|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
August 27th 05, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
This cord-clamping thing
So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some
reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is. -- Mogget 
|
|
#3
August 27th 05, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mogget wrote:
So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is. They do it because that's the way it's *been* done, unfortunately. That's how a lot of things happen. Why do many still say that you should put alcohol on the cord stump, even though current research suggests otherwise? It used to be that they were worried that allowing the extra blood into the baby would lead to increased rates of jaundice and polycythemia and such, but that assumption has not been borne out in studies. Where the rates of some of these conditions are slightly higher with delayed cord clamping, they tend not to be serious enough to be symptomatic or even to require any treatment whatsoever. *And* the babies are less likely to be anemic later on with the delayed cord clamping. You cannot take for granted that just because something is standard care, it is justified in some way. Change frequently lags research *substantially*, and many things were originally done for reasons that no longer hold any water whatsoever. Best wishes, Ericka
|
|
#4
August 27th 05, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
x-posting snipped
In message , Todd Gastaldo writes BABY ASPHYXIATION AND "LIBERTARIAN" STEVE B. HARRIS, MD See below. in article , Mogget at wrote on 8/27/05 11:46 AM: So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is. Mogget, Immediate cord clamping/cutting is EUPHEMISM - for an obvious mass felony... Immediate cord clamping/cuttiing means "amputating mother from baby - amputating baby's natural oxygenation/transfusion device - temporarily asphyxiating baby (forcing baby to breathe through his/her lungs before he/she is ready) - robbing baby of up 50% off his/her blood volume." Bottomline, Mogget, MDs continue because they don't want to go to prison. So the only reason they do it is so as not to have to admit they've been wrong? When my daughter was delivered, non-clamping of the cord yada yada was on the birth plan but it didn't happen. It ended up being an emergency C-section and my husband explained to the surgical team that we didn't want the cord clamped until it had stopped pulsing but they said no, they had to clamp straight away. I was so out of it by then that I have no recollection of the explanation. You're preaching to the converted; it makes good sense to me not to clamp immediately. I would just like to know why they DO. -- Mogget
|
|
#5
August 28th 05, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:46:37 GMT, Mogget
wrote: So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is. I figure it's so the OB can get done with you and baby and go on to do whatever else he has planned. Most things seem to be about habit or convenience of the medical team. If the OB had to wait around to cut the cord, it would take longer for him to move on to other laboring women/c-sections. Marie
|
|
#6
August 28th 05, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:06:51 GMT, Mogget
wrote: You're preaching to the converted; it makes good sense to me not to clamp immediately. I would just like to know why they DO. No one will admit to why they do it when it's best not to do it in the first place. Like episiotomies, IV's, epidurals, c!rcs, telling you you have to lay on your back to have a baby, pushing formula and pacifiers,... Marie
|
|
#7
August 28th 05, 03:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Marie wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:46:37 GMT, Mogget wrote: So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is. I figure it's so the OB can get done with you and baby and go on to do whatever else he has planned. Most things seem to be about habit or convenience of the medical team. If the OB had to wait around to cut the cord, it would take longer for him to move on to other laboring women/c-sections. Marie I think with the active management of 3rd stage, you 'have to' clamp early so that blood from the placenta isn't *forced* into the baby with the unnaturally large contraction that the synthetic oxytocin causes to detatch the placenta. That's the explanation I was given when I was a Midwifery Student. I don't see why they can't delay the synto until the cord has been clamped, *after* it has stopped pulsating. Jo (Mum to Will, 3 months old!)
|
|
#8
August 28th 05, 05:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
CORD PULSATES FOR 19 MIN!
See below. in article , Jo at wrote on 8/27/05 7:35 PM: Marie wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:46:37 GMT, Mogget wrote: So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is. I figure it's so the OB can get done with you and baby and go on to do whatever else he has planned. Most things seem to be about habit or convenience of the medical team. If the OB had to wait around to cut the cord, it would take longer for him to move on to other laboring women/c-sections. Marie I think with the active management of 3rd stage, you 'have to' clamp early so that blood from the placenta isn't *forced* into the baby with the unnaturally large contraction that the synthetic oxytocin causes to detatch the placenta. That's the explanation I was given when I was a Midwifery Student. I don't see why they can't delay the synto until the cord has been clamped, *after* it has stopped pulsating. Jo (Mum to Will, 3 months old!) VIOLENT uterine contractions due to oxytocin would be sort of like an MD stripping the cord then clamping maybe? My understanding is that NATURAL uterine contractions cause a TIDAL WAVE of placental blood to flow to the baby - but the baby can send back what he or she doesn't need. I recently noted my understanding in an exchange with Ericka Kammerer... NEONATAL RESUSCITATION: A SIMPLE QUESTION See the very end of this post.... "Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message ... Todd Gastaldo wrote: Until medical "science" cleans up its criminal cord clamping act, I like Larry's advice to wait till the placenta delivers. *Other mammals don't clamp. *Waiting till the placenta delivers couldn't hurt and may well be beneficial in ways we haven't discovered. Regarding BEFORE the placenta delivers... Postpartum uterine contractions can reportedly deliver "a virtual tidal wave of placental blood flow"... And it looks like you've got to watch the cord for over a minute to catch a uterine contraction/transfusion peak... Nevertheless, anyone who wishes can watch and see when the cord stops pulsating, and there are certainly situations where it is much more convenient and comfortable to detach the baby before the placenta is delivered--particularly if you're working with a short cord. *If one doesn't feel like making sure the cord has stopped pulsating, by all means, wait as long as one wants. Ericka, You snipped the part about how Cochrane collaborationists have hijacked the word "delayed" to mean 30 to 120 seconds. One is not allowed to do what one "feels like" in many hospitals - and with "science" hijacking the word "delayed" - well - 120 seconds could become the "scientific" standard for "delayed." Heck, lotus birth and you don't even have to decide when. I have no problem with that. *But if you want to get the cord cut, waiting until it has stopped pulsating, whenever that happens to be for your baby, is sufficient. Not the point. *You were talking about expending "capital" arguing with an OB. OBs could well start arguing "scientifically" that "delayed" means 120 seconds - or 30 seconds. I reproduce my post below. There is a simple question at the end. No one has answered it yet. Todd "REEEEEAAAALLLY DELAYED"? Does this mean clamping after 120 seconds? Some medical "scientists" might think so... See below. Larry McMahan wrote: I would say that if you wait until the placenta delivers, you are going to be safe. Ericka Kammerer replied: Sure, but as far as I can remember it didn't seem all that difficult to figure out when it stopped pulsating. Ericka, Until medical "science" cleans up its criminal cord clamping act, I like Larry's advice to wait till the placenta delivers. *Other mammals don't clamp. *Waiting till the placenta delivers couldn't hurt and may well be beneficial in ways we haven't discovered. Regarding BEFORE the placenta delivers... Postpartum uterine contractions can reportedly deliver "a virtual tidal wave of placental blood flow"... And it looks like you've got to watch the cord for over a minute to catch a uterine contraction/transfusion peak... See the graph at the Morley URL below. *If in doubt, one can always wait, of course, but I also don't think that there's much evidence that it's beneficial to wait longer. I don't think OBs are *looking* for such evidence - indeed - quite the contrary: *It appears to me that OBs have employed at least one CNMwife to pretend in the medical literature that "delayed" means waiting 30 seconds. Heike Rabe, MD, PhD spewed the most recent evidence of this grisly nonsense: "Delaying cord clamping by 30 to 120 seconds, rather than early clamping, seems to be associated with less need for transfusion and less intraventricular haemorrhage." [Rabe H, Reynolds G, Diaz-Rossello J. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD003248. PubMed abstract ] For my discussion of Rabe et al., see... http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 7e3e71a8f... See also: *CNMwife baby blood robber (45 sec is 'delayed' cord clamping, Judy?!) http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/ 03626f39c... If one is having to push to get delayed clamping, one might not choose to spend further capital trying to get reeeeeeaaaalllly delayed clamping ;-) That's a cute phrase Ericka - "reeeeeeaaalllly delayed" - some medical "scientists" no doubt now think that waiting 120 seconds is "reeeeeaaalllly delayed." *See the "delayed" game above. And remember... OBs are ROOOOOUTIIIIIIIIIINELY robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume as they hijack the word "delayed" to mean 30 second clamping. AN INCREDIBLE CASE In 1957, Mavis Gunther, MD reported a case where cord and baby were kept warm and cord pulsating went on for 20 minutes. Dr. Morley exclaimed regarding Dr. Gunther's case: "Figure 1 is a recording of a placental transfusion [3] obtained by placing the newborn at the level of the placenta, wrapped in a warm blanket, on a recording scales. It was obviously not a typical birth - the cord pulsated for 19 minutes, the placental transfusion (cord closure) was completed after 20 minutes, and the child started crying about ten minutes after birth!" And then... "During the first nine minutes...[t]here is no record of it breathing during this time..." *[Gastaldo remarks - WOW!] Finally... "Weight variation, INFLUENCED BY UTERINE CONTRACTIONS, indicates that a virtual tidal wave of placental blood flow was adequately oxygenating the child in the absence of any obvious lung function." (emphasis added)...Marked vertical 'activity' lines occur at the height of UTERINE CONTRACTION/TRANSFUSION PEAKS..." (emphasis added) Dr. Morley discussing Gunther M. The Transfer of Blood Between the Baby and the Placenta. Lancet 1957;I:1277-1280. http://www.cordclamping.com/cr ?y.htm Again, it looks like you've got to watch the cord for over a minute to catch a uterine contraction/transfusion peak... Or I guess mom could tell you when a contraction is happening. Todd PS 1957 - the year Mavis Gunther, MD reported her remarkable case - was also the year that Borell and Fernstrom demonstrated radiographically (albeit indirectly) that semisitting and dorsal delivery close the birth canal - up to 30% it turns out. PS2 *Rabe et al. promote robbing babies of up to 50% of their blood volume, as in, "Early clamping allows for immediate resuscitation of the newborn..." [Rabe et al. 2004] WHICH REMINDS ME... In cases where the baby MUST be resuscitated after birth - I am still wondering why pediatricians have to sever the baby's access to blood and oxygen and rush baby across the room to resuscitate. Why can't neonatal resuscitation stations be designed so that mother and baby can be wheeled underneath (or between) with baby's natural oxygenation/transfusion device still intact? No one has answered this question.
|
|
#9
August 28th 05, 06:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ANYONE CAN REPORT CRIME AGAINST BABIES...
ATTENTION: Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers ): This is a Suspected (Mass) Child Abuse Report. See below. in article , Marie at wrote on 8/27/05 4:57 PM: On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:06:51 GMT, Mogget wrote: You're preaching to the converted; it makes good sense to me not to clamp immediately. I would just like to know why they DO. No one will admit to why they do it when it's best not to do it in the first place. Like episiotomies, IV's, epidurals, c!rcs, telling you you have to lay on your back to have a baby, pushing formula and pacifiers,... Marie FOR NEW READERS... If I were a baby about to have an MD asphyxiate me and rob up to 50% of my blood, I would put it this way: Few MDs will admit there is NO REASON to do it when it is obviously CRIMINAL to do it in the first place. The problem is attorney generals KNOWINGLY failing to enforce the law. (They don't call it the medico-"legal" "just us" system for nothing.) Women shouldn't have to ASK for the "extra" up to 50% of blood for their babies. Most women don't KNOW to ask. Attorney generals are silently harming some of The People - some of the tiniest people. "Libertarian" Steve B. Harris, MD told everyone how MDs get away with obvious crimes: "Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime. These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you." http://groups.google.com/group/ misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/28866f3384801ae9 I think there are a LOT of adults who don't understand that attorney generals remain silent in accord with organized medicine's "elementary principles" - laws be damned - babies be damned. Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon PS Is there ANYONE who does not agree that Dr. Morley's TEMPORARY baby asphyxiation experiment is child abuse? Here it is again: .....note the word "asphyxia"... "[T]he umbilical cord [is] immediately closed between finger and thumb...The [fetal heart rate/FHR] will decelerate quickly to about 60 bpm...the color will change from purple-pink (normal at birth) to pallid blue (vaso-constriction and asphyxia.)...Few midwives or obstetricians will be able to observe...a deep, prolonged FHR deceleration on a non-breathing newborn for a period of 60 seconds.* Common sense will soon release the finger and thumb." http://www.cordclamping.com/ac og-cp.htm Sorry to repeat myself but... Immediate cord clamping/immediate cord CUTTING asphyxiates the baby into breathing with his/her lungs - and robs up to 50% of the baby's blood volume. The Red Cross wouldn't risk taking up to 50% of someone's blood - yet obstetricians rob babies of up to 50% of their blood in EVERY CESAREAN DELIVERY, according George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG. Ladies, this mass child abuse is happening in a maternity hospital near you. If I were a baby about to be born, I would want everyone reporting the crime to law enforcement. But that's just me. Sincerely, Todd PS Oregon readers, do you SUSPECT that asphyxiating babies and robbing up to 50% of their blood is child abuse? The baby blood robbery is reportedly happening in EVERY CESAREAN BIRTH, according to Dr. Morley. The State of Oregon says: "ALL OREGON CITIZENS ARE ENCOURAGED TO REPORT SUSPECTED [CHILD ABUSE] TO DHS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT. Over 25 percent of the substantiated cases of child abuse are reported by concerned citizens who are not required to report. Failure to report is a violation and carries a maximum penalty of $1,000.00. Mandatory reporters have also been successfully sued for damages in civil court for failing to report.©— http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/children/a...s/report.shtml As indicated above, I'm copying this Suspected (Mass) Child Abuse Report to Oregon Atty Genl Hardy Myers via . I urge others (inside and outside of Oregon) to report to Atty Genl Hardy Myers and to their own state's attorney general... Compose your own Suspected (Mass) Child Abuse report - or feel free to forward this one to state attorney generals. Again, if I were a baby about to be born, I would want everyone reporting the crime. But that's just me.
|
|
#10
August 28th 05, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Ericka Kammerer
writes Mogget wrote: So why do docs do it, then, cord-clamping newborns? There must be some reason, surely. I'd like to know what it is. They do it because that's the way it's *been* done, unfortunately. That's how a lot of things happen. That is a shame. Mr Mogget would call that the difference between fluid & static intelligence. Just as well I have you lot for better information :-) -- Mogget
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| OB Child Abuse at UCLA: (Attn: Super. Michael Antonovich, 5th District) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 4 | April 1st 05 12:59 AM |
| Yay Bradley Method! BOO cord blood collection company | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 4 | March 29th 05 08:26 PM |
| Cord clamping horror (part 2): What is Amy's agenda? | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | March 27th 05 02:58 PM |
| Gary Goldman's 'Medical Veritas': Truth or whitewash? | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | March 10th 05 08:32 PM |
| 'Cord blood can rarely be used by...' | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | December 23rd 04 09:44 PM |
Linear Mode
