Today I have become really ambitious. I have set out to apply Quantum Mechanics’ logic to a “bad” outcome. This outcome is interesting because it shows different demonstrable views of an event as perceived by different individuals, which have to make sense to each one. Very difficult here, as the individuals have different realities and our Newtonian focus requires us to have a common reality. We have looked to the old thought experiment by Schrodinger regarding the cat in the box. The solution to that problem required a different look at reality. If we use those rules in looking at this problem we will have a really different perspective.

In a Newtonian World cause and effect is predictable and we can figure outcomes in advance. This idea has been carried over from our seventeenth century study of materials, with the reasoning that there is some clockwork mechanism to the motion of material objects in the universe. Through Quantum Mechanics we have learned the limitation of this simplification. We have learned that there are probability outcomes, from which we are able to choose, and that a shift in probability is accompanied by an associated energy input or output. This is vastly different from the idea that the energy itself changes the physical arrangement. It is this failure to understand that still has us trying to effect local changes without using the benefits from the system itself. Small local changes to alter the system begin to soon require astronomical amounts of energy.

Choice of outcome drives the behavior of the system and our experience within the system. Let us go out on a limb and apply these principles to a lawsuit regarding the delivery of an infant with poor outcome. This is the equivalent of using Schrodinger’s Cat to explain an everyday occurrence.

   A pregnant female is brought to the hospital having ongoing high blood pressure, pain and vaginal bleeding at about 33 weeks of her pregnancy. She is about 30.5 weeks when she first arrives for prenatal care, having elevated blood pressures. She is seen twice within a few days, then, she has an ultrasound a few days later which provides an anticipated date for delivery. She now arrives at the hospital, about two weeks after the first time she was seen. On arrival she has an ultrasound performed, after being attached to the fetal monitor which shows no heart activity. The patient has labor induced because of separation of placenta from the wall and death of the fetus. After a few hours an infant is delivered with occasional terminal gasping, called “agonal breathing”. The infant is successfully resuscitated, however, and after a stay in the hospital is discharged home with normal ultrasound and MRI of the head. At two years of age the child is walking, but falls and bumps objects, but is also having speech and language delays.

The mother sues alleging improper interpretation of the ultrasounds and failure to find a heartbeat that must have been present.

The problems: the baby

From a Newtonian perspective there had to be a heartbeat in order to maintain life until the time of birth. Logically, then the physicians must have failed to detect this. Whether from equipment failure, both ultrasound and external monitor, the argument is that there must have been a heartbeat. If there must have been a heartbeat the baby must have been alive until the time of birth.

The problems: the treatment

From a Newtonian perspective, there is no fetal heart from the external fetal monitor. Ultrasound is brought in by the resident staff and attempts are made by the junior, senior residents as well as the attending physician to observe for fetal cardiac activity. Here there is an attempt to look at the actual motion of the valves of the heart. Any activity would be likely seen except for, agonal (pre-death) cardiac activity which is not the same quality as regular heartbeats.

The likelihood of this being missed by multiple persons is comparable to the likelihood of calling the coin toss right six times in a row, not impossible but very unlikely.

The problem: the results

Now these results are atypical but no unheard of. Most obstetricians will tell you that there are babies who have come out with Apgar scores of 0/0, some for even over twenty minutes or more, where the infant has been resuscitated and ended up normal. They can also tell you of infants with Apgar scores of 8/9, who later have failure to thrive or cerebral palsy. These outcomes often have little to do with the events surrounding the delivery process. Analyzed from the perspective of Quantum Mechanics we have essentially the situation of the thought experiment of Schrodinger’s Cat. The question is whether the baby is in an agonal/dying state immediately before delivery or whether this state was created from a series of other states. We found the solution to Schrodinger’s Cat in the consideration of quantum wave functions or qwiffs, for short. If we believe there was a complex qwiff (quantum wave function) immediately before delivery, then the consciousness that is orchestrating the event ultimately chooses the experience to have. The other participants are only able to choose how the event will affect them, each in their supporting role. So only the consciousness of the baby is able to play out whether to experience life as “normal” or live as not quite “normal” with developmental delays.

This is more easily seen with an event such as choosing to breast feed or not to. The consequences affecting the infant can be more easily recognized,  such as the increased likelihood of allergies if the infant chooses not to breast feed. Another example is that of the daughter, who chooses to date the boyfriend who the parents do not like. This can be seen easily, because we interpret choice as we see it, mostly at the ego level, though this is not where choice is made. In fact from the ego level, in this example everyone is making their best choices. The mother, for whatever reason, was unable to seek care until then, when doing her perceived best she arrived with bleeding and high blood pressure. (It may not have seemed that way to the physician/nursing staff.) The physicians and nurses taking care of her were doing their best as well as they attempted to determine if the baby was alive and viable so that they could offer the best options known to them. (It may not have seemed that way to the mother as she was told the baby was dead.) The baby was doing its best, as a human consciousness, to carry out its choices to enter this world and have a particular experience of form and energy. Recall that all these decisions are made at the level of super consciousness and not at the level of ego.

(It may not seem that way to the physicians or to the mother who all see the choices from the ego level and can’t understand why such a choice would be made.)

So a lawsuit is filed and it plays out for each participant, so each can have the consequence of his or her choice in how they intend to have this event affect them. Thus when the case is reviewed the critical physicians, acting as medical experts giving testimony, will say there should have been more of a paper trail, to demonstrate that there was no ability present to change this outcome.

The problem in the final analysis is that we have the notion that one person can actively change another’s outcome. We can only change another’s outcome, when we are able to inspire the individual to change his or her being, which requires an act of that individual’s consciousness.