ACNM does not have a report outlining the clamping of the umbilicus. Although one of our midwives
on staff here agrees that there is no
good reason to cut the cord and leaving it alone conforms to her preference in health care of "If
it's not broken don't fix it." The vast
majority of babies, however, do have their cords cut immediately. There does not appear to be any clinical
difference in outcomes
between the babies she attended and the rest of the American newborns. It appears that time of cord
clamping is not terribly critical to the
outcome for mother or infant or at least no one has documented anything to date in the research. Therefore,
ACNM does not have a
report, or a dictate to members outlining a preference for early clamping, or letting the cord pulsate.
No data exists, citing any long term positive or negative reasons to leave it in tact, as largely, it
seems to be a non-issue. I'm sorry that we
aren't able to provide you with the information you require, but perhaps you may take the initiative
to conduct and report on this type of
research. I'm sure it would be received well. Cheers.
Eric A. Dyson
Communications Manager
American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM)
202-728-9876 (phone) 202-728-9897 (fax)
Visit www.midwife.org
"With women, for a lifetime TM"
Are you ACNM Atlanta Bound?
Collect matching game pieces to win great prizes
at the 47th Annual Meeting and Exhibit.
Click here to begin: http://www.midwife.org/meeting/index.cfm
"Donna Young" <dyoung@sun.pris.bc.ca>
04/15/02 12:32AM >>>
May I have the copy of your report that most midwives, today, are indifferent to the timing of the clamping
of the umbilical cord. Are they
being licensed not to first discuss the third stage of labor and that the blood continues to transfuse
into the baby, and that the placenta
holds some 20 to 50 percent total blood volume, that will transfuse in the baby if not clamped off,
and that no harm is done to the baby to
allow this transfusion.
I wonder why doctors have not been polled since the 1950's when at that time they were trained to do
full delayed cord clamping.
Thank you for a reply.
Sincerely,
Donna Young
Box 504
Dawson Creek, BC
V1G 4H4
Canada
tel/fax: 250-782-9223
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Dyson <
>
To: <dyoung@sun.pris.bc.ca>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Trend of ICC immediate cord clamping and ECC early
umbilical cord clamping
Donna,
Thank you for contacting the ACNM. You are seeking lots of information and, after reviewing with
several midwives here, we thought that
we could best answer your queries by pointing you in specific directions.
Many of the technical aspects of your queries can be best answered by study of the following publications:
* Varney Textbook
* William's Obstetrics
You can find these publications in any Medical Library, and perhaps at your local university.
For many of your other queries, seeking statistical and/or study data, you should consult the Cochrane
Database which looks at all of the
well-designed studies. You can access it here:
I apologize that we are unable to give you specifics, but I hope that you will find the
answers that you seek with the resources above.
Thanks, again
Donna. Cheers!
Eric A. Dyson
Communications Manager
American College of Nurse-Midwives
818 Connecticut Ave., NW - Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202/728-9876 (phone)
202/728-9897 (fax)
Visit
Midwife means, "With Woman"
"Donna Young" <dyoung@sun.pris.bc.ca>
08/18/01 08:54AM >>>
The Teaching Administrator
And Board of ACNM
August 18, 2001
False Medical Teaching/Practice regarding ICC and ECC now accepted as routine practice by many
medical persons, including
Registered-Nurse-Midwives, and more so then DEM (Direct Entry Midwives, certified or not).
From: Donna Young, Box 504, Dawson Creek, BC V1G 4H4 Canada publisher: The Advertiser/Bargain
Hunter & More (Monthly
Newsletter).
would like to see the teaching policy of the ACNM on clamping of an infant's functioning pulsating
umbilical cord. Can that be arranged,
and the diagram of the human circulation system, and that of the infant's circulation system that is
taught, and the book that that
information is in.
I would also like to know what the volume of blood is taught, per a healthy child, for 6 pounds,
7 pounds, 8 pounds, 9 pounds, 10 pounds
babies?
How much of the blood is estimated to be inside the baby when it is in the womb?
How much of the blood is stored in the placenta blood bag?
Is the blood made in the placenta's blood bag?
I understand that the organ...."blood" is the first substance formed in the egg, then
the heart is formed....then the placenta develops and
attaches itself to get nourishment from the nutrients in the mother's blood. Please put in any
correct information, if what I have read is
being misunderstood.
Can you share all the functions of the placenta, does it function like a liver, a kidney, a heart, Or
all of these. What is explained to your
students?
Does the placenta have valves, how many, and where are they located?
Where are the valves on the inside part of the baby, if any?
Where does umbilical cord arteries and vein attach first, through the liver?
How many arteries in the cord does a normal baby have? How many veins in the cord?
Then in what two areas of the heart does it attach to? Is there a simple drawing and explanation simple
enough to explain to a
Grade 6 classroom?
Factual Science of a benefit to the Infant for ICC and/or ECC, that would stand up in a
Criminal Court Room, proving a "fact" of medical
science:
I am told by reading WHO, World Health Organizations 1998 review of the umbilical cord, there
is no factual evidence of blood overflow
by infant's remaining on their pulsating and functioning umbilical cord. If that is not true,
please share with me the facts of a study, and the
names of the persons qualifying their research, and the medical association/society approving and publishing
the researched opinion.
Fears are not facts...and are not likely to be considered evidence of fact by any reasonable judge/jury...on
the say-so of a doctor or his
collaborators, on "trust us" take our word for it as "professionals"...setting a
law to themselves of no accountability or responsibility to
what they say and/or do.
I need to know why doctors have been directing their own, and now possibly midwives, particular registered-nurse-midwives
to do early
cord clamping.
In Canada, The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in their 1998 Policy Statement identify
that "active management" of a
woman's birth involves the early cord clamping of the still functioning pulsating cord.
They also acknowledge that early cord clamping is done only for the quickness of time....more so for
the convenience of the doctor, then
for the best interest of mother and child. They also acknowledge that ECC deprives the infant
of 20 to 50 percent of its blood volume.
Then why on earth would registered-nurse-midwives want to follow or made to believe they must follow
what I perceive to be criminal
assault upon the defenseless child.
I am then told that once the doctors, midwives, surgeon have deprived the infant of 20 to 50 percent
of their blood, they can by the
approval of most ethic committees, where the early clamping has been allowed to take place, experiment
with the child's blood by
sending it to research science projects, like the cord stem cell blood banks; or they can simply burn
the infant's deprived blood.
Justification and exactly what the registered-nurse-midwives are being taught, must be public information. I have seen far too much
secrecy of what is going on in birth centers and in hospitals, private and public. I have seen
the debate of NOT to clamp or to clamp
going on secretly within the medical circles and the blind trust of the public has been maintained,
making us believe that the medical
persons, including those working for 9-1-1 emergency services, now also taught by Page 519, from the
book, Emergency Medical
Treatment, 3rd Edition 1991, by Nancy Caroline, M.D. of the University of Pittsburgh, to clamp the still
pulsating functioning cord;
then attend to the mother and child, then to cut the cord, then to take the cord and placenta back to
the hospital. There the blood, which
may be measured is never revealed exactly how much blood remained in the placenta or cord, which may
have been 80 cc's to 160 cc's,
and the most a blood bank has reported receiving by ICC is 200 ccs. Now imagine an infant weighing
9 pounds, that the World Book
Encyclopedia, 1979 edition, states would have 10 ounces of blood, and 20 to 50 percent of that was deprived
by the ICC, or ECC. Early
cord clamping is defined as clamping off within 15 seconds, 30 seconds, but generally under 2 minutes.
I have a signed statement of a mother that birthed two of her children at home, She stated the first
child had delayed cord clamping, and
the cord pulsed for 15 minutes, the second child, again born at home with delayed cord clamping, had
its cord pulse close to 20 minutes.
The longest I have been told by a retired obstetrician with forty years experience of delayed cord clamping...is
29 minutes that the cord
remained pulsating.
Then we have the method of no clamping and/or cutting of the child's umbilical cord. The example
of the monkeys who leave their babies
placenta dangle along while the mother monkey cuddles and nurses her infant....falls off in days. So
it was the custom of centuries ago, to
leave the placenta with the infant, and the infant's placenta also fell off within days, or to a week. The placenta pickled and spiced with all
things nice, to keep odors away; but the wisdom of this tradition habit, when antibiotics were not used
and boiling the water and the string
and the knife were difficult to do.......kept the infant and the mother risk free of germs that would
cause blood poisoning by any cut skin on
the infant. So the wisdom of leaving the cord alone...no clamping no cutting....prevented
blood infections, and that is logical.
I would like for the ACNM to define "informed" consent as to their policy and practice, does
that simply mean, this is what I have been
trained to do, so accept it please, like trust me, as the doctors do. Or does it mean, these are
the choices and options you the mother
have control over, what would you prefer.
I have read that ECC early cord clamping if done for a cord around the neck but a clamp can still be
placed on it, and if that is done....then
the person who is compromising the child to deprivation of blood, should be able to transfuse the deprived
blood into the infant's body,
quickly, after undoing a cord around the infant's neck a few times.
I am told that fingers placed between the child vocal chords is all that needs to be done, until the
child is sufficiently birthed with sufficient
length of cord, 24 - 36 inches, can be safely unwound from the child's neck, and that a cord around
the neck, is not a simple license to
clamp and cut the infant's oxygen flow to its body.
I am also told that clamping of the cord quickly, like squeezing off the balloon in the middle, will
force the blood with too strong a flow
through the delicate valves of the child's heart, thus murmurs are likely the consequence; plus the
fact the blood flow is pushed back into
the placenta's blood bag, thus the placenta may rupture mixing the child's blood with that of the Mothers,
a no, no, I am told. Then the
other things that are logical to happen, the expanding lungs of the infant, after birth, do not have
the oxygenated blood lubricating them, so
they must then draw the blood from inside the baby away from the child's heart and brain and gut. Thus,
for the moments the blood goes
to the lungs to lubricate them (like oil in the engine of your car needing to be sufficient), dry spots
or lack of oxygen in those areas is the
result, and brain lesions have been reported on monkeys and human infants that were victims of immediate
cord clamping.
Source of Information, The Magical Child, written by educator: Joseph Chilton Pearce. Autopsies
of the creatures, victims of the
experiment immediate cord clamping revealed the brain lesions on this deliberate experiment of ICC.
Then we have 17 million adults in the States, victims of Attention Deficit Disorders, statement by nutritionist,
Marcia Zimmerman,
.
None of those victims have been asked, what was the drug offered and/or taken by the mother during third
state delivery (Demerol,
oxytocin/pitocin) being the favorites. And, when was the umbilical cord clamped and cut....how
soon after the child's birth, and was it
immediate during a C-section.
Then we have over 144,000 sick children treated in the Vancouver Children's Hospital, Vancouver, BC,
Canada....Also no questions
asked as to drugs during third stage labour and the timing of the clamping off of a still functioning
organ, the umbilical cord.
Then we have false medical instruction to all new students in the Educational Bulletin, #216, 1995,
in a repeat edition, put out by ACOG*,
recommending "all" infants have their umbilical cords clamped immediately for the medical
person to take a blood sample ph.... I am told
it is not done for the benefit of the infant, but as a precautionary legal measure that the doctor can
say see, "the blood was of quality"
when we clamped off the cord immediately, we just cannot imagine why the child was weak, pale, and iron
deficient...hoping a judge will
be ignorant of the facts of deprived blood of 20 to 50 percent volume is not an important benefit for
the infant/owner to have had. (NOTE,
added, May 21, 2002, * ACOG retired this educational directive, January 2002).
Then we have the false medical opinion available at MD Consult, by Gabbes, who claims the timing of
the clamping of the umbilical cord
is to the convenience and choice of the doctor. No mention of choice or options by informed consent
of the mother, or choice of full
delayed or not clamping/cutting at all of the infant's organ, the umbilical cord. This person
also mentions the blood transfusion is not
important. Not important to whom...the doctor and/or the owner of the blood?
These questions require serious attention of the standards and practice now being taught to the Registered-Nurse-Midwives,
and by
whose authority, if ECC and ICC are the recommended trend of teaching, today, and why so.
I have personally spoken to the Registrar of the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons, and he stated
ICC and ECC are trends. I
cannot image how fads/trends have gotten into medical care teaching practice and standards, and not
logical common sense, by the
understanding of the human circulation system, and that of the infant circulation system, so it is very
important that I know whose diagram
is being used to teach these to new students. I also wonder why the facts of the circulation system
are not taught to all students, Grade 6
and up. If that early education was now taking place, or had been in the past, we would
have truly ethical and competent doctors,
midwives, surgeons, and doulas, to day. And not those taking advantage of the uninformed, for
whatever motive the trend of teach ICC
and ECC is now being practiced and taught. My personal opinion is that the trend of ICC and ECC,
when it is not publicly told that is
going on, and it is illogical teaching and practice, is that it is criminal assault on the child, and
all those teaching and advocating, as per
the names on the executive boards of the medical association/society advocating it, should before a
trial judge and/or jury for criminal
advocacy of policies taught. Then those who actually followed false and criminal teaching, when
no gun was held to their head, should
also before the Judge and/or jury, explaining why they had not written a letter of protest to their
State Governors, the State Ministries
of Health, and their associate members in medicine, protesting that this should not be taught, nor practiced,
and should be stopped by a
Moratorium, to control all those practice false teaching, and showing others too, for whatever secret
motive they are doing this, to be
mentioned in court all the possible motives man is harming another's child:
(1) Social Darwinism. This simply means black's children can be victimized by ICC
and ECC, girl children, low social status
children...this insures the selection of those the doctor feels privilege to allow to have full benefits
of oxygenated blood to the infant, for as
long as the umbilical cord remains functioning. Thus, they can be kinder to their own children
with inside information...but selective
choose those who will be impaired/compromised to the degree of deprivation of oxygenated blood.
(2) Time Efficiency: Woman and children are regarded as simply means of income to
the doctor and medical staff at a birth services
facility, they are in as quickly as possible and out. A flat fee not having incentive for better
and more patient care.
(3) Robbery/Stealing of the Infant's blood for research, of 80 to 160 ccs per infant. This
is a far more economical then cells taken from
mothers and fathers...and cultivated in tubes for cord stem cell research, again Economy cheaper to
rob the child of its blood.
(4) Ignorance. But ignorance is said not to be a valid defense, and why would a doctor,
nurse, midwife, surgeon take the responsibility in
assisting in the delivery of an infant, not researching all important matters as to the history of various
teachings of the care of the child, at
birth, and that involves the knowledge and purpose of a functioning, pulsating umbilical cord...pulsating
by the very fact that it is the
infant's heart beating, and drawing the blood through the infant's vein circulation system...and causing
the waste to be expelled by the
arteries, back to the placenta, and the system repeats itself, even at birth, until the infant's inside
valves, after pressure and volume and at
the right temperature, have satisfied the owner's needs, per the size of the infant.
An explanation of what is now taught, or was taught just a short time ago, is necessary.
This is an open letter, and may be shared and emailed to whom you please and myself, also.
No policies ACNM