Clamping baby's cord - is baby still breathing through it?

Mxsmanic wrote:

Medicine is still filled with a lot of superstition, especially in
certain domains such as reproduction, nutrition, exercise, and weight
control. I tend to be wary of assertions that are not backed up by a
great deal of objective data accumulated from disparate sources over
long periods.

Then why did you espouse superstition and make assertions that weren't
backed up by objective data?

Objective data are what distinguish superstition from science, after all,
and you've provided none whatsoever. Indeed, you've contradicted
established doctrine, couching your opinions as fact.

That's been my only point all along. I don't know if you're right or wrong,
but your opponents have provided the only objective data. You've provided
none whatsoever, yet here you are lecturing others about unfounded
claims....

Now do you see the non sequiturs?

In ,
Chotii wrote:

*One cannot ever do a proper study on the effects on any given individual
*child - the child is either clamped immediately, or not. We cannot see how
*the child might have fared if the other had been done. Better, I think, to

Well, they could do an identical twin study (not that I'm advocating
such).

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

In ,
P Harris wrote:

*anywhere, in any study, in any field of life. It is not possible, from
*a philosophical standpoint even, to prove that ANYTHING truly causes
*ANYTHING else.

Do you think Koch's postulates prove causation of infectious disease for a
given pathogen? If not, what is your alternative explanation? Seems darn
near impossible to fulfill those postulates without the organism causing
disease!

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

Hillary Israeli writes:

Well, they could do an identical twin study

The twins would have to be identically raised. Worse yet, they'd have
to be identically _delivered_ in every way except for the clamping of
the cord, which is impossible.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Carey Gregory writes:

Then why did you espouse superstition and make assertions that weren't
backed up by objective data?

I didn't.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In misc.kids.pregnancy Sarah Vaughan wrote:

: On a purely theoretical basis, that isn't true. Overload of blood
: volume is potentially even more dangerous for a baby than going short of
: blood (at least, that's what I was taught when I learned about
: twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome) as it can cause heart failure and
: jaundice. The problem is that, these days, women routinely get an
: injection to stimulate contraction of the uterus as the baby is
: delivered, so it is possible that more blood could be flowing through
: the cord than would occur in the natural state. (Of course, you could
: always skip the injection to the woman, but then her risk of post-partum
: haemorrhage would increase. Life's full of trade-offs.)

No. The twin to twin transfusion problem is only possible between
identical twins because they are sharing the same placenta, and hence
the same blood supply. The ideal would be to ensure that the blood
volume is divided equally between the twins, which is not simple.

With a fraternal twin or a singleton birth, each baby has its own
separate blood supply, and changing the blood volume significantly
at birth is simply not possible. Remember that the baby's blood
supply is completely separate from the mother's.

: Larry's excellent post of the available research was reassuring, but
: unfortunately the abstracts didn't clarify whether the women in the
: studies got the Syntometrine injection or not, which would be worth
: knowing (of course, it's likely that they did, but it's something I'd
: like to check for myself - several of the studies seem to have been done
: in Third World countries and it might not be standard practice there).

BTW: I question whether routin Pitocin injection for placental delivery
is any more useful than induction or augmentation for delivery of the
baby!

: All the best,

: Sarah

Larry

In message , Larry McMahan
writes
In misc.kids.pregnancy Sarah Vaughan wrote:

: On a purely theoretical basis, that isn't true. Overload of blood
: volume is potentially even more dangerous for a baby than going short of
: blood (at least, that's what I was taught when I learned about
: twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome) as it can cause heart failure and
: jaundice. The problem is that, these days, women routinely get an
: injection to stimulate contraction of the uterus as the baby is
: delivered, so it is possible that more blood could be flowing through
: the cord than would occur in the natural state. (Of course, you could
: always skip the injection to the woman, but then her risk of post-partum
: haemorrhage would increase. Life's full of trade-offs.)

No. The twin to twin transfusion problem is only possible between
identical twins because they are sharing the same placenta, and hence
the same blood supply. The ideal would be to ensure that the blood
volume is divided equally between the twins, which is not simple.

With a fraternal twin or a singleton birth, each baby has its own
separate blood supply, and changing the blood volume significantly
at birth is simply not possible. Remember that the baby's blood
supply is completely separate from the mother's.

I know, but it circulates through the placenta as well. So, at any
given point a certain amount of the blood available to the fetus is
going to be in the placenta rather than the fetus. This is going to be
the case even after delivery, and probably to some extent even if you
delay the cord clamping until after blood flow from the placenta to the
baby has stopped, as there seems no reason to assume that the placenta
would necessarily continue functioning until all the blood present in
the placenta had been pumped into the newborn.

The theoretical concern is therefore that, if oxytocic administration
has caused the uterus to contract more strongly post-delivery than would
be expected in nature, this might drive a larger amount of blood from
the placenta to the newborn than would ordinarily be the case.

: Larry's excellent post of the available research was reassuring, but
: unfortunately the abstracts didn't clarify whether the women in the
: studies got the Syntometrine injection or not, which would be worth
: knowing (of course, it's likely that they did, but it's something I'd
: like to check for myself - several of the studies seem to have been done
: in Third World countries and it might not be standard practice there).

BTW: I question whether routin Pitocin injection for placental delivery
is any more useful than induction or augmentation for delivery of the
baby!

Well, delivery of the placenta is almost invariably going to take place
anyway, and I doubt whether oxytocic administration is going to make a
blind bit of difference in rare pathological cases of placenta accreta.
The question isn't whether the placenta gets delivered, but whether we
can safely reduce the risk of PPH, and there is evidence that routine
oxytocic administration does reduce this risk ("A Guide To Effective
Care In Pregnancy And Childbirth", Enkin, Keirse, Renfrew & Neilson.)

Thanks again for looking up all those articles, though. Although I'd
still like to read the originals of some of those studies/reviews, I did
decide after writing those that I'd like cord clamping to be delayed at
least for a few minutes post-delivery after my baby's born, so I'll put
that in the birth plan.


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

In misc.kids.pregnancy Sarah Vaughan wrote:

: Thanks again for looking up all those articles, though. Although I'd
: still like to read the originals of some of those studies/reviews, I did
: decide after writing those that I'd like cord clamping to be delayed at
: least for a few minutes post-delivery after my baby's born, so I'll put
: that in the birth plan.


Uh. Let's get this straight! :-) I don't do the lookup anew every time
someone asks the question. When a subject comes up that I am interested
in or have a question about I do a look-up and save the results. Then
the next time someone asks about it, I post my saved bibliography. Its
cheating a little, but it saves time.

:-)
Larry

In message , Larry McMahan
writes
In misc.kids.pregnancy Sarah Vaughan wrote:

: Thanks again for looking up all those articles, though. Although I'd
: still like to read the originals of some of those studies/reviews, I did
: decide after writing those that I'd like cord clamping to be delayed at
: least for a few minutes post-delivery after my baby's born, so I'll put
: that in the birth plan.


Uh. Let's get this straight! :-) I don't do the lookup anew every time
someone asks the question. When a subject comes up that I am interested
in or have a question about I do a look-up and save the results. Then
the next time someone asks about it, I post my saved bibliography. Its
cheating a little, but it saves time.

:-)

You're more organised than me, then. I always mean to save this sort of
stuff where I can find it again quickly once I've been to the trouble of
looking it up once. Never do, though!


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley