|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Criminal Teaching on immediate cord clamping on an infant's pulsating lifeline, the umbilical cordFrom: Donna Young, Publisher, The Advertiser/Bargain Hunter & More (dyoung@pris.bc.ca)Fri Mar 30 13:10:59 2001
This is a copy of correspondence to the Department of Health, State of Illinoise I am posting this for a response of duty of care of the highest standards of medical practice and best practice possible. I therefore wonder why gynecologists are doing on Boards of Cord Blood Bank and have not given guideliens that protect the infant from what I call criminal assault on the infant by depriving the infant of full volume pressure and full volume of blood. That is all provided by the design and purpose of nature to give to the infant, at the time of its birth. The placenta continues to serve the infant for perhaps ten minutes, transfusing blood into the infant. DNA testing will confirm the cells of the blood and ownership of organ and blood, to be the infant's. So no medical person can legally deprive the infant of its legal rights to all what nature intended the owner to have. Please write me of any factual experiments, with parents awareness of consent, of facts that would stand up in a Court of Law, that immediate cord clamping is good medical practice, and how it serves an infant. To my knowledge, it is a practice that should NOT be routine, in c-sections and/or in vaginal deliveries. It is a practice only for last hope to save an infant's life. I see no logic in taking a infant off its lifeline, that is pulsating giving oxygenated blood and fluids to the infant. . . and rushing the infant to a machine that has not been wheeled to the distressed infant, and added to the treatment, all the while, the infant is receiving something of a benefit from its own pulsating lifeline. From: Donna Young, Box 504, Dawson Creek, BC V1G 4H4 tel/fax:250-782-9223 email: dyoung@pris.bc.ca
> To Whom it May Concern, Department of Health, Illinois Subject: Unlicensed Midwife charge with a death of a still born? Yvonne Cyrn
>
You are the State, you can act quickly. You can lead, where
> Canada is lacking. . . you can put in a Moratorium. .on immediate cord Common sense should tell us that to start up a car without oil and gas in it, is not good practice. Same thing to start up the engine of a newborn infant without the blood and fluid lubrication to its heart, lungs, brain. No blood, and oxygen . . . you can assume dry spots, and some kind of damage, that may not be evident for days, weeks, years. . . but the infant is compromised. The costs of education go up and the costs of medical care go up. All unnecessary so. . . for a very unnecessary and unsound medical practice. . that must be immediately investigated, and who all is sending the infant cord blood to cord stem cell bloods. What insurance companies are paying for the collecting of the blood. . . secretly coded. . . as so-called approved medical procedures? Question the codes, check it out.
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 04:47:51 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.