Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 2 Nov 2006 08:27:00 -0600 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Marsha,
I hope you sent information on your experience to IBLCE. As much as I
hate the fact that so many decisions are made in this country because of
fear of being sued, it is a reality. Someone writing them using all of
the legal terminology may be helpful in enabling them to see the light.
Lucy Towbin, MSW, LCSW, IBCLC
Marsha said " Our duty and
obligation is to the patient (mother and baby), called fidelity, not to
who
employs us or who we work with. Otherwise a conflict of interest is
created
between the interests of the patient and the competing interests. These
new
standards have bypassed the ethical underpinnings of our profession:
beneficence
and veracity (the moral obligation to provide complete and accurate
information) and non-maleficence (the obligation to avoid physical or
mental harm to
the patient). Non-maleficence also includes the obligation of not
imposing the
RISKS for harm, which these new Standards if Practice clearly do. This
ethical dilemma places us in a moral and legal bind right now. It
matters greatly
what those standards say and muzzling the LC with restrictive language
cripples our ability to discharge our obligation to the mothers and
babies
entrusted to our care. It puts us in legal jeopardy as it pits one set
of documents
against the other (IBLCE standards vs ILCA standards). The lawyers in
the
above case would have had a field day with this."
***********************************************
To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]
The LACTNET email list is powered by LISTSERV (R).
There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|