A Globe and Mail article, by Anne McIlroy and Paul Taylor, March 23, 2001, informed us that 60
percent of the medical students watched
a doctor training them to act unethically; 47 per cent of 103 students interviews reported they feel
pressure to act unethically very
frequently, frequently or occasionally. Perhaps we should be concerned of the 53 percent who did not
complain? Did they not know what
was ethical or unethical practice?
McIlroy and Taylor reported this survey, started three years ago at the University of Toronto,
indicated 60 percent of the graduating
students were required and/or expected to: perform pelvic examinations on women under general anesthesia
who had not given their
consent; perform unnecessary procedures on unwary patients, including those who were comatose or unconscious;
close wounds when
they didn.t know how; give psychotherapy sessions without supervision; to complete post delivery visits
with patients who hadn't seen a
doctor since giving birth; and to ask patients to return for follow-up visits that were purely for teaching
purposes. Students complained
they had little help from the doctors in assessing patients. Students felt they were providing substandard
care, which included being
instructed by a doctor to repair a child.s scalp with inappropriate supplies and being part of a team
that secretly administered intravenous
drugs to a woman who had requested a narcotic-free vaginal delivery of her baby.
Dr. Richard Frecker, the U of T's associate dean of undergraduate medical education, said the
data was compiled to
let students know
they don't have to comply with requests to act in a way they feel is unethical. Dr. Frecker implied that if unethical practices were
happening at the U of T, it is happening across Canada and the US. He was sure of that. No truer
words were spoken . . . The New York
Times, March 27, 2001: Doctors punished are still prized by hospitals. It reported 44,000 deaths of
some 98, 000 persons hospitalized.
Dr. Novello in her efforts to discipline doctors, last year in New York, took action against 411 doctors,
a 21 percent increase over 1996.
What are the BC and local statistics? No Oath, today, is required?
Infant Care by today's Practices:
The report from the U of T, caused concern when I enquired as to one of their
graduate's practice, in Kamloops, BC. He was trained
to do immediate cord clamping on an infant's pulsating cord. He said he would
not change his practice unless told to do so otherwise. I
asked what was his authority, and he mentioned magazines he prescribed to but would NOT say which one
had the authority to change
his practice by his training and licensed to do that in BC, or implied license. The licensing
from Province to Province is by the College of
Physicians and Surgeons, assuming the doctors are adequately trained to deliver a baby without harming
it or risking it to unnecessary
endangerment.
I call blood deprivation, that yet the victim lives, assault. The
College of Physicians and Surgeons have NO policy for the protection of
the babies, who are citizens of the public, so the babies are being discriminated against by not having
equal protection as would an
informed adult with choices. The vulnerable have no one to advocate for them at the Boards
of the Colleges of Physicians who know of
the change of trends allowing hasty clamping to be licensed and approved, apparently, in British Columbia,
and across Canada. It is my
opinion, breach of trust is being done by the Royal Colleges and those governing and controlling Provincial,
Territorially, and into the
States, and on a world wide scale.
That practice, is said to be now routine by our BC Ministry of Health,
who have demonstrated a So What attitude. Locally, I did
confirm that there is one doctor who does still do delayed management of the pulsating cord. But
they are of the older generation,
adequately and morally and ethically trained. The local hospital permits both delayed and
immediate clamping of the infant's umbilical
cord. Infant's born in c-sections are most vulnerable to immediate cord clamping. Premature babies
are most vulnerable because of their
volume of cord stem cells. These cord stem cells while small in quantity, are greater in the form
red cord stem cell blood, that the baby,
when born prematurely needed for all those to aid its continued growth. But premature babies are
clamped almost immediately, and now
one is witnessing what has happened to the blood trapped in the placenta. Is it burned? I
hardly think so. It is likely well sought after by
science labs. Next, vulnerable are the babies born by c-section.
Mothers are more risk to have their baby's blood robbed if they are planning
to have a c-section. C-sections now represent 22 percent
of the deliveries. Most of them are caused by the mother accepting drugs for contractions she is not
well educated can be controlled by
position and warm water baths.
One doctor that raised concern of higher unnecessary medical costs, is Dr.
M. Wagner, New Zealand. His various reports, on the
internet, indicate that the mother is said to be failing to progress within 12 hours of the deadline,
she will be convinced she needs a c-section. This time limit is meant to physiologically
make the mother feel she has a problem to birth her child normally. Generally, it is the
fearful atmosphere of the hospital that causes the mother to fail to progress.
In the 1950's 36 hours labour was normal, and 24 hours during the 1960's. Drugs
are used to quicken the contractions, to have a
woman comply to birth within 12 hours. The drugs can risk the mother to uncontrollable pain; the placenta
may prematurely pull away from
the mother.s womb, resulting for a C-section, and a birth of a distressed child.
Immediate cord clamping of the pulsating cord adds to the risk of a compromised
child C-section children have a higher statistics of
being assaulted children. They run a higher risk of mental retardation of subtle degrees but have normal
appearances.
Their damage is associated with the need of a C-section, not the drugs/cord
clamping. Parents should be requesting full copies of a C-section babies birth report, by all in attendance
of the delivery, including the 3 Apgar Scores. They should be asking, was the need of the
C-section, medically caused.
Immediate cord clamping when done is without the knowledge and/or informed consent
of the mother. The practice may
accommodate cord blood banks operating in Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver. Doctors going with this
third stage labour
management of the cord have no regard that immediate cord clamping can deprive the infant up to 80 percent
of the total blood volume
that should have been inside the infant's body.
That information is fact as to reports given out on the Internet by the cord
blood banks. Their take of the cord blood from an infant can
be 80 to 200 ccs. An infant weighing 9-pounds should have 10 ounces of blood after full transfusion
of blood takes place between the
placenta and the infant, after birth. Divide 200 ccs by 28.4 oz. and you get close to 7 ounces,
and the biggest take of a child's blood was
reported to be 200 ccs by a mother who gave birth, and she was employed by the cord blood bank, that
accepted that amount of blood
without questioning the need to have deprived the baby of so much. But you cannot control the
clamp.
Infants victimized by immediate clamping are: limp/listless, have no grips in
their fingers, slow in reflexes, pale in colour, may have
heart murmurs, suffer iron deficiencies, had jaundice, are nervous children, easily frightened, may
be prone to leukemia, more likely to
experience learning and behavior problems, not evident in some cases, until the child begins school.
Some teachers are asking for
classes of seven. Toronto had over 60 percent grade 10 students fail an exam.
Action: Protect Babies -- A Moratorium on immediate umbilical clamping
is needed. C-sections increase should be questioned.
Future Births . . . over 4 Million just in the United States.
Permission given to copy or send to others any of this material with full credits to source of information:
www.123babybirth.com
Are Medical Services Safe?