit out of him!" Well, scared persons, fearing death, shit themselves...a natural process, and observed in hung persons. Babies in distress will have the presence of meconium; yet the cord must not be clamped while it is still pulsating. The child has made it this far. Allow the baby to have the benefit of whatever oxygen and blood transfusion nature is yet attempting to give the child for its survival. The blood being denied the baby will not be denied to be sent to cord stem cell research and internal lab experimentation.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT, A Text for EMT-As and EMT-Intermediates, Third Edition, Nancy L. Caroline, M.D. On page 514, Obstetrics and Gynecologic Emergencies. Normal Childbirth, to quote: "As a general rule babies in America are born in hospitals under sterile and controlled conditions. True, and my first experience it was a terrifying, horrifying, frightening experience, never been there before, and knew no one. My children were born in a unfeeling hospital. Only my 2nd child's birth was positive, but it was still in the traditional rape position, flat on the back and on a high operating table. My mother's or my father's birth were born in a farm home, lots of germs around, no electricity, no bleached water. My mother was the first born of ten children, and still living as of this date, May 19, 2002, and pushing 90 on June 25, 2002. We are conditioned and brain washed to birth in a hospital today. It is our security blanket but is it safer? It will take a couple of decades to re-educate and give women the confidence to birth normally and naturally and skillfully, using the technology we have today, to video the baby's birth.
Dr. Caroline continues, "...the most carefully laid plans are thwarted by Mother Nature, and the pregnant woman finds herself in an advanced stage of labor without sufficient times to reach the hospital for delivery. On such occasions, the EMT may be called upon to assist the mother in delivering the baby. There is an evaluating of the mother to determine if there is time to transport her to a hospital or if an home birth is eminent. On page 516, Caroline advocates control over the mother's body, page 515-516, she states, "A word of caution: If the mother tells you she feels as if she has to move her bowels, DO NOT PERMIT HER TO GO TO THE TOILET." Capital emphasis Dr. Caroline's.
Dr. Caroline continues, for in fact it is the baby and not her bowels that she has to move. Once delivery is imminent, furthermore, there is no way to prevent nature from taking its course, and any attempt to delay delivery will only result in harm or death to the baby and possibly to the mother as well. True. I have a business acquaintance and her birth, so her mother told her, was delayed by the nurse tying her mom's legs together to prevent my friend's birth. She feels there are a few things she cannot do well, likely, associated with her birth being delayed until the doctor arrived to catch his fee, I mean Karen. Nurses did not catch too many babies, or they were in trouble. They could do everything else, but NOT catch babies. Only doctors could.
While the latter statement is true, as to not permitting the mother to go to the toilet, again, I would rather see the mother determining the choice, being told the facts, she may well deliver the baby in the toilet, and not to worry about shooting from both ends, nature being in control, not man or woman. I am sure the mother would be prepared to catch her baby if it is coming rather then bowel and urine release. Perhaps, in some situations, all happen together. So What? That's nature.
DEALING WITH THE FRIGHTENED UNEDUCATED AND UNPREPARED FATHER:
On page 516, Dr. Caroline states, "Sending a panicky husband off to boil several gallons of water, for example, is often a useful maneuver; there is no need for boiling water in the delivery of a baby, but the preparation thereof keeps the father-to-be busy in the kitchen." That is unfair to the father not to be watching over the care of his wife and the child to be delivered. That is deceit.......Nancy does state on page 520, after a presumed healthy no complications birth, "And don't forget to tell her husband that you will not be needing all that boiling water." But he likely missed the magical and miracle event he and his wife will regret, likely, the rest of their lives.
Position of Birth , again, wrongfully advocated by an M.D.: Page 516, Dr. Caroline states, "Whether childbirth will be in bed, on a canvas stretcher, or on the wheeled stretcher, lay a clean sheet over the surface, and have the mother lie down on it--flat on her back, with knees flexed, thighs spread apart, and feet flat on the surface." Again, it is wrong to position a mother on her back. That is simply a power-position of the medic to make them feel in control and in need to assist a woman give birth. The truth is the woman can be in control, and catch her own baby. (See all this web site: http://www.lamaze.com/birth/choices/articles/0,9474,167805_67431,00.html
and this one for the position of the baby in the womb. http://www.cefcares.org/fetal/position.htm
Even nice doctors who did NOT clamp the cord early got stung on this position of flat on the back and control on the woman's body, and they did not step back, even until retirement, of doing that, not, in this instance, were they thinking on their feet. It is not maliciously said of them, but a fact of how a some women feel by not having the control in the birth position, and it was cruel punishment, from my perspective as a woman. It was as painful, no doubt, to the child, as it was for the mother.
And, the baby is in risk of endangerment of that "stranger" who will determine the child's fate or its betterment by the timing of the clamping. They intend to clamp on the pulsating umbilical cord and before the natural birth is completed, the afterbirth, and the cord ceases to pulsate. The position, the clamping -- All are interventions -- unnatural, and done without informed consent or choice to know no harm done by there NOT being done.
Dr. Caroline states, on page 516, "Remember, most women do not plan to have their babies at home or in a department store or at a football game, so mother is bound to be at least a little nervous and upset."
I say, the mother and the father should not be nervous or upset for a home birth, they should be preparing for a home birth, skilled trained, if the birth is anticipated and expected to be normal. Their choice of location. And they should be able to protect themselves from harm of strangers at emergency births, outside of the security and safety of the home prepared for a birth of a child, at any time. Every mother should be prepared to birth herself, in an emergency situation, and the father too.
Dr. Caroline states about holding the baby's head, not to prevent the delivery of the head, but to support it. I wonder if all persons know the strength of their hands and some may be causing neck and nerve damage to the spine, if they do anything other then hold a towel to catch the baby to prevent it falling on the floor if the mother is placed on a high -rise table. Some actually advocate putting a mother on a kitchen table for an emergency birth. That is NOT for the baby or the mother's security but for the convenience of the person "catching" the baby." If the mother was in a position with support to catch her own baby, no one's hands but the mother's should be on this child, or that of the spouse, if trained and skilled NOT to be twisting the child's head and neck causing interventions of a natural birth.
Dr. Caroline states, "BE SURE THE HEAD IS NOT ENCLOSED IN THE AMNIOTIC SAC. ??? (Capitals Dr. Caroline's). "Occasionally, the bag of waters does not break during labor, and the baby is born still enclosed inside the amniotic sac. If this occurs, use a clamp or your finger to puncture the sac, and peel it away from the baby's nose and mouth, for otherwise the infant will asphyxiate. " I disagree. On this opinion, I say, the sac should be taken away if the water is broken and the sac is going to act like a plastic bag and suffocate the child. So, I disagree, as that is against nature, the water will break soon. And, if the placenta is still attached to the womb, and the umbilical cord is pulsating, the baby is getting its organized blood from the placenta, that is refreshing the infant's blood with oxygen from the mother's body. The water is softening the entrance to the baby, I say, leave the natural alone for the full delivery. In an animal birth, after the infant is on the ground, falling but cushioned with water, the creature puts a hoof through the amniotic sac and makes it way out, just fine. Generally, this is true, if no human is messing with nature.
Facts of logic: The baby is NOT prepared to breathe instantly in all births. The presence of the amniotic water is filled likely with oxygen. The baby is not breathing through its nose and mouth, at this time. So I question any intervention. Is the baby "blue" is NOT mentioned for the need of breaking the water sac. And if you read Why Babies Cry, at www.cordclamping.com by Dr. Morley, states a baby is slightly blue, normally, during birth because their blood does not go through the lungs, not getting oxygen, but is heavily relying on the mother's body to give oxygen to the child. Depending on the drugs she is given and the harshness of her labor, oxygen can be deprived to her, thus, the baby. Most babies pink up with full blood volume and oxygen going into their lungs. This is when the umbilical cord ceases to pulsate, naturally. The child when it senses its space of freedom is going to kick and move its arms to broader space because of no womb curtailments.
On page 517, Dr. Caroline is using the intervention of the BULB SYRINGE. Again, I do not know if this is a new Bulb Syringe or a cleaned-up one, but what about the natural, a very clean cloth that is NOT invasive to cause gasping to a child, not yet breathing on its own.
DELIVERY OF THE UPPER SHOULDER, correctly Dr. Caroline states, " DO NOT PULL!" Right on. Good.
BABIES ARE SLIPPERY P 518. " Thus the emerging infant must be held gently but firmly and carefully set down as soon as possible on a sterile drape between the mother's legs. " Good, that's okay.
"The baby should be lower than the mother's birth canal, so that blood will not drain by gravity out of the baby and back into the placenta." But, this I question. The heart is causing the circulation system in the baby's system. Gravity only makes it easier to pump blood into the baby, rather to pump it up hill. However, if the placenta is still attached, the arteries with carbon dioxide are going to have the baby's blood force that blood to go uphill to get back to the placenta for oxygenization through the mother's body. And the baby being held down is going to get cold. It should be wrapped in a warm blanket and put on the mother's tummy or chest, as far as the cord can reach. Massage the baby, wipe it down with a warm towel. The baby, still on the pulsating cord, will get the blood in the placenta into its own body, and the transfusion, as stated above and acknowledged by Dr. Morley can take take 19 to 20 minutes. See Also Vivian Hodgkinson's personal statement of 15 to 20 minutes pulsation for her children's home births, No. 12, List of Exhibits. Also Dr. Gunther's report.
My views of this are by what is likely natural and while gravity helps the infant's heart pump the fluids into its body, and the blood is still going back into the placenta, and being cleaned up by oxygen taken by the placenta, that may still be attached to the mother's womb. Nature, knowing when the placenta is NOT filled with blood, the placenta cord ceases to pulsate when the vessels inside the baby's body close down, after full blood volume and pressure is attained by the baby's own unique system and needs.
When does Oxyotcin Really Come In, Naturally?:The pulsation to the placenta stop, the contractions continue, as oxyotcin now prepares the flow of milk into the mother's breasts, and the placenta is usually birthed with 5 to 15 minutes after the child's birth, if NOTHING INTERVENES WITH THE NATURAL PROCESS.
It is important to likely note when oxytocin actually comes in, and if WHO's statement (1998) is true it is toxic to the baby to absorb into its body, then Oxytocin doesn't naturally happen until the placenta and baby are out...so Don't clamp the cord until the placenta is out.....so not to interfere with nature.
WHO was stating if Oxytocin is given the mother, immediate clamping is mandatory, 1998. There's the reason and few mother's are being warned not to accept this artificial hormone into the body before the placenta is expelled. Yet, they do it to rush the expulsion of the placenta, giving it to the mother when the head of the baby emerges. That is an intervention of nature. All the facts are NOT being told the mother and we likely need a chemist on the changes in the blood with this drug and the increase of red cells is all tied in with this method of care to the modern day-birthing mom, trusting blindly in no harm done.
Dr. Caroline on page 518, states, "When you do set the baby down, place it on its side with its head lower than its body to facilitate drainage of mucus from the nose and mouth. Use a sterile gauze to wipe away any blood or mucus from the baby's mouth and nose."That is Good, but then she says, "Then SUCTION OUT THE MOUTH AND NOSTRILS as you did earlier, with the bulb syringe " (Fig. 32-10)...that was when only the head was birthed, that may have caused gagging to the child, forcing it to breathe on its own, before fully expansion of its lungs.
That I say is harmful directives, and must be questioned of interference of the natural...breaking of the fluid protecting the baby, still breathing naturally on its umbilical cord, with its head only emerged, p. 517. Is this logical? Would Nature approve?
Think about it. The child's head is only delivered, and it is yet enclosed in the water sac and there can be likely observed the cord if there is beating of the heart. Here we have likely the endangerment of the child to be caused to breath when the sac, by nature was NOT yet broken. The child was not yet prepared to take that breath, its lungs not yet expanded for air, or protected with adequate blood volume and pressure for this on-their-own breathing.
The release of carbon dioxide and getting fresh oxygen is still continuing if the cord is pulsating and the placenta still attached inside the mother. The baby is being still nourished outside of the womb, as it was inside the womb, by its organ the placenta and the umbilical cord, functioning still as a team, if using the mother's body to nourish the child...or poison the child, if drugs were used in the third stages of labor.
APGAR SCORE: The baby is born, hopefully fine, but there is a tradition, since 1950's, of testing the baby, called the Apgar Score, Dr. Caroline, on page 519, states the 5 points, 2 marks each are as follows and I have added to the comments of Dr. Caroline's mnemonic aid to remember the association with the Dr. Apgar's name, being: Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiratory Points, and she advocates keeping this score system in a wallet of all medics that may be called to assist an emergency birth: See Also Apgar Score
A - Appearance (the baby's color, from blue to pink). (0 points for pale or blue), (1 point of body pink, outside extremities blue, meaning the skin tissues gave up oxygen for vital organs, the lungs and the heart) (2 points completely pink).
P - Pulse (0 for no pulse) (1 point below 100) (2 points over 100)
G - Grimace meaning the baby's irritability when handled or lightly slapped) (0 points no response) (1 point some grimace) (2 points cries heartily)
A - Activity (the baby's muscle tone: Is it moving actively or flaccid?) (0 Limp) (1 some flexion of extremities) (2 very active motion of legs and arms - a real fighter). Limp, or what some call a "flat" baby may mean brain oxygen damaged, nerve damaged by twisting on the baby neck and head or pulling the baby out in the world, likely causing the baby to be permanently damaged, a cerebral palsy child.
R - Respiratory effort (Is the baby breathing and crying well). (0 absent) (1 slow, irregular baby having insufficient oxygen and fluids for strength to get oxygen to the brain steadily and to all extremities) (2 Good, strong cry, continues to breathe with no difficulties, does not cry once, and stops).
Dr. Caroline states a healthy child will have a score between 7 to 10. This is the first test. There can be several tests. She states if the infant has a score of 4 to 6, it means that his vital functions are moderately depressed and he may require special care. This child is likely going to have average abilities in school, and the mother and father will NOT get financial assistance for tutoring the child, as most average children will score for IQ of 50. You have to be below that or physically impaired to get financial assistance. Those with IQ of 50 or so, can earn a living moderately in physical labors, driving a truck, and so forth, and have a normal family life, in most instances. Is that an good excuse to get away with rendering a child average, and deprive it likely of its genius cells? Again, whose child is this?
Dr. Caroline states any child with an Apgar score with less then six, should be transported immediately without delay to the hospital.
CUTTING THE UMBILICAL CORD, PAGE 519. Dr. Caroline states, "Cutting the umbilical cord separates the baby from the placenta, which is no longer required for survival once the baby is out of the womb." Again, whose child is this? Nancy's, the Medic's...that they are rushing nature? This statement indicates to me that Dr. Caroline did not study well the fetus / infant circulation system and the functioning of the placenta and the pulsating cord that can continue to pulsate for 15 to 20 minutes but only if the medical person does not stop the pulsation by unnecessary interventions: tying off the cord, hand-squeezing and letting go, or clamping.
But Nancy is not necessarily associating cutting and clamping lumped together. She clarifies more, on page 519...."There is no particular hurry about cutting the cord, and indeed it is best to wait a few minutes so that the contracting uterus can squeeze the maximum amount of blood from the placenta into the baby. This can only happen if the baby's umbilical cord is NOT clamped....the cord blood can only be squeezed as far as the clamp, and it will not pass beyond the clamp into the baby. The clamp has caused the interruption of flow of blood and likely oxygen to allow the baby to have the best chance of optimal health.
Dr. Caroline does state, "So take your time getting set up. You will need two sterile clamps or two lengths of sterile umbilical tape (with a third clamp or piece of tape handy in case of problems) and a sterile scissors. How prepared they are.
Her instructions are: "Handling the cord gently, apply the first clamp to the umbilical cord about 8 inches from the baby's navel; if you are using umbilical tape, use a square knot and bring the knot down slowly on the cord so that the cord will not be torn. "
"Then take the second clamp or piece of tape and repeat the procedure about 2 inches closer to the baby's navel. When both clamps or ties are secured, use your sterile scissors to cut the cord between them. " Dr. Caroline has NOT heard of the Lotus method of treatment, which is no clamping or cutting ever of the umbilical cord. This method is never mentioned within the medical circles. Yet, it is the mothers' right to be told about this choice.
The Benefits of not clamping or cutting ever, are: no airborne germs can get in the tiniest crack of a clamped or tied of cord; no risk of stopping the flow of blood and oxygen to the child too soon; the baby is assured of getting all its umbilical cord blood to full satisfaction of the owner/infant of the blood and all its nutrients, more valuable and precious to the infant/owner, then gold. Its quality and longevity of life are likely depended on that life-giving blood and oxygen if no medical person causes an unnecessary intervention. And Dr. Caroline, correctly directs the clamping is NOT a rush. Dr. Caroline does omit to state the cord should be NOT be pulsating as a condition of any clamping being the choice of the mother's. She does not specify what the cord should look like before clamping: white/silver, limp and no pulsation, not even just a tad. Then you do not need the clamp, just cut, if cutting is going to be done with consent of informed parents, they can have no clamping or no cutting, ever of the child's cord.
Dr. Caroline states the final care of the baby. "Now that the baby is separated from its mother (cutting of the cord), it can be wrapped in a sterile blanket and placed on the mother's abdomen for warmth. Have your partner keep an eye on the baby while you prepare for delivery of the placenta." Now, here I disagree.
The baby can at birth be wrapped in this towel, while yet on its pulsating cord and given immediately to the mother, if the cord is of normal length, and most are of 24 to 36 inches.
Naturally, the cord should not be pulled on to give the baby to the mother, lest it break and the child is deprived of its cord blood. Delivery of the placenta can be a fact after the cord has ceased to pulsate, and in fact to severe the cord before the placenta is born is an intervention of the natural and complete birth of the baby and its own organ, the placenta. Dr. Caroline does not mention standing up to use gravity to expel the placenta, and natural choice.
When the placenta comes naturally still attached to the baby, that is a complete birth. Keep the baby and the placenta together as one unit, until separated by nature, called the Lotus birth. The no clamping method was likely what the Queen Mother had, who died at the age of 101. Those were quality home births and today's births, are contrived, using drugs. Today's births interfere with the placenta and the child, interfere with blood transfusion to the child, and are unnatural.
Medical Practices must be reviewed and the mother educated, and the father, to be encouraged to stick closely with nature, as much as possible, for normal births. C-section babies, can have a natural birth, as far as the separation of the placenta to the child. Again see, List of Exhibits, No. 9, Dr. T. Paletonen , this web site.
DELIVERY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PLACENTA: With full delivery of the baby, the second stage of labor is complete. The third stage of labor -- is the delivery of the placenta, or afterbirth--begins. There are brief return of labor pains, as the uterus under goes rhythmic contractions to expel the placenta. The process may be within minutes of a normal birth, or take 30 minutes or more. If the mother fails to deliver the placenta within 30 minutes, it is recommended she be transported to the hospital. Again, there is a rush of nature. At the hospital, the mother's womb is likely to be scraped, and that can cause placenta problems of a scarred womb. The Eskimo way is to put two fingers down the throat, and the mother coughs and out comes the placenta, expelled by the coughing. No drugs.
The facts are, gravity, too, can help the mother, so if she is not bleeding she can choose to walk around, after all, birthing a child is not an operation, but a natural event. Many mothers have birthed in fields, and walked home.
"If the placenta is not complete, it means that part of it remained in the uterus, and the remnants will have to be removed by the physicians in order to prevent bleeding and infection, "so says Dr. Caroline. The facts are the mother must be cautioned that any scraping of her womb can also cause miscarriages of the next child by that scarring of her womb, she may want to wait until the next day........to see if the expulsion does not come naturally. Her choice, informed of risks of going into her womb.

AFTER CARE OF THE MOTHER: "The delivery of the placenta is normally accompanied by a sudden gush of blood from the vagina, reflecting hemorrhage from the exposed blood vessels in the uterine wall where the placenta separated from it. Normally this bleeding amounts to about half a pint, 1 cup of blood, and it stops promptly by itself. But on occasion, bleeding can be more profuse or prolonged. It all depends if the mother was anemic and sickly when she gave birth as to bleeding. Dr. Caroline suggest as natural method of massaging of the uterus. I question this as to creating small clots, but she says to massage the uterus which will be palpable as a grapefruit-sized mass in the abdomen. Use a circular motion to rub that mass lightly until you feel it constrict and become firmer. I question another rubbing a mother's body. The mother can do things like that herself unless she asks you to do that on her own. Remember, in this case, the placenta is still filled with the baby's blood by 20 to 50 percent, because the medic clamped the cord, so there is risk of rupture and mixing of the mother and the baby's blood together, so massaging on a full placenta is endangering, at this time to the mother.
Dr. Caroline states to PUT THE BABY TO THE MOTHER'S BREAST, so that it can attempt to nurse; stimulation of the mother's nipple triggers a variety of reflexes that promote further contraction of the uterus. This is true.
What the nursing and the breast stipulation does is creates the natural body release of Oxytocin. The placenta being empty of blood, knows its job is done, there is nursing on the breasts, the placenta expels itself, naturally. Nature knows what is going on. The baby safely nursing, means Oxytocin, if it is produced for the closing up of the blood vessels in the womb, is not then a hazard to get into the baby's brain. Nature has completed the birth, decently and in order, if man and/or woman do not intervene.
If this be true, then the administering of Oxytocin to create labor, to rush labor, to cause the placenta after birth to be out within 15 minutes, must be highly questionable.
Note, that Dr. Caroline, did not use the administration of drugs during an emergency birth. Generally, drugs like Oxytocin are NOT used outside of the hospital. Why. Because this drug and others are akin to abortion drugs. It may be as simple as that. The hospitals take the risk and cut it very close, often taking the child by cutting the womb, or by c-section, as they watch the progression of the child being distressed. They are watching for the closest tolerance possible and endangering the baby.
I say, needlessly, in most instances, because nature has been perverted. And why? Most instances the messing with nature brings also the immediate clamping and sending the baby's blood to cord blood banks. Now, we have no drugs and still the medics are being trained to clamp a pulsating cord. That is highly suspicious if the motive is NOT blood, and the medic an unwitting or wittingly pawn in this game of collecting blood or the means to have it collected at the hospital. The medic is expected to be a "blind mole" not thinking on their feet, not questioning their training is indeed the final word on the care of a mother and infant during birth, and after birth.
All these drugs are commonly administered in hospital births, where Dr. Caroline was advocating for the best care and place for a mother to birth her baby. I think not.

Researcher's Conclusions of reading medical first aid for an emergency birth:

From the research I have read, the birth that my mother and father had, a home birth, on the farm, 1912 and 1913, were likely the safest and most natural birth, and I credit them to their longevity, to that natural birth. They have already buried their first born by a brain tumor, at the age of 54. So this web site, is dedicated to a few relatives of mine, my sister, Jean and my counsin, Kim, who died as a baby after a hole in the heart operation. Kim was likely a victim of immediate cord clamping, resulting in the hole in the heart, a blue baby. Jean, my sister, was likely imposed on by hasty clamping, and her blood used in experiments for the cause of the Second World War, as were many babies born during that time.

I do not think any Wars are an accident waiting to happen, but are planned by the powers-that-be. If we could know the facts, it is likely the Blood was ready for both I and II World Wars. It is a fact that cord stems were being used in transplants by 1939, see Other Web Sites to Review , No. 9. It has been said by Dr. Van Andel, of the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons, that trends come and go. It is logical the taking blood from babies is a trend of the times, war and science research, most likely. All done in secret. But then there may be other motives too. See Motives 1; (class control); Motive 2 organ blood involved; Motive 3 time efficiency economics to be spent with a mother and child.

Only the medical person knows for sure. I do not think ignorance is an excuse as a professional person with training as medic, and counsellors get, and certainly not a doctor, and certainly, not an obstetrician, gynecologists, or pediatrician, who have much means of research, dating all the way back to 1801. Their duty was to be adequately trained to know this and the public trust them to be so skilled.

Would any mother birth in the hospital knowing her baby's blood was likely the reason for her birthing there, or time efficiency to hurry the birth along, at the risk of endangering the baby and the mother? Would it be better to birth safely in her own home environment and when all mothers are so educated, we might retire the medics and the midwives, and just the doctors are used in the rarest of difficult situations?

While those are hypothetical questions, the answer is to our own choosing. The present practices of what is going on may be the key to the past. It is a fact that babies die in hospitals, they are NO safer born there then in the woods. That is a fact if you read the Chow case-law and the Ing Case-law. And my knowledge of a 8 1/2 month baby not making it with a doctor at is birth in a home birth. However, there is a statement made by a Dr. Gunther , as to the acknowledgement how well babies thrive when born without medical persons around. Perhaps, they should stop using the clamp and unnecessary intervention.

Deaths to mothers happen in hospitals, that is a fact. Death happens to mothers in home births. That is a fact. But what is also a fact, mothers are NOT trained in safe methods to actually birth their child, today, and be in control, without interventions. Birthing remains today, a hidden art, governed by midwives, doulas, doctors, and surgeons, and ambulance attendants, too, now involved, in wrongful position of the mother, and wrongful clamping of the infant's lifeline. That must stop. It may be as simple as that for the safe completion of a pregnancy to keep mom and child both safe.

Some blame the mothers if this is happening to them, exploitation, to them both. The way I see it, the duty is not for the mother to be so educated. That is desirable that she is. But that the medics and the other medical professionals ought to be correctly trained, ethically trained, and to be moral persons not to endanger mother or baby, needlessly. For any reason, such as time efficiency, prejudice of sex, race, color, or for economics of value of the blood and its components.

See SOGC policies , this web site. Obstetricians do know better, or ought to.

It is a natural feeling of anger when the women of our society have been conned and taken advantage of. This is organized discrimination on "pregnant" women by the medical societies and associations. This by the informed, the strong picking on the weak, and the supposed-educated deceived by their own instructors and the government agents involved in all of this, and their advisors. I do not think it all co-incidence or an accident. Not with $400 million dollars to be shared across Canada, and I believe its in the billions in the States for cord stem research projects.

See Drugs Offered Pregnant Women and the Merck Manual 15th Edition

From the web site: http://www.123babybirth.com

Comments: donna@123babybirth.com Web Site: www.123babybirth.com