Some proponents of this theory in the medical literature have avidly argued that some benign event might cause a baby to pass meconium and that, in some babies, the passage of meconium would result in umbilical cord vasoconstriction which, after a brief interval of 12 to 16 hours, would dissipate. The persistence of meconium would thereafter cause no adverse consequence and a practitioner would have no opportunity to prevent the injury done by the meconium by earlier delivery. Not surprisingly, these defense witnesses always seem to have some way of proving that the meconium must have been passed prior to any opportunity for earlier delivery and treatment. Altschuler and others, attempting to prove this hypothesis through in vitro experimentation, subjected umbilical cords to increasing concentrations of meconium.3 Much to their surprise, they discovered that umbilical vasoconstriction did not occur at any concentration of meconium unless the meconium was introduced directly into an umbilical artery. On the other hand, it is generally known that sterile water introduced into an umbilical artery will also cause vasospasm.
Various components are present in the blood of newborns.
In the medical literature, numerous authors attempt to answer the question of whether the examination of the quantity of a particular blood element or the timing at which a certain quantity of that blood element is present or the process by which the blood element increases or dissipates in its concentration, reveals the time when a brain injury has occurred. Such efforts have been made with reference to platelets, NRBC's and lymphocytes. Certain defense experts, claim that an infant having a platelet count of 185,000 when born has, by reason of this platelet count, been injured prior to the mother's labor admission. There is no scientific evidence in the medical literature ascribing such a significance to platelets. In fact, the general pediatric literature makes clear that such levels of platelets are normal.