|
| 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 25th 05, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
what is the basis for women wanting to delay cutting cord?
I am completely ignorant to the pros or cons of cutting the cord immediately
at delivery. No one ever told me there was a difference, so with my daughter I didn't think twice about it. I see alot of stuff posted here and wonder if it's medically or religiously based, or what? Betsy 
|
|
#3
August 26th 05, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
oregonchick wrote:
I am completely ignorant to the pros or cons of cutting the cord immediately at delivery. No one ever told me there was a difference, so with my daughter I didn't think twice about it. I see alot of stuff posted here and wonder if it's medically or religiously based, or what? If you cut the cord immediately, a lot of the baby's blood is left in the cord and placenta. If you wait until the cord stops pulsating before you cut it, more of that nicely oxygenated blood (along with its iron stores) will be in your baby instead. In rare cases, it may be desirable to keep that blood away from the baby. There are also some situations which may necessitate early cord clamping (e.g., cord is too tighly wrapped around the baby's neck to deliver the baby without cutting the cord). But in the majority of cases, that blood is helpful to the baby and can be as much as 50 percent of the baby's total blood volume. Studies show that babies are less likely to be anemic months later with delayed cord clamping. If babies are having difficulties starting to breathe, that oxygenated blood can be especially useful. If you want delayed cord clamping, you may need to be on the ball to ensure that happens. Many doctors are not up to date on current research and think that all babies are better off with immediate cord clamping, or just do it that way because that's what they're accustomed to doing. Best wishes, Ericka
|
|
#4
August 26th 05, 12:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
snip
If you want delayed cord clamping, you may need to be on the ball to ensure that happens. For new readers... Obstetricians, neonatologists and CNMwives are cleverly defining "delayed" clamping as waiting 30 seconds. They are pretending (I'm pretty sure) that neonatal resuscitation stations can't be redesigned so that mother and baby can, if necessary, be wheeled under/between - so that neonatologists can resuscitate the baby with his natural oxygenation/transfusion device still attached. Remember: Immediate cord clamping/cutting is euphemism for "amputating mother from baby - anti-scientifically risking robbing up to 50% of the baby's blood." If you want truly delayed cord clamping, it is best to say "Do not clamp/cut until the cord has stopped pulsating and my baby is pink and breathing and not in need of resuscitation." "Let the placenta come out then clamp" is another way to express your desire for truly delayed cord clamping. Many doctors are not up to date on current research and think that all babies are better off with immediate cord clamping, or just do it that way because that's what they're accustomed to doing. Best wishes, It is a CRIME to rob up to 50% of a baby's blood. The Red Cross wouldn't even take 50% of someone's blood! Many doctors are doing it after being explicitly informed that asphyxiating babies and robbing massive amounts of blood from them is a crime. The neonatologists literally "save" babies from the effects of immediate cord clamping - no doubt about it - but they should be able to design resuscitation stations that do not require amputation of mother from baby. I suspect many doctors are extremely frightened that they could be prosecuted finally. It's the reason I call for pardons in advance for MDs. As med students, MDs are TRAINED to perform rather obvious felonies. Instead of simply calling for an end to the obvious mass child abuse, retired obstetrician George Malcolm Morley, MB ChB FACOG urges his fellow obstetricians to demonstrate to themselves why they should stop robbing babies of blood - by temporarily asphyxiating them... Here is Dr. Morley's temporary baby asphyxiation experiment.... "[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, without interference, 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/acog-cp.htm Incredible. Criminal. Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon
|
|
#5
August 26th 05, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message ... oregonchick wrote: I am completely ignorant to the pros or cons of cutting the cord immediately at delivery. No one ever told me there was a difference, so with my daughter I didn't think twice about it. I see alot of stuff posted here and wonder if it's medically or religiously based, or what? If you cut the cord immediately, a lot of the baby's blood is left in the cord and placenta. If you wait until the cord stops pulsating before you cut it, more of that nicely oxygenated blood (along with its iron stores) will be in your baby instead. In rare cases, it may be desirable to keep that blood away from the baby. There are also some situations which may necessitate early cord clamping (e.g., cord is too tighly wrapped around the baby's neck to deliver the baby without cutting the cord). But in the majority of cases, that blood is helpful to the baby and can be as much as 50 percent of the baby's total blood volume. Studies show that babies are less likely to be anemic months later with delayed cord clamping. If babies are having difficulties starting to breathe, that oxygenated blood can be especially useful. If you want delayed cord clamping, you may need to be on the ball to ensure that happens. Many doctors are not up to date on current research and think that all babies are better off with immediate cord clamping, or just do it that way because that's what they're accustomed to doing. Best wishes, Ericka Makes sense. Thanks for the info, I had no idea. This isn't something I've ever heard discussed in pregnancy classes or appointments. I wonder why?
|
|
#6
August 26th 05, 04:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On the flip side is neonatal polycythemia:
Hypertransfusion Delayed cord clamping allows for an increased blood volume to be delivered to the infant. When cord clamping is delayed more than 3 minutes after birth, blood volume increases 30%.
|
|
#7
August 26th 05, 08:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kmom wrote:
On the flip side is neonatal polycythemia: Hypertransfusion Delayed cord clamping allows for an increased blood volume to be delivered to the infant. When cord clamping is delayed more than 3 minutes after birth, blood volume increases 30%. I doubt it's detrimental in any way though. I had an accreta after Oscars birth and as it didn't detach because the vessels had grown into my uterine wall he had blood pumped into him for about 45 minutes after he was born. He did get a little jaundiced later but nothing to write home about. Andrea
|
|
#8
August 26th 05, 12:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kmom wrote:
On the flip side is neonatal polycythemia: Hypertransfusion Delayed cord clamping allows for an increased blood volume to be delivered to the infant. When cord clamping is delayed more than 3 minutes after birth, blood volume increases 30%. However, several studies have found that delayed cord clamping doesn't seem to have negative effects in general: http://tinyurl.com/apzto http://tinyurl.com/bef2x http://tinyurl.com/b5b5a http://tinyurl.com/9nuft http://tinyurl.com/bnlpq ....and more Best wishes, Ericka
|
|
#9
August 26th 05, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
there is also the fact that early cord clamping is linked with giving
syntometrine to deliver the placenta, usually people are told they are giving them an injection to stop them from bleeding, which is true, giving syntometrine does reduce postpartum haemorage, what they fail to mention is that it increases the risk of retained placenta, because it causes the cervix to close faster than it would usually. And what people completely fail to mention is that a bad reaction to the drug is not that uncommon, I knew nothing about it until it happened to me (and that was after I had told them not to give me the drug), I was very sick and had to have drugs for that, I was longer on the delivery unit recovering from that than people who had had c-sections, completely different from not doing that 2nd time around and being absolutely fine to go home after a much more difficult birth. The other thing is, if you don't clamp the cord, no one can take the baby away, so you get your bonding time, if you make it clear what you want it's possible to do most checks with baby on your tummy. Anne
|
|
#10
August 26th 05, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have no platform against delayed cord clamping, the vast majority of
the time it's a great thing and personally my last few babies have had the benefit of it, I was just pointing out that there is a possible negative side. My son did have neonatal polycythemia and with immediate cord clamping ( we believe he was dehydrated when he was born). It was a pretty lousy 24 hours for him (and me) and he did have enough jaundice we had home health nurses for a week after he was born.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
