I interviewed my two grandmothers and my father on the subject of the care of the
dead and was surprised that they all favor cremation over burial. My grandmother on
my father’s side says that she is probably the first one in her family who will be cremated. “I don’t want to rot. Why would anyone want to rot?” She does want to
have a wake though. Her husband was cremated, but he had a wake first. She thinks
it helps family members and friends to see the person “lying in peace.” Her husband’s ashes are in an urn in their church, but she just went to visit and took some of them to bring to relatives in South Carolina where he was born. My other grandmother believes in cremation because she does not want to take up space in the ground or use a coffin, which she thinks is wasteful. She thinks that wakes are “ridiculous”. She wants her ashes to be scattered even though all her family members are buried in the same place in England. Both grandmothers are breaking traditions in their families by being cremated. My dad says he wants to be cremated and to “have the ashes thrown away on the spot.” He thinks that keeping human ashes with little bits of bone and teeth in them is disgusting. I believe that all three think that spending a lot of money on a casket and burial makes no sense. My grandmother on my mother’s side who has very little money was still willing to pay a lot for a wake and for a funeral home to make her husband look nice. It was important to her to have friends say how handsome he was. For her a memorial service or a funeral is a big social occasion. For my other grandmother and my father funerals and memorial services are events to avoid if at all possible. According to the New York Times, in 2005 28 per cent of Americans were cremated. In more recent articles written by funeral homes it seems as though at least one-third of the American population is choosing cremation over burial because cremation is cheaper, simpler, and better for the environment.
My two grandmothers do not agree about donating organs after death. My dad’s mother said, “Every bone in my body is tired, and all my organs must be too. I don’t wish them on anybody.” My other grandmother filled out an organ donor card in her fifties. At first she was only donating her eyes, but now she has said her body can be used generally for organ donation. She also filled out a form that said it could be used for research because her doctor told her that she had had interesting surgery that saved her life when she was young and that seeing what was done could be useful. She has also filled out the Right to Life forms and a few other ones so that she won’t be kept alive on machines. She hates hearing stories that doctors don’t always pay attention to these requests. My dad says he will eventually fill out an organ donor card, and my grandmother told him, “What are you waiting for?”
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
HW # 47 - Peer Perspectives on the Care of the Dead
Ambrose's Answers (someone of a similar backround)
Do your grandparents or parents prefer burial or cremation?
-cremation
Is it important to you that you be buried or cremated?
-no
Do your family members believe in having wakes or burials with open caskets in which the bodies are worked on to look as good as possible?
-no
Would you like to be in an open casket yourself (when dead obviously – sorry for this one)?
-no
Have your grandparents or other family members ever mentioned where they would like to be buried or have their ashes put or spread or what music they would like at their funeral or any other details about how they would like to go out of this world?
-yes, my grandmother has mentioned music she would like to have played at her funeral.
Have any members of your family filled out organ donor cards?
- no, i don't' think so
Do you think you would ever fill one out?- no
Would you feel good about having someone be able to live thanks to one of your organs?
- While I would feel good about someone else living because I was a donor, I believe in keeping my body in one piece after I die (if i can help it).
Have you ever had a pet die? If so, did you bury it or did the vet take it?
- Yes I have buried two turtles, two dogs, and a crawfish in my back yard. Also buried my friends cat in the mountains.
If someone else would pay for you to have your body frozen and maintained so that you might be brought back to life one day (in spite of all current scientific evidence saying this is impossible), would you agree to be frozen?
- Maybe, I would have to think about it more when the time came, it would depend how old I was already. Sounds cold too!
Alexis's Answers (someone that I don't know that well)
Do your grandparents or parents prefer burial or cremation?
- cremation
Is it important to you that you be buried or cremated?
- no
Do your family members believe in having wakes or burials with open caskets in which the bodies are worked on to look as good as possible?
- no
Would you like to be in an open casket yourself (when dead obviously – sorry for this one)?
- no
Have your grandparents or other family members ever mentioned where they would like to be buried or have their ashes put or spread or what music they would like at their funeral or any other details about how they would like to go out of this world?
- no
Have any members of your family filled out organ donor cards? Do you think you would ever fill one out? Would you feel good about having someone be able to live thanks to one of your organs?
- yes, yes, yes
Have you ever had a pet die? If so, did you bury it or did the vet take it? yes, --- buried
If someone else would pay for you to have your body frozen and maintained so that you might be brought back to life one day (in spite of all current scientific evidence saying this is impossible), would you agree to be frozen?
- no
Marc's Answers (someone who is a close friend)
Do your grandparents or parents prefer burial or cremation?
burial
Is it important to you that you be buried or cremated?
- Catholics are supposed to remain "intact" so yes
Do your family members believe in having wakes or burials with open caskets in which the bodies are worked on to look as good as possible?
- No wake, just a memorial service.
Would you like to be in an open casket yourself (when dead obviously – sorry for this one)?
- No
Have your grandparents or other family members ever mentioned where they would like to be buried or have their ashes put or spread or what music they would like at their funeral or any other details about how they would like to go out of this world?
- My grandparents never talk about it but my parents want to be buried in their hometown in Mexico
Have any members of your family filled out organ donor cards? Do you think you would ever fill one out? Would you feel good about having someone be able to live thanks to one of your organs?
- I will be the first member of my family that will fill out an organ donor card
Have you ever had a pet die? If so, did you bury it or did the vet take it?
- I have never had a pet due to the fact that my parents are very cheap
If someone else would pay for you to have your body frozen and maintained so that you might be brought back to life one day (in spite of all current scientific evidence saying this is impossible), would you agree to be frozen?
- Hell No!
Jason (someone of a similar back round) and Emily (someone of a different backround)
Do your grandparents or parents prefer burial or cremation?
--Cremation (Jason)
--Some burial, some cremation (Emily)
Is it important to you that you be buried or cremated?
-- I'd prefer cremation (Jason)
-- Cremation (Emily)
Do your family members believe in having wakes or burials
with open caskets in which the bodies are worked on to look
as good as possible?
-- No (Jason)
-- Yes, they do (but this doesn't really work. My father looked like he was on a roller coaster ride) (Emily)
Would you like to be in an open casket
yourself (when dead obviously – sorry for this one)?
-- Not especially (Jason)
-- I don't mind-- as long as my mouth isn't hanging open (Emily)
Have your grandparents or other family members ever mentioned
where they would like to be buried or have their ashes put or spread or
what music they would like at their funeral or any other details
about how they would like to go out of this world?
-- My mother has expressed some interest in music and texts she would like read, but says she does not care where her ashes are placed. (Jason)
-- My father asked to just be put in a Hefty trash bag. My mother just doesn't want to talk about it. (Emily)
Have any members of your family filled out organ donor cards?
Do you think you would ever fill one out? Would you feel good about
having someone be able to live thanks to one of your organs?
-- No. I'd prefer not to have my recently deceased body disturbed in this way. (Jason)
-- I haven't decided on this yet. (Emily)
Have you ever had a pet die? If so, did you bury it or did the vet take it?
-- Yes, I have three buried in my backyard. (Jason)
-- I bury mine (Emily)
If someone else would pay for you to have your body frozen and maintained
so that you might be brought back to life one day (in spite of all current scientific
evidence saying this is impossible), would you agree to be frozen?
-- No, this is the very last thing I would want to happen to my body. (Jason)
-- No, no, no. (Emily)
What amazed me most about the responses was that two of the people said they would not fill out organ donor cards and one said she was not sure whether she would. One of the people who said he would not is known as a very generous person, and I know he is not Catholic. Actually, the religious excuse makes no sense to me. If you can save another person's life or help another person see after you are gone, why would your god not like you to do that? To me giving away organs after death when we are all going to turn into dust anyway is such an obviously good thing to do. It can't even cause us any pain. I am very proud of one of my best friends whose family is Catholic, who says he will be the first member of his family to fill out an organ
donor card. I have even more respect for him now than I did before.
Only my close friend who is Catholic said definitely that he wanted to be buried.
Here is another problem with the Catholic religion in my opinion. Cremation is better in every way. It is much less expensive although not as cheap as a Hefty bag, but cremation has more dignity. The ashes can go where the dead person asked them to go, and relatives don't have to feel guilty if they are far away and can't visit the grave. Also, there are a lot of Catholics and not so much land for burials.
Regarding my question about buring animals vs. taking them to the vet, I think people
bury their pets because it doesn't cost anything.
Regarding my somewhat stupid question about wanting to be frozen or not if someone else would pay for the process, I was interested that one person I know said that he
would like to do it if he died next month so that he could wake up with a young body.
He would never want it done if he was old and wrinkly.
Do your grandparents or parents prefer burial or cremation?
-cremation
Is it important to you that you be buried or cremated?
-no
Do your family members believe in having wakes or burials with open caskets in which the bodies are worked on to look as good as possible?
-no
Would you like to be in an open casket yourself (when dead obviously – sorry for this one)?
-no
Have your grandparents or other family members ever mentioned where they would like to be buried or have their ashes put or spread or what music they would like at their funeral or any other details about how they would like to go out of this world?
-yes, my grandmother has mentioned music she would like to have played at her funeral.
Have any members of your family filled out organ donor cards?
- no, i don't' think so
Do you think you would ever fill one out?- no
Would you feel good about having someone be able to live thanks to one of your organs?
- While I would feel good about someone else living because I was a donor, I believe in keeping my body in one piece after I die (if i can help it).
Have you ever had a pet die? If so, did you bury it or did the vet take it?
- Yes I have buried two turtles, two dogs, and a crawfish in my back yard. Also buried my friends cat in the mountains.
If someone else would pay for you to have your body frozen and maintained so that you might be brought back to life one day (in spite of all current scientific evidence saying this is impossible), would you agree to be frozen?
- Maybe, I would have to think about it more when the time came, it would depend how old I was already. Sounds cold too!
Alexis's Answers (someone that I don't know that well)
Do your grandparents or parents prefer burial or cremation?
- cremation
Is it important to you that you be buried or cremated?
- no
Do your family members believe in having wakes or burials with open caskets in which the bodies are worked on to look as good as possible?
- no
Would you like to be in an open casket yourself (when dead obviously – sorry for this one)?
- no
Have your grandparents or other family members ever mentioned where they would like to be buried or have their ashes put or spread or what music they would like at their funeral or any other details about how they would like to go out of this world?
- no
Have any members of your family filled out organ donor cards? Do you think you would ever fill one out? Would you feel good about having someone be able to live thanks to one of your organs?
- yes, yes, yes
Have you ever had a pet die? If so, did you bury it or did the vet take it? yes, --- buried
If someone else would pay for you to have your body frozen and maintained so that you might be brought back to life one day (in spite of all current scientific evidence saying this is impossible), would you agree to be frozen?
- no
Marc's Answers (someone who is a close friend)
Do your grandparents or parents prefer burial or cremation?
burial
Is it important to you that you be buried or cremated?
- Catholics are supposed to remain "intact" so yes
Do your family members believe in having wakes or burials with open caskets in which the bodies are worked on to look as good as possible?
- No wake, just a memorial service.
Would you like to be in an open casket yourself (when dead obviously – sorry for this one)?
- No
Have your grandparents or other family members ever mentioned where they would like to be buried or have their ashes put or spread or what music they would like at their funeral or any other details about how they would like to go out of this world?
- My grandparents never talk about it but my parents want to be buried in their hometown in Mexico
Have any members of your family filled out organ donor cards? Do you think you would ever fill one out? Would you feel good about having someone be able to live thanks to one of your organs?
- I will be the first member of my family that will fill out an organ donor card
Have you ever had a pet die? If so, did you bury it or did the vet take it?
- I have never had a pet due to the fact that my parents are very cheap
If someone else would pay for you to have your body frozen and maintained so that you might be brought back to life one day (in spite of all current scientific evidence saying this is impossible), would you agree to be frozen?
- Hell No!
Jason (someone of a similar back round) and Emily (someone of a different backround)
Do your grandparents or parents prefer burial or cremation?
--Cremation (Jason)
--Some burial, some cremation (Emily)
Is it important to you that you be buried or cremated?
-- I'd prefer cremation (Jason)
-- Cremation (Emily)
Do your family members believe in having wakes or burials
with open caskets in which the bodies are worked on to look
as good as possible?
-- No (Jason)
-- Yes, they do (but this doesn't really work. My father looked like he was on a roller coaster ride) (Emily)
Would you like to be in an open casket
yourself (when dead obviously – sorry for this one)?
-- Not especially (Jason)
-- I don't mind-- as long as my mouth isn't hanging open (Emily)
Have your grandparents or other family members ever mentioned
where they would like to be buried or have their ashes put or spread or
what music they would like at their funeral or any other details
about how they would like to go out of this world?
-- My mother has expressed some interest in music and texts she would like read, but says she does not care where her ashes are placed. (Jason)
-- My father asked to just be put in a Hefty trash bag. My mother just doesn't want to talk about it. (Emily)
Have any members of your family filled out organ donor cards?
Do you think you would ever fill one out? Would you feel good about
having someone be able to live thanks to one of your organs?
-- No. I'd prefer not to have my recently deceased body disturbed in this way. (Jason)
-- I haven't decided on this yet. (Emily)
Have you ever had a pet die? If so, did you bury it or did the vet take it?
-- Yes, I have three buried in my backyard. (Jason)
-- I bury mine (Emily)
If someone else would pay for you to have your body frozen and maintained
so that you might be brought back to life one day (in spite of all current scientific
evidence saying this is impossible), would you agree to be frozen?
-- No, this is the very last thing I would want to happen to my body. (Jason)
-- No, no, no. (Emily)
What amazed me most about the responses was that two of the people said they would not fill out organ donor cards and one said she was not sure whether she would. One of the people who said he would not is known as a very generous person, and I know he is not Catholic. Actually, the religious excuse makes no sense to me. If you can save another person's life or help another person see after you are gone, why would your god not like you to do that? To me giving away organs after death when we are all going to turn into dust anyway is such an obviously good thing to do. It can't even cause us any pain. I am very proud of one of my best friends whose family is Catholic, who says he will be the first member of his family to fill out an organ
donor card. I have even more respect for him now than I did before.
Only my close friend who is Catholic said definitely that he wanted to be buried.
Here is another problem with the Catholic religion in my opinion. Cremation is better in every way. It is much less expensive although not as cheap as a Hefty bag, but cremation has more dignity. The ashes can go where the dead person asked them to go, and relatives don't have to feel guilty if they are far away and can't visit the grave. Also, there are a lot of Catholics and not so much land for burials.
Regarding my question about buring animals vs. taking them to the vet, I think people
bury their pets because it doesn't cost anything.
Regarding my somewhat stupid question about wanting to be frozen or not if someone else would pay for the process, I was interested that one person I know said that he
would like to do it if he died next month so that he could wake up with a young body.
He would never want it done if he was old and wrinkly.
Monday, April 18, 2011
HW # 46 - Initial Thoughts on the Care of the Dead
I seem to have read about and heard about people having organ transplants over the last few years. I know that people are often on waiting lists for organs coming from someone who would be a good donor match. I wonder whether most of the donations come from dead people who indicated when they were alive that they wanted their organs to be donated or whether it is usually the relatives of the dead person who make the decision.
According to this article http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/organ-donation regarding organ donation in the U.S, “the need far exceeds the supply of transplantable organs.” Organ donation has come a long way since the late 1960’s when there were no federal laws dealing with the issue. The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 1968 (AGA) made it easier for people to pass on their organs after death and increase the number of available organs. Another step forward was taken in the fight for more easily accessible organs when the Uniform Donor Card was recognized as a legal document by all 50 states in 1972(after being mandated by The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act). I am interested in how long after the organs are taken out is the body given back to relatives for burial or cremation. The article talks about some countries like France and Denmark where bodies are used for research and organ transplants unless the formerly living people specifically indicated that they did not want their bodies to be used for these purposes, in other words the exact opposite of what happens in the U.S.
My feeling is that when a person dies, the body is just an empty shell. I believe that people should allow their bodies to be used to help living people. I also don’t think that wakes with open coffins make any sense at all. The idea of putting makeup on a dead person so that everyone can say how great and how peaceful he/she looks is ridiculous to me. I would want to remember dead people the way they were when they were alive, not the way they were when they were dead. I realize that other people feel differently for religious or cultural reasons, but I think that everyone should sign organ donor cards no matter what is done with the body afterwards. I think it’s better to be cremated and have ashes spread somewhere that is meaningful to the dead person and not have ashes end up in an urn.
Questions
1. How long after the organs are removed from the body is the body returned to the family?
2. In the U.S what is the proportion of bodies that are buried vs cremated?
3. After cremation, how often are ashes put in an urn vs scattered somewhere?
4. For environmental reasons, is cremation better than burial?
According to this article http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/organ-donation regarding organ donation in the U.S, “the need far exceeds the supply of transplantable organs.” Organ donation has come a long way since the late 1960’s when there were no federal laws dealing with the issue. The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act of 1968 (AGA) made it easier for people to pass on their organs after death and increase the number of available organs. Another step forward was taken in the fight for more easily accessible organs when the Uniform Donor Card was recognized as a legal document by all 50 states in 1972(after being mandated by The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act). I am interested in how long after the organs are taken out is the body given back to relatives for burial or cremation. The article talks about some countries like France and Denmark where bodies are used for research and organ transplants unless the formerly living people specifically indicated that they did not want their bodies to be used for these purposes, in other words the exact opposite of what happens in the U.S.
My feeling is that when a person dies, the body is just an empty shell. I believe that people should allow their bodies to be used to help living people. I also don’t think that wakes with open coffins make any sense at all. The idea of putting makeup on a dead person so that everyone can say how great and how peaceful he/she looks is ridiculous to me. I would want to remember dead people the way they were when they were alive, not the way they were when they were dead. I realize that other people feel differently for religious or cultural reasons, but I think that everyone should sign organ donor cards no matter what is done with the body afterwards. I think it’s better to be cremated and have ashes spread somewhere that is meaningful to the dead person and not have ashes end up in an urn.
Questions
1. How long after the organs are removed from the body is the body returned to the family?
2. In the U.S what is the proportion of bodies that are buried vs cremated?
3. After cremation, how often are ashes put in an urn vs scattered somewhere?
4. For environmental reasons, is cremation better than burial?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
HW # 45 - Reply to Other Peoples' Comments
Response to Andy - I appreciate the fact that you described my project's recommendation of a birth practice change as an "easy" one because it does
seem easy to do and important to do and yet it still isn't done. It seems that once there is a set medical practice in our culture it is hard to undo it and go back to a
natural way even if it is obviously better. You asked about whether it wouldn't be
better to leave the cord attached until the placenta came out. I think the answer is yes but sometimes it can take time and since in a hospital time is money and the nutrients and other good things from the blood coming throught the cord can get to the baby in 1-3 minutes, at least doing this small thing should be done regularly. I think there are some risks with a placenta tearing and causing hemoraging but I'm not sure whether cutting the cord helps the placenta come out faster. I will find out. And I will scan my flyer (adding the sources I cited earlier) as a pdf so it can be downloaded -didn't know that my previous format was so "ugly".
Response to Abdul - I really appreciate the time you took to react to my project recommendattion of waiting to cut the umbilical cord and that it had the desired impact of making you think that the natural approach is obviously superior to the medical one. You are right that finding out more statistics about what is the practice nationally would have been good. I know that I read that cutting the cord right away is the normal practice in hospitals in this country now for all the reasons stated, but my point would have been stronger with more documentation. Also, the reason I only showed the flyer to two people was because of time and the fact that I wanted to find someone who had just had a baby (to help prove the point that the cord is cut right away without options given) and someone who was about to have one so that she could ask her doctor to cut the cord later. I had a hard time even finding these two people in time.
Response to Natalie - I was really pleased that you said that when you have a baby one day you think you will ask to wait to have the umbilical cord cut. The great thing would be if you did not have to ask because the practice would have changed by then. Judging by how hard it is to get a good health care plan in this country that probably won't happen. I will make a pdf of the flyer to uphold with the picture of the placenta before and after waiting for the cord to be cut.
seem easy to do and important to do and yet it still isn't done. It seems that once there is a set medical practice in our culture it is hard to undo it and go back to a
natural way even if it is obviously better. You asked about whether it wouldn't be
better to leave the cord attached until the placenta came out. I think the answer is yes but sometimes it can take time and since in a hospital time is money and the nutrients and other good things from the blood coming throught the cord can get to the baby in 1-3 minutes, at least doing this small thing should be done regularly. I think there are some risks with a placenta tearing and causing hemoraging but I'm not sure whether cutting the cord helps the placenta come out faster. I will find out. And I will scan my flyer (adding the sources I cited earlier) as a pdf so it can be downloaded -didn't know that my previous format was so "ugly".
Response to Abdul - I really appreciate the time you took to react to my project recommendattion of waiting to cut the umbilical cord and that it had the desired impact of making you think that the natural approach is obviously superior to the medical one. You are right that finding out more statistics about what is the practice nationally would have been good. I know that I read that cutting the cord right away is the normal practice in hospitals in this country now for all the reasons stated, but my point would have been stronger with more documentation. Also, the reason I only showed the flyer to two people was because of time and the fact that I wanted to find someone who had just had a baby (to help prove the point that the cord is cut right away without options given) and someone who was about to have one so that she could ask her doctor to cut the cord later. I had a hard time even finding these two people in time.
Response to Natalie - I was really pleased that you said that when you have a baby one day you think you will ask to wait to have the umbilical cord cut. The great thing would be if you did not have to ask because the practice would have changed by then. Judging by how hard it is to get a good health care plan in this country that probably won't happen. I will make a pdf of the flyer to uphold with the picture of the placenta before and after waiting for the cord to be cut.
Monday, April 11, 2011
HW # 44 - Comments on Other People's Projects
From Andy
Great project - you identified an easy change that could be made in our birth practices - not cutting the umbilical cord for one or more minutes - and clarified why this change matters.
The change you propose symbolizes to me the basic binary between the medical model and the natural model. The medical model assumes the connection to the mother (literally in this case) should be chopped ASAP. The natural model assumes that the connection to the mother should be preserved and respected and investigated for health benefits. Is there any reason to chop the umbilical cord at 3 minutes? Would it be bad for the baby or the mother if the umbilical cord remained connected to the placenta while the placenta got pushed out?
You need to cite sources - otherwise your advocacy loses a lot of credibility.
Your flyer, that you showed in class, along with the prop, struck me as persuasive and well-made. But here on this site, the information gets listed but in an ugly and unuseable format. Why not scan the flyer and post it as a downloadable PDF or JPG? Then you could link to it and others could use it and you will be able to access it long after your little flyer gets crumpled and yellow.
Also, why only show it to 2 people? Why not more? Its worth sharing!
Thanks for your work.
From Naima
I really appreciated your work! You presented the medical approach as one that may not have an understanding or appreciation of the effects of allowing the umbilical cord to be cut after three minutes and presented the natural approach as being more welcoming to the literal connection between mother and child.
After reading the book that I was assigned to from class, this was brought up but not written about in detail. I was interested in this topic and I'm glad that you provided me with more information.
I liked the way this blog post was written, but perhaps you could have displayed it in a more creative way?
From Abdullah
Devin it seems as though your post was about a simple yet extremely important idea. Knowing when to cut the umbilical cord doesn't seem that important however, your blog helped show me and hopefully your other readers that it truly is. I sensed the battle between medical and natural in your blog because, you stated the perspectives of both natural and medical views.
One aspect of your post that I particularly valued was the fact that it seemed as though you tried to not be to biased with the side you picked. It was clear to me that you were pro waiting at least one minute to cut the umbilical cord. When you initially opened up your arguments you started off stating three reasons why the cord is cut. This was a smart decision because if your readers like me didn't know the reasons, we can learn them from you.
A reason why I think your project matter is because I think many Americans don't know how important the placenta is towards the babies and the mother's health. This obviously raises concerns because we want people that are directly involved in birth to know as much as possible, so that they can make the best decision for their family. I also agree with what Andy said in his comment, you definitely should have showed the flier to more people two is certainly not enough. This information that the public needs to get it's hands on. Please take Andy's advice and try and scan it so more people can see what great work you've done.
I would have appreciated more from you on this topic. Although you blog was solid and much better than mines, I think you could have tried to compare umbilical cord rates across the nation to find out where there were more and less cords being cut and why? You also could have compared umbilical cord rates between countries with better healthcare systems than us such as France? Clearly you didn't need to do any of this since your blog and elevator speech were solid, but there just suggestions.
Nicely done Devin I think your blog and speech were the best in the class. Keep up the good work.
From Mom
My reaction to this report about the benefits of waiting to cut the umbilical cord is great frustration that I did know about them at the time of giving birth to Devin and his brother. They were born in St. Vincent's Hospital in Greenwich Village (now closed) because at the time it had the lowest rate of cesarean delivery of any hospital in New York City and it allowed the father to stay over night with mother and baby I had a long "natural" labor (no epidural)that would have ended in a c-section with any other doctor, but I was semi-delirious at the end and have no memory of when the cord was cut. I also do not remember reading about asking to wait to have the umbilical cord cut in "What to Expect When You Are Expecting," a bible for mothers-to-be. My husband has no memory of the timing of the cord cutting either. Since Devin was born unexpectedly on Christmas Day, his dad had to spend time playing baseball in the hall with Devin's older brother! I hate thinking about babies not getting the full measure of all the nutrients, stem cells, T cells, and whatever else nature intended the baby to get from the placenta because of outdated thinking or to hurry things along (though in fairness the birth took place just before midnight and we had arrived at the hospital at 5AM -- a long day for everyone involved). If you had the time, Devin, or should I say if you ever do have the time, it would be interesting to spend more time documenting the benefits and risks and then presenting your work to a good maternity web site to create more awareness.
The subject is so compelling that any mother-to-be would want to make the request of her doctor before going into labor to let the umbilical cord finish its job.
From Dmitry
I wasn't expecting to find the subject of a project about "birth" of any interest to me, but I have to admit that what you wrote about the timing of the cutting of the umbilical cord seemed really important. It's amazing that something that has such obvious benefits isn't done all the time considering how long people stay in medical school. That's the "weird" part I guess.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Abdullah
You asked yourself what the government does to help poverty stricken pregnant women in New York City and then you visited an office in the Bronx of an organization called PATH, which you found out a little about online.
I really liked the way you describe the look and feeling of the office at the entrance making the point of how unwelcoming it must be to a poor pregnant woman coming there. But then you contrast this with the happy looking women who were staying there, making it seem like a good place overall. It seemed amazing when Mr.C said that PATH has an 100% success rate helping mothers to support themselves finnancially and not need temporary housing again.
The work PATH does is really important. These are babies, ones born to poor single moms, who are most likely to drop out of school and not have a chance of making a good life for themselves. They need to be brought into the society not made to feel like outcasts.
Myy only suggestion would have to be to ask what kind of jobs the mothers got so that they could be independent and not need temporary housing. But maybe he would not have wanted a direct question like that. I think you did a great job describing this visit and making it interesting.
For Natalie
WOW!!! You have really written a manifesto for the right of women to fight court-ordered cesareans when the mothers are of sound mind. You go on to make a strong case for why pregnant women's own health should come before the health of the fetus.
I was impressed with the way you documented your points, stating the legal rights of the mother as upheld by the Supreme Court.
A reason why I think your project is so important is because of the people in this country who would like to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court and ban abortion. Obviously, these people don't think that women should have control over their own lives and bodies, and I think they are completely wrong.
There is one area though that is complicated and that is that a pregnant woman cannot know all the dangers to her un-born child. She has to trust her doctor, and the problem seems to be that doctors, because of lawsuits and convenience are delivering too many babies by cesaerean section. This fact makes women not be able to trust doctors, and this is obviously a bad situation. My point is that there can be some women who might be willing to take a risk by not having a cesaearen and regret it later if the child turns out to be in great danger.
For Andy
You analyzed a specific 10 to 15 second exchange in "The Business of Being Born" that was a contradiction of the overall goal of the film which was to discredit the over-medicalization of the birth process and to emphasize the importance of midwives and the advantages of home birth. This "contradiction" involved the doctor givong information that was not true seemingly to protect the midwife, who did not make a correct diagnosis.
I really liked the way you came up with so many possible reasons why the doctor would have covered for the midwife, including the fact that his own mother was a midwife. These possibilities gave your blog a lot of suspense, and I hope you will tell us when you get an answer back from the filmmaker.
For me the story is interesting because the fact that the filmaker wasn't truthful makes her project that had a worthy goal unworthy. She ended up with an emergency cesearean because there was a real problem with the baby. Midwives are supposed to have a medical doctor backup. I think the whole idea is that in a birth with no problems, a midwife is a better option than a medical doctor. Bu t if there is a problem, then a medical doctor in a hospital is essential. So why not have that be the message of the film.
One thing that would be interesting to know would be when you discovered this cover-up. Did you notice it the first time you saw the film or on the second or third time?
Great project - you identified an easy change that could be made in our birth practices - not cutting the umbilical cord for one or more minutes - and clarified why this change matters.
The change you propose symbolizes to me the basic binary between the medical model and the natural model. The medical model assumes the connection to the mother (literally in this case) should be chopped ASAP. The natural model assumes that the connection to the mother should be preserved and respected and investigated for health benefits. Is there any reason to chop the umbilical cord at 3 minutes? Would it be bad for the baby or the mother if the umbilical cord remained connected to the placenta while the placenta got pushed out?
You need to cite sources - otherwise your advocacy loses a lot of credibility.
Your flyer, that you showed in class, along with the prop, struck me as persuasive and well-made. But here on this site, the information gets listed but in an ugly and unuseable format. Why not scan the flyer and post it as a downloadable PDF or JPG? Then you could link to it and others could use it and you will be able to access it long after your little flyer gets crumpled and yellow.
Also, why only show it to 2 people? Why not more? Its worth sharing!
Thanks for your work.
From Naima
I really appreciated your work! You presented the medical approach as one that may not have an understanding or appreciation of the effects of allowing the umbilical cord to be cut after three minutes and presented the natural approach as being more welcoming to the literal connection between mother and child.
After reading the book that I was assigned to from class, this was brought up but not written about in detail. I was interested in this topic and I'm glad that you provided me with more information.
I liked the way this blog post was written, but perhaps you could have displayed it in a more creative way?
From Abdullah
Devin it seems as though your post was about a simple yet extremely important idea. Knowing when to cut the umbilical cord doesn't seem that important however, your blog helped show me and hopefully your other readers that it truly is. I sensed the battle between medical and natural in your blog because, you stated the perspectives of both natural and medical views.
One aspect of your post that I particularly valued was the fact that it seemed as though you tried to not be to biased with the side you picked. It was clear to me that you were pro waiting at least one minute to cut the umbilical cord. When you initially opened up your arguments you started off stating three reasons why the cord is cut. This was a smart decision because if your readers like me didn't know the reasons, we can learn them from you.
A reason why I think your project matter is because I think many Americans don't know how important the placenta is towards the babies and the mother's health. This obviously raises concerns because we want people that are directly involved in birth to know as much as possible, so that they can make the best decision for their family. I also agree with what Andy said in his comment, you definitely should have showed the flier to more people two is certainly not enough. This information that the public needs to get it's hands on. Please take Andy's advice and try and scan it so more people can see what great work you've done.
I would have appreciated more from you on this topic. Although you blog was solid and much better than mines, I think you could have tried to compare umbilical cord rates across the nation to find out where there were more and less cords being cut and why? You also could have compared umbilical cord rates between countries with better healthcare systems than us such as France? Clearly you didn't need to do any of this since your blog and elevator speech were solid, but there just suggestions.
Nicely done Devin I think your blog and speech were the best in the class. Keep up the good work.
From Mom
My reaction to this report about the benefits of waiting to cut the umbilical cord is great frustration that I did know about them at the time of giving birth to Devin and his brother. They were born in St. Vincent's Hospital in Greenwich Village (now closed) because at the time it had the lowest rate of cesarean delivery of any hospital in New York City and it allowed the father to stay over night with mother and baby I had a long "natural" labor (no epidural)that would have ended in a c-section with any other doctor, but I was semi-delirious at the end and have no memory of when the cord was cut. I also do not remember reading about asking to wait to have the umbilical cord cut in "What to Expect When You Are Expecting," a bible for mothers-to-be. My husband has no memory of the timing of the cord cutting either. Since Devin was born unexpectedly on Christmas Day, his dad had to spend time playing baseball in the hall with Devin's older brother! I hate thinking about babies not getting the full measure of all the nutrients, stem cells, T cells, and whatever else nature intended the baby to get from the placenta because of outdated thinking or to hurry things along (though in fairness the birth took place just before midnight and we had arrived at the hospital at 5AM -- a long day for everyone involved). If you had the time, Devin, or should I say if you ever do have the time, it would be interesting to spend more time documenting the benefits and risks and then presenting your work to a good maternity web site to create more awareness.
The subject is so compelling that any mother-to-be would want to make the request of her doctor before going into labor to let the umbilical cord finish its job.
From Dmitry
I wasn't expecting to find the subject of a project about "birth" of any interest to me, but I have to admit that what you wrote about the timing of the cutting of the umbilical cord seemed really important. It's amazing that something that has such obvious benefits isn't done all the time considering how long people stay in medical school. That's the "weird" part I guess.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Abdullah
You asked yourself what the government does to help poverty stricken pregnant women in New York City and then you visited an office in the Bronx of an organization called PATH, which you found out a little about online.
I really liked the way you describe the look and feeling of the office at the entrance making the point of how unwelcoming it must be to a poor pregnant woman coming there. But then you contrast this with the happy looking women who were staying there, making it seem like a good place overall. It seemed amazing when Mr.C said that PATH has an 100% success rate helping mothers to support themselves finnancially and not need temporary housing again.
The work PATH does is really important. These are babies, ones born to poor single moms, who are most likely to drop out of school and not have a chance of making a good life for themselves. They need to be brought into the society not made to feel like outcasts.
Myy only suggestion would have to be to ask what kind of jobs the mothers got so that they could be independent and not need temporary housing. But maybe he would not have wanted a direct question like that. I think you did a great job describing this visit and making it interesting.
For Natalie
WOW!!! You have really written a manifesto for the right of women to fight court-ordered cesareans when the mothers are of sound mind. You go on to make a strong case for why pregnant women's own health should come before the health of the fetus.
I was impressed with the way you documented your points, stating the legal rights of the mother as upheld by the Supreme Court.
A reason why I think your project is so important is because of the people in this country who would like to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision of the Supreme Court and ban abortion. Obviously, these people don't think that women should have control over their own lives and bodies, and I think they are completely wrong.
There is one area though that is complicated and that is that a pregnant woman cannot know all the dangers to her un-born child. She has to trust her doctor, and the problem seems to be that doctors, because of lawsuits and convenience are delivering too many babies by cesaerean section. This fact makes women not be able to trust doctors, and this is obviously a bad situation. My point is that there can be some women who might be willing to take a risk by not having a cesaearen and regret it later if the child turns out to be in great danger.
For Andy
You analyzed a specific 10 to 15 second exchange in "The Business of Being Born" that was a contradiction of the overall goal of the film which was to discredit the over-medicalization of the birth process and to emphasize the importance of midwives and the advantages of home birth. This "contradiction" involved the doctor givong information that was not true seemingly to protect the midwife, who did not make a correct diagnosis.
I really liked the way you came up with so many possible reasons why the doctor would have covered for the midwife, including the fact that his own mother was a midwife. These possibilities gave your blog a lot of suspense, and I hope you will tell us when you get an answer back from the filmmaker.
For me the story is interesting because the fact that the filmaker wasn't truthful makes her project that had a worthy goal unworthy. She ended up with an emergency cesearean because there was a real problem with the baby. Midwives are supposed to have a medical doctor backup. I think the whole idea is that in a birth with no problems, a midwife is a better option than a medical doctor. Bu t if there is a problem, then a medical doctor in a hospital is essential. So why not have that be the message of the film.
One thing that would be interesting to know would be when you discovered this cover-up. Did you notice it the first time you saw the film or on the second or third time?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
HW # 42 - Pregnancy & Birth culminating project
Independent Research Topic: “When to Cut the Umbilical Cord”
Advocacy flyer
Cover: Picture of Stewie from “Family Guy” with a speech bubble that says, “Just a
Freakin’ Fetal Minute, mother!”
Urgent Message for Mothers-to-Be: When it’s time to cut the umbilical cord, tell your doctor to wait at least a minute
Inside left page;
Why is the umbilical cord cut immediately after birth?
There are three primary reasons:
o Anesthesia
Formerly, most mothers were knocked out completely with anesthesia, and the cord was clamped immediately to keep the anesthesia from getting into the baby’s bloodstream
o Convenience
“Time is money.” Cutting the cord right away is yet another way of speeding up the institutional birthing process so that everyone can go home more quickly
o Technology
Since the clamping devices and warming trays exist now, there is a need to use them. In the not-so-old days it was normal to leave the baby attached to the umbilical cord resting on its mother for a while
Benefits of Waiting to Clamp and Cut the Umbilical Cord After Birth
o Blood from the placenta that has carried oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord to the fetus can continue to do so to strengthen the baby
o Waiting even one minute before clamping and cutting the umbilical cord means that 50% of the blood volume of the placenta will go the baby bringing iron that prevents iron deficiency anemia that can lead to learning delays and impairment. Waiting up to three minutes means that most of the blood volume of the placenta will go to the baby
• Waiting even one minute before clamping and cutting the umbilical cord also means the oxygen coming from the blood through the umbilical cord can help support the baby’s effort to breathe from the air for the first time. Aerating the lungs the first time requires a huge increase blood flow to the lungs. If there is not enough blood coming from the placenta, blood must come from the baby’s organs, which could be damaging to them
o Allowing the blood from the placenta to flow through the umbilical cord to the baby once it is born helps shrink the size of the placenta making it easier to come out and removing the risk of bleeding from the mother
o Stem cells in the umbilical cord’s blood stream can “differentiate” into every other kind of cell in the baby and be of enormous help to the baby’s future health
o T cells in the umbilical cord’s blood stream can help prevent cancer later in the baby’s life
o The additional blood from the placenta provides essential and even life-saving nourishment in many parts of the world where good nutrition is hard to come by including areas in the United States
o The one to three minutes of leaving the baby on its mother attached to the umbilical cord is a moment of peace for the mother, father, and baby and a
time to enjoy the wonder of what has just happened
Inside left page
Risks of Waiting to Clamp and Cut the Umbilical Cord After Birth
o Some medical practitioners have thought that cutting the umbilical cord would prevent an excessive amount of blood from overwhelming the baby’s system. The World Health Organization says that this effect does not happen. “In fact, there is probably a self-regulatory mechanism in the infant which limits the extent of placental transfusion. Moreover, there is evidence that the circulatory system of the newborn is capable of rapid adjustment to an increase in blood volume”
o There can be a mild form of jaundice caused because immature liver cannot process all the bilirubin, a yellow byproduct of breakdown or red blood cells that gets pushed out to tissues and causes baby to look a little yellow. Generally, sunlight gets rid of it, but sometimes there is a need for phototherapy, requiring technology that is not always available in some parts of the world.
Conclusion
So there we have it: Seven huge benefits to delaying the cutting of the umbilical cord and only one risk that is not serious. What will you choose to do?
Back cover:
Picture of a placenta when cut immediately after birth and a picture of a placenta after one to three minutes
Reaction #1 from Meghan who just give birth for the first time three months ago:
I wish I had known about this. My unbilical cord was cut right away even though I had a doula with me in the hospital. I signed a paper to donate the blood in my umbilical cord to a bank possibly to help others one day but was told there was not much blood and that it probably wouldn’t be that helpful. That was all.
Reaction #2 from Isabel who will give birth for the first time in sixth months:
I will definitely tell my doctor that I do not want the umbilical cord cut for three minutes. This is fascinating. I’ve read several pregnancy books and did not know about this option.
Advocacy flyer
Cover: Picture of Stewie from “Family Guy” with a speech bubble that says, “Just a
Freakin’ Fetal Minute, mother!”
Urgent Message for Mothers-to-Be: When it’s time to cut the umbilical cord, tell your doctor to wait at least a minute
Inside left page;
Why is the umbilical cord cut immediately after birth?
There are three primary reasons:
o Anesthesia
Formerly, most mothers were knocked out completely with anesthesia, and the cord was clamped immediately to keep the anesthesia from getting into the baby’s bloodstream
o Convenience
“Time is money.” Cutting the cord right away is yet another way of speeding up the institutional birthing process so that everyone can go home more quickly
o Technology
Since the clamping devices and warming trays exist now, there is a need to use them. In the not-so-old days it was normal to leave the baby attached to the umbilical cord resting on its mother for a while
Benefits of Waiting to Clamp and Cut the Umbilical Cord After Birth
o Blood from the placenta that has carried oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord to the fetus can continue to do so to strengthen the baby
o Waiting even one minute before clamping and cutting the umbilical cord means that 50% of the blood volume of the placenta will go the baby bringing iron that prevents iron deficiency anemia that can lead to learning delays and impairment. Waiting up to three minutes means that most of the blood volume of the placenta will go to the baby
• Waiting even one minute before clamping and cutting the umbilical cord also means the oxygen coming from the blood through the umbilical cord can help support the baby’s effort to breathe from the air for the first time. Aerating the lungs the first time requires a huge increase blood flow to the lungs. If there is not enough blood coming from the placenta, blood must come from the baby’s organs, which could be damaging to them
o Allowing the blood from the placenta to flow through the umbilical cord to the baby once it is born helps shrink the size of the placenta making it easier to come out and removing the risk of bleeding from the mother
o Stem cells in the umbilical cord’s blood stream can “differentiate” into every other kind of cell in the baby and be of enormous help to the baby’s future health
o T cells in the umbilical cord’s blood stream can help prevent cancer later in the baby’s life
o The additional blood from the placenta provides essential and even life-saving nourishment in many parts of the world where good nutrition is hard to come by including areas in the United States
o The one to three minutes of leaving the baby on its mother attached to the umbilical cord is a moment of peace for the mother, father, and baby and a
time to enjoy the wonder of what has just happened
Inside left page
Risks of Waiting to Clamp and Cut the Umbilical Cord After Birth
o Some medical practitioners have thought that cutting the umbilical cord would prevent an excessive amount of blood from overwhelming the baby’s system. The World Health Organization says that this effect does not happen. “In fact, there is probably a self-regulatory mechanism in the infant which limits the extent of placental transfusion. Moreover, there is evidence that the circulatory system of the newborn is capable of rapid adjustment to an increase in blood volume”
o There can be a mild form of jaundice caused because immature liver cannot process all the bilirubin, a yellow byproduct of breakdown or red blood cells that gets pushed out to tissues and causes baby to look a little yellow. Generally, sunlight gets rid of it, but sometimes there is a need for phototherapy, requiring technology that is not always available in some parts of the world.
Conclusion
So there we have it: Seven huge benefits to delaying the cutting of the umbilical cord and only one risk that is not serious. What will you choose to do?
Back cover:
Picture of a placenta when cut immediately after birth and a picture of a placenta after one to three minutes
Reaction #1 from Meghan who just give birth for the first time three months ago:
I wish I had known about this. My unbilical cord was cut right away even though I had a doula with me in the hospital. I signed a paper to donate the blood in my umbilical cord to a bank possibly to help others one day but was told there was not much blood and that it probably wouldn’t be that helpful. That was all.
Reaction #2 from Isabel who will give birth for the first time in sixth months:
I will definitely tell my doctor that I do not want the umbilical cord cut for three minutes. This is fascinating. I’ve read several pregnancy books and did not know about this option.
Monday, April 4, 2011
HW # 41 - Independent Research
When to Cut the Umbilical Cord
I find this to be an appropriate “Normal is Weird” subject because
as part of a normal birth process the umbilical cord is cut right away
in spite of the fact that all the acquired knowledge to date and research
trials recommend waiting even as short a time as three minutes
for the good of the baby.
“Health risks, benefits come with delayed umbilical cord clamping.” Center for Advancing Health. 15 April 2008
This article reports on a review of 11 studies evaluating the benefits of delaying the clamping of the umbilical cord. Results showed that “in most cases the time difference between early and late cord clamping is just one or two minutes, but the delay allows for an additional infusion of blood from mother to child.” Benefit: additional blood going to baby provides more iron and counters risk of anemia. Risk: mild form of jaundice caused because immature liver cannot process all the bilirubin, a yellow byproduct of breakdown or red blood cells that gets pushed out to tissues and causes baby to look a little yellow. Generally, sunlight gets rid of it, but sometimes there is a need for phototherapy, requiring technology that is not always available in some parts of the world.
“Effect of Timing of Umbilical Cord Clamping of Term Infants on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes.” RHL commentary (last revised: 2 March 2009). The WHO Reproductive Health Library; Geneva: World Health Organization
This article studies that have demonstrated that “there is a transfer from the placenta of about 80 ml of blood at 1 minute after birth, reaching about 100 ml at 3 minutes after birth.” It makes the case that late clamping is especially important in poor areas where there is not “access to good nuturition.”
“Care of the Umbilical Cord: A Review of the Evidence.” World Health Organization, 1999
This article talks about traditional beliefs about the cutting of the umbilical cord in other cultures. “In many cultures, people believe that all life from the placenta must be transferred to the newborn for otherwise they baby may die. Therefore the cord is usually cut after cord pulsations stop or after the delivery of the placenta.” The article also describes the umbilical cord as “a unique tissue, consisting of two arteries and one vein covered by a mucoid connective tissue called Wharton’s jelly and a thin mucous membrane. Blood flowing through the cord brings nutrients and oxygen to the fetus and carries away carbon dioxide and metabolic wastes.”
“Early or Late Cord Clamping?” Midwifery Today E-News 23 July 1999
This article states that clamping the umbilical cord too early is dangerous because when a baby takes its first breath the aeration of the lungs causes “a massive increase in pulmonary blood flow,” which is supposed to come from the placenta. If the cord is cut right away, blood has to come from the baby’s other organs and for some babies this could be fatal.
Forro, Chinmayo. “The Unbilical Cord Blood Controversy.” 2009
This article begins with some history – first person to say that the cord must be cut immediately after birth was a 17th century French obstetrician Francois Mauriceau. Even though there was no evidence at the time, most obstetricians today follow Dr. Mauriceau’s recommendation. The article quotes Doctors Barclay and Murata from an article they published in Pediatrics in 2006 that said cutting the cord right away “might deprive the newborn of some benefits such as an increase in iron storate…Iron deficiency early in life may have pronounced central nervous system effects such as cognitive impairment,” and that delaying cord cutting is also good because “the increase of hematopoietic stem cells transfused to the newborn might play a role on different blood disorders and immune conditions.”
“Scientist says Umbilical Cords Should Be Cut Later.” 25 May 2010
This article quotes Professor Paul Sanberg, the lead researcher in a study described in the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. It says, “Delayed cord clamping may have a host of positive consequences, including reduced risks for developing conditions such as respiratory distress, chronic lung disease, brain hemorrhages, anemia, sepsis and eye disease.”
“Benefits of delayed cord clamping.” Write About Birth. 9 July 2010
This article says that it is not true that delaying the cutting of the umbilical cord could bring too much blood to the baby’s system and overload it. It says that there is evidence that the newborn’s circulatory system “is capable of rapid adjustment to an increase in blood volume and viscosity by increased fluid extravasation and dilation of blood vessels.” It also says that midwives like to wait until the pulsing action stops in the cord because they they know that the blood has all gone into the baby.
Hughes, Pattie. “Should You Bank Baby’s Cord Blood?” Families .com 2001
This article talks about some parents who spend $1500 to put their baby’s umbilical cord blood in a bank with a storage fee of $100 each year in case their child ever develops a disease the stem cells in this blood could cure. This “blood banking” is not regulated so no one knows how long the blood would be effective. Also with some forms of cancer like leukemia and genetic disorders the blood stem cells might have the disease and not be helpful. Also the amount of blood might help a small child but not be enough for a grownup.
“Benefits of Delayed Cord Clamping.” Doula and Birth Services: Butterfly Birth. 12 July 2009
This article by a doula recommends waiting as long as an hour or an hour and a half for the placenta to come out and then cutting the cord. She says it is important for the baby to be lower that the placenta before it comes out so there can be effective blood flow.
The article also explains that the reason hospitals cut the cord immediately is out of habit from a time when most women were unconscious when they were giving birth and that doctors did not want the anesthetic to get into the baby through the cord. It also talks about the fact that when the cutting is delayed the blood in the placenta (up to 40% of the baby’s blood) will go into the baby and shrink the size of the placenta making it easier for it to come out faster and prevent more bleeding from the mother.
I find this to be an appropriate “Normal is Weird” subject because
as part of a normal birth process the umbilical cord is cut right away
in spite of the fact that all the acquired knowledge to date and research
trials recommend waiting even as short a time as three minutes
for the good of the baby.
“Health risks, benefits come with delayed umbilical cord clamping.” Center for Advancing Health. 15 April 2008
This article reports on a review of 11 studies evaluating the benefits of delaying the clamping of the umbilical cord. Results showed that “in most cases the time difference between early and late cord clamping is just one or two minutes, but the delay allows for an additional infusion of blood from mother to child.” Benefit: additional blood going to baby provides more iron and counters risk of anemia. Risk: mild form of jaundice caused because immature liver cannot process all the bilirubin, a yellow byproduct of breakdown or red blood cells that gets pushed out to tissues and causes baby to look a little yellow. Generally, sunlight gets rid of it, but sometimes there is a need for phototherapy, requiring technology that is not always available in some parts of the world.
“Effect of Timing of Umbilical Cord Clamping of Term Infants on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes.” RHL commentary (last revised: 2 March 2009). The WHO Reproductive Health Library; Geneva: World Health Organization
This article studies that have demonstrated that “there is a transfer from the placenta of about 80 ml of blood at 1 minute after birth, reaching about 100 ml at 3 minutes after birth.” It makes the case that late clamping is especially important in poor areas where there is not “access to good nuturition.”
“Care of the Umbilical Cord: A Review of the Evidence.” World Health Organization, 1999
This article talks about traditional beliefs about the cutting of the umbilical cord in other cultures. “In many cultures, people believe that all life from the placenta must be transferred to the newborn for otherwise they baby may die. Therefore the cord is usually cut after cord pulsations stop or after the delivery of the placenta.” The article also describes the umbilical cord as “a unique tissue, consisting of two arteries and one vein covered by a mucoid connective tissue called Wharton’s jelly and a thin mucous membrane. Blood flowing through the cord brings nutrients and oxygen to the fetus and carries away carbon dioxide and metabolic wastes.”
“Early or Late Cord Clamping?” Midwifery Today E-News 23 July 1999
This article states that clamping the umbilical cord too early is dangerous because when a baby takes its first breath the aeration of the lungs causes “a massive increase in pulmonary blood flow,” which is supposed to come from the placenta. If the cord is cut right away, blood has to come from the baby’s other organs and for some babies this could be fatal.
Forro, Chinmayo. “The Unbilical Cord Blood Controversy.” 2009
This article begins with some history – first person to say that the cord must be cut immediately after birth was a 17th century French obstetrician Francois Mauriceau. Even though there was no evidence at the time, most obstetricians today follow Dr. Mauriceau’s recommendation. The article quotes Doctors Barclay and Murata from an article they published in Pediatrics in 2006 that said cutting the cord right away “might deprive the newborn of some benefits such as an increase in iron storate…Iron deficiency early in life may have pronounced central nervous system effects such as cognitive impairment,” and that delaying cord cutting is also good because “the increase of hematopoietic stem cells transfused to the newborn might play a role on different blood disorders and immune conditions.”
“Scientist says Umbilical Cords Should Be Cut Later.” 25 May 2010
This article quotes Professor Paul Sanberg, the lead researcher in a study described in the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. It says, “Delayed cord clamping may have a host of positive consequences, including reduced risks for developing conditions such as respiratory distress, chronic lung disease, brain hemorrhages, anemia, sepsis and eye disease.”
“Benefits of delayed cord clamping.” Write About Birth. 9 July 2010
This article says that it is not true that delaying the cutting of the umbilical cord could bring too much blood to the baby’s system and overload it. It says that there is evidence that the newborn’s circulatory system “is capable of rapid adjustment to an increase in blood volume and viscosity by increased fluid extravasation and dilation of blood vessels.” It also says that midwives like to wait until the pulsing action stops in the cord because they they know that the blood has all gone into the baby.
Hughes, Pattie. “Should You Bank Baby’s Cord Blood?” Families .com 2001
This article talks about some parents who spend $1500 to put their baby’s umbilical cord blood in a bank with a storage fee of $100 each year in case their child ever develops a disease the stem cells in this blood could cure. This “blood banking” is not regulated so no one knows how long the blood would be effective. Also with some forms of cancer like leukemia and genetic disorders the blood stem cells might have the disease and not be helpful. Also the amount of blood might help a small child but not be enough for a grownup.
“Benefits of Delayed Cord Clamping.” Doula and Birth Services: Butterfly Birth. 12 July 2009
This article by a doula recommends waiting as long as an hour or an hour and a half for the placenta to come out and then cutting the cord. She says it is important for the baby to be lower that the placenta before it comes out so there can be effective blood flow.
The article also explains that the reason hospitals cut the cord immediately is out of habit from a time when most women were unconscious when they were giving birth and that doctors did not want the anesthetic to get into the baby through the cord. It also talks about the fact that when the cutting is delayed the blood in the placenta (up to 40% of the baby’s blood) will go into the baby and shrink the size of the placenta making it easier for it to come out faster and prevent more bleeding from the mother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)