What determines if evidence becomes part of practice?
	Evidence that allowing placental transfusion is natural and safe appears abundant.  Why is this no longer the standard of care?
			Evidence that the auditory system of the brain is vulnerable to oxygen deficiency at birth has been available for decades, and that children learn to speak "by ear" is universally evident.  Why is it still less important to prevent anoxia than to resuscitate?
	New evidence that delay in clamping the umbilical cord benefits the newborn infant is now being reported.  How long will it take for immediate clamping of the cord to be abandoned?
				Long-term outcomes of randomized controlled studies should be sought, even as far back as fifty and sixty years ago.  What happened to the infants in the immediate clamping groups compared to those for whom pulsations were allowed to continue before ligating the cord.
					Evidence from past decades is clearly lost when the idea that more research must be done is put forth in every new article published.  How can evidence from the past be continually re-examined?
						Much research done over the past half century is far more important than the score given to newborns, a score that reflects whether an infant's first breath is taken within the few seconds that provide the peak of the statistical bell curve.  What about the outliers?