Talk:Umbilical cord

Cutting

This page regarding the umbilical cord should take in the rights of the mother and father being educated that no clamping or cutting of the cord need be done at all. ONLY if the umbilical cord tore or for placenta previa need a cord be clamped for the emergency protection to the child. The reasons a cord may tear is if the child was dropped. The reason a placenta previa caused the need of the cord clamped is a surgical error of a knife going into the placenta or the cord.

The baby has only about an ounce more blood then his/her weight at the time born. For example a 9-pound infant only creates 10 ounces of blood (300 ml). To clamp the umbilical cord early to take away the rights of the infant of the nutrients of the placenta blood, is to violate equal security to the child. It is also a criminal offense against the person, and requires equal protection of the criminal laws of every nation.

The child, may live, after the assault. But as a impaired and compromised child with lower immunities, and anemic. The child will have a lower IQ with learning disadvantages and lower opportunities in the field of competitions.

The child will take from 6 weeks to 6 months to recreate the deprived blood. The child may never ever catch up from being anemic as he / she is constantly growing.

The internal increase of autism, holes in the heart, stroke, heart attacks can all be related to the original cause hasty umbilical cord clamping.

Autism: In the 1970's, there were 1 in 30,000 children with Autism, today, the children under 11 years of age are 1 in 110. All will be found to have been deprived 20 to 50 percent total blood volume by being harvested of their placenta blood.

The hospitals and their staff and policies have being doing this early clamping and taking the palcenta and placenta blood in secret every since they got women to birth in insitutions. Why? The medical fields need blood for consumer products and their services in operations and transplants. It is political. It creates billions in medical services and higher costs. The USA baby business needlessly costs $20 billion for 4 million babies. But the babies should not be picked on. The STRONG DO NOT PICK ON THE WEAK.

The babies are vulnerable by age, sex, color, race, or mental or physical disadvantages. The babies are not able to give informed consent to donate blood, they are not over age 17, and are not 110 pounds and known to be in good health. The babies owe no duty to cure the sick, they did not cause another's disorder. Leave them alone. The duty of society is to protect the child.

See a medical point of view at: www.cordclamping.com and a demonstration at a autism conference in November 2002.

The pioneers and many in developing lands practiced or still practice primal birth care and treatment, leaving the cord alone, as what I call left intact to keep the child a biological reciprocal sealed unit. This method of care and protection to the child (no cord infections, no hernias, the baby strong with all their blood),is no longer called primal birth, but is now known as the Lotus Birth.

This name was given in honour of Clare Lotus Day, who watched the monkeys, who did not tear off the placenta and cord, but let it dangle until it fell off in a day or two. She too wanted her child's cord left intact, and birthed as in a primal birth in a San Francisco hospital. She has recently died and her Lotus Birth Child, but the name primal birth is given a more pleasant name.

For more information of rights to the mothers to have a primal birth, in a home birth or hospital, please visit www.lotusbirth.com

Sincerely, Donna Young Natural Birth Education Box 504 Dawson Creek, BC V1G 4H4 Canada tel/fax: 1-250-782-9223 email: dyoung@pris.ca

• If you would like to contribute to the article, please read about NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Nunh-huh 06:19, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On a side note, I was recently informed that, at least overhere in the Netherlands, it's common practice to wait with clamping until (most of) the blood has receded into the newborn baby, unless, of course, there is a medical indication for clamping earlier, so I personally doubt the benefit of keeping the umbilical cord attached to the placenta has such benefits as claimed. On top of that, I really doubt that animals in the wild keep the entire placenta attached, since it wouldn't be very practical to carry around. In the births I've witnessed, the mother bit through the cord, and then proceded to eat the placenta (yes, herbivores do so too) helped by the rest of the pack/herd/troop.

But anyway, the article already references the article on Lotus Birth and, while that article could use some cleaning as well since it carries on to talk about uses for the placenta, I think that this information belongs there more than here.

Studies

New study in the British Medical Journal reports that delayed cord clamping is beneficial and early clamping is harmful. Early cord clamping needs to be banned but the word is not getting out fast enough! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/17/ncord117.xml areseepee 22 Aug 2007 (UTC)

Studies on the effects of delayed clamping, or even non-severance

I am really curious about studies of delayed clamping and non-severance as opposed to current common practice of severance. This is truly necessary to complete the article in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:981:D34D:1:88B7:460B:1DB7:4D3D (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Umbilical cord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120123194946/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/139 to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/139

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Introduction

The sentence "Conversely, the fetal heart pumps low oxygen containing blood, nutrient-depleted blood through the umbilical arteries back to the placenta." is grammatically/stylistically problematic ("low oxygen containing blood, nutrient-depleted blood"). Can someone with the proper medical background edit this sentence to a more logical grammar? The huge warning in the source page right before this sentence is making me think twice before touching it.

Edit needed

Under the first section "Structure and Development" the following text is seen:

"It contains one vein, which carries oxygenated, nutrient-rich blood to the fetus, and two arteries that carry deoxygenated, nutrient-depleted blood away."

Pretty sure that's backwards (in that the two arteries carry nutrient-rich blood to the fetus, and the one vein carries nutrient-depleted, deoxygenated blood away. 107.12.81.118 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)