Conventional Med

Routine Early Cord Clamping Harms Newborns: No Evidence of Benefit Ever Existed

January 2, 2012 by admin in Featured with 12 Comments

The harm of early umbilical cord clamping is finally reaching the mainstream media. It’s done routinely, presumed to be beneficial, but without one shred of evidence.  Here’s Gaia Health’s coverage of newborn cord clamping from over a year ago:

Newborn Baby with Cord

In hospitals, one of the first procedures done when a new child enters the world is to clamp the umbilical cord, usually within the first 30-60 seconds of birth. It is, in fact, simply a routine procedure done without thinking. Apparently, no thought has ever been given to whether it’s beneficial. Sadly, several studies have shown that it harms newborns.

Cord Clamping One of the Earliest Birth Interventions

In fact, early clamping of the umbilical cord was one of the earliest interventions in modern management of childbirth. It was—and is—done for no particular reason, other than convenience. In the early 1980s, studies showed that the combination of routine hospital childbirth practices, including oxytocin to cause contraction of the uterus when necessary, presumed that, since it was routine, early cord clamping must be beneficial. Now, though, a meta-study has documented that the assumption has harmed countless babies.

Childbirth is a dramatic transfer in function. The mother’s body relinquishes control of the baby’s functions. During the birthing process, the placenta gradually stops pushing blood from the mother to the baby. When everything goes right—as it usually does—a point of equilibrium arises when blood stops flowing from the mother to the baby.

Until that point, the baby needs to receive blood and oxygen from the mother. Premature clamping of the umbilical cord stops the newborn from receiving critical oxygen when he may not be ready to function on his own. Modern medicine’s unconsidered early clamping procedure routinely cuts off oxygen from newborns.

Dangers of Cord Clamping Have Been Ignored

The most telling point of this issue is that, though there have been several studies documenting harm from early umbilical cord clamping, it took a meta-analysis of several studies for any attention to be paid to clear evidence showing harm.

Studies have documented that early clamping results in anemia of newborns. The difference between early clamping and natural cessation of cord blood flow has been established to result in the loss of 21% of the blood that would normally have transferred between mother and child.

Clamping Is Generally Not Needed

In home births, the only reason for clamping an umbilical cord early is necessity. When a cord is wrapped around the neck and impeding birth, it’s necessary. Otherwise, the cord is ignored until it’s clear that birth has been safely established.

In a normal, non-intervention childbirth, the child breathes first, and the cord then stops transferring blood and oxygen. That, though, is ignored when cords are automatically clamped without consideration of the baby’s needs.

The simple fact that no clamping is needed in a normal birth—or even in most abnormal births—is utterly ignored by modern medicine.

Attempts to Justify Early Clamping

To justify early cord clamping, modern medicine postulated that polycythemia (excess red blood cells) or hyperbilirubinaemia (high levels of red blood cells and and bile) might be caused by delaying clamping. In reality, though, studies attempting to show such results have failed.

But modern medicine is in a hurry. After all, time is money. Waiting for nature to take its course is costly. Let’s move on, get on with it. There’s money to be made in them thar newborns!

Studies that attempted to justify early cord clamping were never able to accomplish their goals. Yet, early clamping continued.

Babies at Greatest Risk

In today’s world, modern medicine has presumed it has the right to intervene for nothing more than its own convenience. As a result, caesarian births have become commonplace. Babies born this way are the ones most harmed by early cord clamping. These babies have not been through the normal rigors of childbirth. Their systems have not received the normal triggers to activate life functions. Yet, modern medicine doesn’t distinguish between these abnormally-born children and normal births. (Not that any differentiation between normal and hospital births has received any consideration, either.)

As the meta-analysis has documented, caesarian-born and prematurely-born babies are the most harmed by early umbilical clamping. What is most disconcerting is that, before the recent meta-analysis, several studies had already documented that preterm and caesarian babies suffer from greater anemia and bleeding in the brain from early clamping. But that has been almost completely ignored in obstetrics.

Mothers’ Needs

Early clamping has never been shown to benefit mothers.

Beneficiaries of Early Cord Clamping

Modern medicine stakes itself on the territory of “evidence-based medicine”. The reality, though, is far removed from the verbiage. The fact is that convenience and profits have determined much of routine practice. Routine and early umbilical cord clamping is a clear example of the reality.

Without any reason, modern medicine has routinely clamped umbilical cords as quickly as possible, apparently to get the procedure out of the way. It has been done without a second thought for the welfare of either the mother or the baby.

Studies documenting harm and lack of benefit have simply been ignored. The attitude has obviously been, “If no one knows, then it doesn’t matter.” In the meantime, countless babies have been damaged by the routine intervention of a procedure that has never been shown to be beneficial. Studies demonstrating its risks have been completely ignored, and presumptions—based on nothing but wishful thinking—have been used to justify interventions over the natural process.

How many babies have died or suffered disabilities, sacrificed on the altar of modern medicine’s ego and hubris?

Sources: 

 

Tagged , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anna-Drozdova/1050428653 Anna Drozdova

    very good article, thank you

  • Anonymous

    I’m not arguing the article but as a mother who had to have two c-sections I can tell you I have two healthy kids. First one was 6 weeks early, she needed no additional assisstance & had mature lungs. They both have strong lungs and possibly a moot point, they excel creatively & academically. I have two very strong, healthy children.
    Gaia Health brings attention to important matters, but sometimes our fear based society simply doesn’t need anymore fear.

    • Anonymous

      This has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with avoiding bad medical treatment.

      Regarding fear, the issue is not whether we fear things, but what we fear. If we accept the fears our governments & corporations try to foist on us, then we most assuredly are worrying about the wrong things. But, if we fear the things that can really hurt us – and for which we have options – then it’s not a matter of fearing too much, but of taking control.

      I’m glad that you have two healthy children, but as you likely realize, it has nothing to do with whether this article is accurate and worthwhile.

    • toshia

       tkatz

      Just because your children were ok at  birth does not mean they could not have benefited greatly from 20 % more blood volume at birth. I can function on 20% less blood volume but I function much more optimally on ALL my blood volume and there is NO reason to deprive newborns of their own blood just because the medical community is in a hurry. I have seen newborns who were compromised at birth who DID benefit greatly from delayed cord clamping. The extra 20% blood volume made an enormous difference for them and may have left them in the NICU without it.

      • tkaz

        I find it amazing you needed to reply to a 4 month old post & even MORE amazing that after I “quit” Gaia I’m still getting replies sent to me.

        I stand by what I said. This is like the guy who’s suing the hospital for his circumcision he had as a newborn. It’s over & done, we learn & move on.

        My post was never in argument over the benefits – it was how Gaia went about it. It was filled with villagers with pitchforks. Gaia pushes fear & it got old fast.

        • HeidiStevenson

          If you don’t want replies, then tell Disqus. You have decided when you’re informed about responses. Gaia Health has nothing to do with it.

          Villagers with pitchforks? Huh? The article tells the truth about the fact that there has never been anything to suggest that clamping umbilical cords early is beneficial, and there’s good reason to recognize that it does harm. It is, therefore, entirely unwarranted. If it harms 1 baby in a thousand, then over the years, it’s harmed hundreds of thousands. That’s not fear mongering. It’s simply telling the truth of what’s happening.

  • Louise Mclean

    SO TRUE and as usual the medical system acts in a totally unconscious way. No wonder mothers have so many interventions when their babies are born in hospitals. If possible, with a really good midwife, it is better to have a baby at home. I once read about a doctor who retired to the mid-west of America and because he was in the middle of the countryside, he got called out for emergency births. I wish I could ever find that article because he said over the years,he was present at 1000 births and NEVER LOST A SINGLE BABY. The reason being was because the Mother was allowed to do whatever she wanted during her labour and take it at her own pace.

  • Pingback: Routine Early Cord Clamping Harms Newborns: No Evidence of Benefit Ever Existed | Next Level Nutrition

  • Rachel Klosak

    I absolutely know the benefits and plan on delay/no cord clamping on my next baby. Curiously, I was told by my OB from my previous birth  that not clamping can cause too much blood for the baby and it would need to be phebotomized as a result. Can anyone refute that with evidence? I’m just wondering why he would say that (other than wanting to do things his way)–is there any cases where this has happened. And for the record, even though things went fairly close to my birth plan on my baby, I will be having a midwife attended homebirth on my next baby, so I don’t even have to deal with these issues :-)

    • HeidiStevenson

      He’s threatening blood letting of a newborn baby!  His threat – phlebotomy – is the collection of blood for tests, not the practice of bleeding. It can’t be refuted because it isn’t done, except to draw blood for tests.

      Why not ask him to give you documents proving that babies can receive too much blood through the cord? It sounds like he’s made up an excuse off the top of his head, that it was the best he could do on the spur of the moment. But it might be fun to watch him sputter.

  • Pingback: » The Other Baby Book~An Interview with the Author Little Hearts/Gentle Parenting Resources

  • Pingback: Over One-Fourth of Patients Die With Undiagnosed Disorders | Gaia Health

Search Gaia Health
newsletter software