LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Diane Wiessinger <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 19 Nov 2006 08:43:03 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
Barbara Wilson-Clay asked me to post this.  By all means copy your responses to her; I'll try to catch them all and forward them as well.

Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY  USA
www.wiessinger.baka.com

Many people have questioned my comments on Lactnet about the new SOPs. ( I remarked that they didn't seem too diff. from the existing Code of Ethics.)  No one asked me to comment on the bigger, much more important question, which is:  Do I think  it was appropriate for IBLCE to re-create something ILCA had already published with no prior dialog between the organizations?  The answer to that is no; I do not.

I feel discouraged by the positions IBLCE has been taking on this and other issues, such as the 2nd credential.  Such surprises, presented as unilateral fait accompli are not politic.  IBLCE's BOD, upon which I  proudly served as the ILCA rep,  is mostly comprised of people who do not work primarily as LCs.  The charter of any certification agency is consumer protection, and input from the various fields is critical to determining our blueprint for competence.  However, one might argue that Scope of Practice is something that professions and guilds hash out.  SOPs have economic implications and affect practitioners more than consumers. Is it in the best interests of IBCLCs to surrender the prerogative to issue SOPs to individuals who represent other professions?  Especially when they may have a vested interest in protecting and even extending their own SOPs?  This is the conversation that should have been held in advance of publication of any new document.   In the past, there typically was commitment  to good communication between ICLA and IBLCE.  There was also a perceptibly stronger commitment to the credential as a key mechanism underpinning the on-going creation of a new profession.  

Ultimately, until LCs are consistently educated, and our practice more evidence-based, it is going to be difficult for us to be taken seriously as a stand-alone profession.  However, that's still my dream.  I hope the folks working on university-based training programs are getting up to speed and can start graduating people who take boards, become licensed, and are fully integrated into the health care system similar to PTs and OTs.  IBLCE has to re-commit to better communication, and to the defense of the credential in ways that honor  and strengthen the intent of the people who founded the organization.

Thanks to all of you who serve as volunteer BOD members.  I appreciate your sacrifice of  time, and also the difficulty of serving during an era of change in leadership.

Barbara Wilson-Clay, IBCLC

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

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2