The gold standard for everything is to start with what is normal/natural
then assess all interventions against that standard. The test is "First, Do
No Harm".
If what nature intended is the base then anything that deviates from that
should have to prove that it is BETTER than natural - not as good as, but
better than!  In specific instances that is possible - caesareans have
saved countless lives, as has infant formula .... but only when the
natural/normal was not possible. Let's encourage our researchers not to be
looking at proving that an intervention is OK, but proving that it is
BETTER than normal, either for all or certain circumstances.
A cynical little voice that sits on my shoulder also would love to see an
economist's or epidemiologist's view of interventions - I think we'd find
that only where there is a dollar to be made is intervention encouraged.
I suspect that 6 months volunteering with Medecins Sans Frontieres wouldn't
hurt any of us.

Denise

***************************************
Denise Fisher
Health e-Learning
http://www.health-e-learning.com

****************************************

             ***********************************************

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 mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html