Pregnancy Birth & Bonding 05there is no drug made that can be administered to the mother that does not translate to within an average of forty-five secondsTheme:drugs, birth, bondingSummaryDiscussionTranscriptRelated Insights
In this section Joe explores the routine use of drugs and other technical interventions that have been shown to predetermine and cause increased complications demanding more sever and costly interventions. At risk is the unfolding of the natural bonding instinct-response that is the survival system for the species.Coming
Let's look at drugs very briefly. The introduction of drugs, of course the infants and children that Freud was looking at, infants and their mothers were all drugged patients. This started as you know back in the nineteenth century and now is widespread. We know that there is no drug made that can be administered to the mother that does not translate to within an average of forty-five seconds. The placenta barrier is not affected against them. We do know that the drugged mother is a drugged infant and both the infant comes into the world drugged, unable to fully respond to a mother who can unable to fully respond to him. Neither can model for the other and you have some problems right off the bat.
We also know that drugs cause various other kinds of problems in the infant themselves. The use of monitors, now I'm only going to skip through these in a hurry because these have been too well catalogued, volumes and volumes have been written about all this, of course that doesn't have anything to do with the medical profession, they don't read them, but the use of monitors, the use of all these uterine monitoring systems we do know that the induction of these monitors and inserting these various things to check the infants heart beat and so on, that the use of the monitor's themselves set up an artificial feedback system because it terrifies mothers.
Remember again, it's a natural mammalian instinct is that any interference in the child birth process is designed to stop and wait until the coast is clear. Now monitors create such an anxiety syndrome in the mothers that they skew the figures that they're monitoring themselves. That is they tend to bring about the negative readings which are then read on the monitors which then require more and more interference practices on the part of the medical people. This again was well established by the early seventies. I heard that all discussions at a medical conference at the University of California back in about 1974, the use of the monitors stops, all that helps to of course stop the birth process which then means we induce other kinds of drugs to get the birth process going again. So we have the further use of drugs. Now that brings us to the fact of induced labor.
We use drugs which induce the labor which we have artificially stopped by all of our interference patterns. Today a majority, at least this was the case about 1987, I really should keep up on this, I really might be sticking my neck out, but a majority of all births took place between 9:00 in the morning and 3:00 in the afternoon, the convenience hours of the doctors and the staff and they simply do this by inducing a drug which fools the system and begins to bring about the labor process. You miss the syncronsity of the two systems that's brought about when the infant calls the shots and decides it's time to leave. So induced labor brings on a whole raft of problems which we then respond to with more monitoring and a whole raft of other interference patterns. It all begins to become cyclical and escalating.
Then we have the business of Cesarean sectioning which is a huge study that came out in 19.., back in the 70's when C-sectioning was then rampant and growing by leaps and bounds, by ATW, an in-depth medical study by a group of medical doctors which said that they could justify maybe one half to one percent of all of the C-sectioning taking place in the United States. The rest of them were simply unjustifiable under any terms. Today we have about thirty percent of our infants across the country C-sectioned and brought into the world that way. The mothers of course extremely incapacitated. It's a major, major operation which can be considered a major operation in any circumstance. And the infant of course misses certain processes. Know, don't think any of these things can't be made up. We're the most resilient species on Earth. If all of this happened to you and it happens to your children, don't despair because there are almost none of these damages that can't be remediated with the proper time, energy and so forth.
Let’s just look at the premature cutting of the umbilical cord. All of the old obstetrical textbooks before World Ward II said you never touch the umbilical cord so long as it's active. No Obstetrician back in the old days going around from house to house with it ever cut the umbilical cord so long as it's active. During World War II all that changed. Every single practice was changed during World War II and they began the immediate cutting of the umbilical cord because no one had time to wait for the cord to shut down. Now the minute you cut the umbilical cord and 97% of our children had the umbilical cord cut the minute the child comes out of the womb into the world.
The minute you cut that umbilical cord the child goes into anoxia. 30% of its oxygen supply, blood supply, still in the placenta, they go into anoxia, oxygen deprivation which is the greatest single mammalian terror that the mammalian creature knows and immediately the infants gasp for breath. They gasp for breath before the amniotic fluid is cleared from the trachea, from the nasal passages and the nasal plug and all they call that, has been removed, and that means what? They gagged on their own amniotic fluid. Then immediately what happens? Well they can't breath and we hear them strangling for breath and so the classical picture is the infant is picked up by the heels and pounded on the back to clear, get the nasal plug out and get them to breathing. Spank the baby, an archetypal image in the American mind.
You see it in the movies, you see it on the plays, you see it on television, we accept that as the natural process of life, spank the baby. Now that is artificial induction of breathing. William F. Wendell and his massive studies, published in the Scientific American, pointed out in every case where artificial means such as spanking the baby had to be used to induce breathing, you are dealing with brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation. His estimate was 20% to 40% of all of the children having this happen to them would have brain damage to some extent from minimum to severe.
Don't think that this is something out of the dark ages, it's still standard practice. There have been some changes in hospital technological procedures as a result of them, Hugh and cry and a lot of people hollering, as it should have been changed a long time ago, but the premature cutting of the umbilical cord is simply still practiced in the majority of cases and you get this anoxia and you get the child gasping for breath.
At any rate, the premature cutting of the umbilical cord is a serious, serious thing. And I'll just remind you again, if there were water babies, and I've seen many of them, their beautiful development and the fact that the umbilical cord is left intact and continues to produce oxygen for a period of 15 to 20 minutes, nature thinks nothing of that.
We then get into some other issues. The business of circumcision without anesthetics, now there are two big outfits in the United States, now one is in Seattle, Washington and one is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania I believe, who are made up of medical doctors, Pediatricians, and a whole raft of outraged women who are suddenly looking at the automatic circumcision of all of our male infants, 97% of them since World War II, World War II was the end of the watershed.
The doctors have always said well they don't mind at all, they just give a little cry and then go right to sleep. So the question was raised, "why do you have to use those restraining devices?" They have to strap them down like mad because they resist fiercely, and so finally, recently some of the doctors agreed to allowing researching people to put electroencephalographs on the little infant and body sensors of various sorts, and they found that the infant doesn't just give a little cry and goes right to sleep, they really scream bloody murder. Most of them. Now some of them respond differently and do not go to sleep but they go into a state of shock and the brain doesn't resume any of its normal bio-rhythms for a period of two to three days. Now this is a lot different from the story being told.
If you'll look at the work again of doctors David Chamberlain, David Cheek, and Thomas Vernig on the highly conscious extremely sensitive state of the newborn infant, certainly backed up by research in all other countries, particularly the Swedish Pediatrics group that I know about, you'll find that infants certainly registers the pain.Coming