This question is for Nurses and Dr.'s who work in Labor and Delivery?

Question

Why has is all of a sudden become the practice to clamp the cord immediately after birth, rather than wait for it to quit pulsating?

My feeling on this, is that by doing so you are robbing the baby of half of it's blood, which has been squeezed back in to the placenta when the baby passed through the birth canal.

Why are they not waiting until the cord stops pulsating so that the blood from the placenta can return to the baby??? Has the mindset changed to you think the placenta is robbing the baby of blood??? Or is there an ulterior motive here, about getting that cord blood for research purposes???

I just witnessed a baby almost die on Discovery health because they clamped the cord immediately after birth, harvested a pint, A PINT, of blood from the cord, and the baby went in to respiratory distress. I think they robbed that baby of his blood, and if they would have waited to clamp the cord, and allowed the blood to go back in to the baby, he would have been fine.

Also, when is the best time to collect cord blood? Immediately after birth while there is still plenty in the cord since it has been clamped right away? I imagine it must be difficult to collect it if you give it back to the baby like it's supposed to be done. Where is this blood being taken and what IS it really being used for. I want to know.

The rate of women dying in childbirth has increased, as well as infant mortality in the US. I think it is because labor and delivery has turned into a pathological illness, rather than a normal process, and Dr.s are in too much of a hurry to deliver that baby, no matter what. It seems that Dr's and Nurses are not being taught in med school how to deal with ""God forbid" Natural childbirth.

I also think the more medical intervention, means more money for the Hospital and Dr. to rob your insurance or medicaid and to avoid lawsuits, etc...

Since I'm getting stars and no answers, let me broaden this a little.

Anybody have a baby who looked a little too blue and was in Resp distress, because you think they may have clamped and cut the cord too soon????

I guess since no Medical Professional's have attempted to answer this question, it means I've got them "scratching their heads" a bit. I mean come on. I'm not a Dr. or a Nurse, but I have worked in the medical profession for many years, in many specialties, and I seem to have figured this out rather easily, so.....The "Real Professional's" really ought to weigh in on this.

And Happy Cake, kudo's on your answer, and links. You've definately done your research on this!

Answer 1

I believe my son's cord was cut too soon. As soon as he was out of me, they began to suction his nose and such (as of course he was considered "high risk" since there was meconium in the fluid). I do remember, when my partner cut the cord, that blood sprayed onto the nurse standing right there, so that leaves me wondering just how soon after he was born was that cord clamped/cut. I know it wasn't long, couldn't have been more than 3 minutes, if that.

I do know that he was bluish, and that he was given a low apgar score due to his "unresponsiveness and lethargy".

We also had a HORRIBLE time getting him to be interested or latch onto the breast. It was several hours come to think of it, he was nearly 4 hours old before he latched on and didn't just slip off. My baby seemed very tired and weak, and considering the fact that my labor was only 7 hours in the hospital, I just don't believe THAT is what "wore him out".

Nor do I believe the meconium was the cause of it, as he did not have any signs of aspiration.

I think there could be a chance that the Nubain I was given 4 hours before his birth might've affected his "responsiveness" but this does not explain his bluish tinge.

He was also jaundiced on day 3 of his life, and still struggling to learn to breastfeed.

I just did a google search on cord clamping. Every single article I read pointed towards early cord clamping being dangerous, unecessary and harmful to the baby. There is not one shred of legitimate evidence to support that early clamping is beneficial.

With all these "new medical findings" and "experts are confirming" that early cord clamping is harmful,

WHY ARE THEY STILL DOING IT??? especially within ONE MINUTE of the baby's exit from the birth canal????

it has to be that "get em in get em out" attitude, as well as the harvesting of cord blood.

I'm off to find information on "cord blood banking" from some official site.

Ok here we go. From Cord Blood Registry, the largest cord blood banking system in the United States.

http://www.cordblood.com/index.asp

They state that cord blood is collected immediately after birth, after the cord has been CLAMPED AND CUT. They claim this blood would simply be "thrown away" if not harvested. What do you suppose would happen to that cord blood if the cord were not clamped within the first MINUTE of birth?? Perhaps it would FLOW INTO THE BABY who needs it NOW, and not "just in case" some medical need arises for it later???


So as an answer to your question: That blood is getting stored in tanks in Arizona somewhere, at great cost to the parents, meaning someone is benefitting financially (and possibly medically) from the blood that is rightfully the baby's. That's where it's going, and that's why. I don't think it is right at all.

Answer 2

I never thought of this before, but I have read that the cord should be left intact and the placenta held higher than the baby until it stops pulsating. My babies were both a little blue after birth. The first had a prolapsed cord so they cut it as soon as it emerged. I'm not even sure why.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Answer 3

Well, I can't answer since the question is directed to professionals, but I agree with you 100%.

Most medical procedures before, during and after labor could be avoided and some of them could also be harmful to the baby and the mother.