Research supports delayed cord clamping

A study done in 2006 found that premature infants fared better when the clamping and cutting of their umbilical cord was delayed. This seems entirely logical to me: weak and compromised infants would certainly benefit from the nutrient-rich, oxygenated blood found in the cord and the placenta. Moreover, by leaving the cord attached and not clamped, the mother can continue to oxygenate blood for the placenta, essentially continuing to breathe for her baby. What a lovely, gentle way to ease a tiny child's entry into the outside world. The study I linked above was conducted by a woman who is both a researcher and a midwife. So can someone tell me why, precisely, our own midwife immediately clamped and cut our 35 week and 5 day gestation daughter and handed her off to a pediatrician? The standard of care may support immediate clamping but the research does not. At what point will all health care providers - ob's, gp's and midwives alike - begin performing evidence-based care? If the research fails to uphold the standard of care, the standard must change.