Kiki's dilemma about whether to continue writing for a magazine that accepts ads from Code violators gives food for thought!
 
I loved Joy Noel-Weiss's suggestions, as practical and feasible, and more likely to bring change.  Having a meeting with the editor to explain why this presents a real-life dilemma for the IBCLC-writer is excellent.  I esp. liked the idea of sending written materials about our IBLCE Code of Ethics,  and the Int'l [WHO] Code of Int'l Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes *ahead* of the meeting, so the editor is not caught like a deer-in-the-headlights.  Remember:  his/her job is to sell ads and publish a magazine.  We live in a world where most people don't have a clue as to what the letters "I-B-C-L-C" stand for, much less the nuances of our Ethics Code.  Kiki may be much better off using her next column to discuss the Int'l [WHO] Code, in depth, even if she draws her beacon to one or two of the magazine's advertisers.  Newspaper editorial pages do this all the time- that's the point of having a columnist. 
 
As another piece of "persuasion" she could bring to the meeting, I'd tell Kiki to suggest (even list) the advertisers out there who'd be more likely to have ads in a Code-respecting magazine, but who'd avoid doing so in the current magazine.  She doesn't have to go out and hustle the ads ...  she just needs to jar the editor's focus away from the immediate and over-riding thought [or rather, fear] of lost revenue from his Code-Violator advertisers.  
 
Jan Cornfoot's post reminds us that winning a battle isn't a done deal:  even entities who have sworn allegiance to the Code can be found to have "slipped."   
 
I might also suggest that this is not a clear-cut IBLCE Code of Ethics violation.  Joy's example of IBCLCs who work in a Code-violating hospital is an excellent one: I do that right now, and I don't for a minute think that the money I take as a contractor, from a hospital that takes freebies from the Code-violators, has trickled down to taint me.  
 
IBCLCs have to support the Int'l [WHO] Code, per Tenet 24 of the Code of Ethics.  We also have Tenet 25, which tells us we have to respect intellectual property laws ... and look what happened in Guatemala (where Gerber's trademark-protection of its baby image was deemed to "trump" the Int'l [WHO] Code, and they were permitted to continue direct-to-parent marketing).  So which Tenet is more important:  the one telling us to respect the Int'l Code, or the one that says to respect the laws which say the Int'l [WHO] Code doesn't have to be respected?
 
Liz Brooks, JD, IBCLCWyndmoor, PA, USA
_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome