Phyllis,
There is so much utter and complete disregard in this process for non- 
medically-trained IBCLCs that I think your observations have a lot of  
credibility. So far, it seems that the majority of IBCLCs from all  
backgrounds who have posted are supportive of those of us from a wide  
range of backgrounds, including non-medical fields.  Even so posts  
such as those from Betsy do make me wonder if, when push comes to  
shove, this is where the divide will be and those who are from  
medical backgrounds will accept the SOP (with minor revisions that  
will accommodate them), while the rest of us leave the profession.

If, OTOH we are indeed a profession unto ourselves, then what we  
would be discussing right now are advanced certifications and methods  
of training new practitioners that reflect, as I have said endlessly,  
a foundation grounded in the normalcy of infant feeding, as far from  
the medical model as possible. Ww would surely NOT be looking at a  
lower credential and we would not be referencing the western  
allopathic  medical model as our point of reference. We would not,  
under any circumstances, be asking practitioners from other  
professions to grant us the right to practice and to evaluate our  
methods--no profession that respects and values itself needs to be  
legitimized by another.

Linda Hill wrote:
"    I can see their intent:

      - don't contradict the moms HCP.  Surely they meant to word it  
in such
a way to tell us that it is very unprofessional to blatantly  
contradict the
HCP in front of the mom.   There are "tactful" ways of respectfully
disagreeing."

Linda,
I cannot believe that any certifying body would find it necessary to  
instruct its practitioners on how to dialogue with other  
professionals! Sorry, but I don't believe for a minute that that was  
the intent. Frankly, i have had HCPs who have never met me tell my  
clients that I am stupid, most notably for such infractions as  
suggesting a baby (with a heart-shaped tongue) might have a tongue- 
tie or that women might actually get thrush on their nipples.  And I  
don't mean respectfully or tactfully, either.

Linda also said:
  "    - don't recommend alternative treatments.  Surely they meant  
to word it
is such a way as to tell us that we need to be careful when making these
suggestions because we are supposed to work out of a "scientifically  
based"
practice, so need to suggest these other treatment modalities as "may  
not be
scientifically based, but may be worth a try, as many moms have  
experienced
great success with such and such".  (ETC)  Right????  Surely!!!!!"

Umm...I don't think so. To be honest, I think they said exactly what  
they meant to say. It may be badly written and absurd, but it is clear.

Nina writes:
"I wonder if the new Scope is the next step in aligning the  
profession with
western medicine by excluding non-medically trained candidates.   
Perhaps it
stems from a perception that LCs will never gain the respect of the  
medical
fraternity (in the USA) unless they join said fraternity."

I think this is completely accurate.

Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

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

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