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:
"Arly Helm, MS, CLE, IBCLC" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 19 May 1995 19:14:11 +0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
I appreciate everyone's sentiments on the misuse of the word "compliance"
but Yaffa really hit the nail on the head regarding frustrations on
non-follow-through when maternal follow-through is needed and I'd like to
expand a little on it.  "Compliance" does become an issue when the mother
will not do what is clearly is called for in caring for her baby.
Sometimes moms do purposely or negligently withhold food or other necessary
care.  I think that's when we start feeling that it's appropriate to say
the mom is not compliant.

As a nutritionist, I find eating disorders a frustrating field to work in.
Sometimes one has to hospitalize the patient to save her (usually her) life
until one can get "compliance" with orders to eat.  In lactation, I was
called by a family member of a woman with eating disorders whose baby had
severe chronic failure to thrive.  This mother would not comply with any
efforts to help her baby.  The situation suited her just fine, and she was
angry that anyone would want her baby to gain weight.  And she wouldn't
follow through on basics.  So, besides non-compliance, what else would you
call it?  (I know, "abuse," but I mean, what adjective describes her
behavior better than non-compliant?)

I would agree that "compliance" is *generally* a bad word to use, but in a
bad situation, it may be a good descriptor.

Anyone have experiences like this?

Arly Helm

[log in to unmask] (Arly Helm, LC)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2