In einer eMail vom 24-2-02 21:35:23 West-Europa (standaardtijd) schreibt
[log in to unmask]:
> ". Please, those of you who know me, email me (privately or
> via Lactnet) with your feedback on all of this. I don't feel "flamed", but
> I'd like to know how others feel about this.
>
Yes, Carol, I very much want to send you and others who're interested, my
thoughts on this.
It is a complicated item that has been keeping me thinking about for about as
long as I'm aware of the Code. There have been times that I've been bouncing
around from one final end of the spectrum to the other. I think I now reached
kind of a resting point somewhat towards the middle. I am moderatly in favour
of some autonomy in thinking on these matters.
For me, it is absolutely clear that compliance with manufacturers of
replacements for human milk is out of the question in any way one could
possibly think of. Period. Manufacturers of ''only'' bottles and
pacifiers/dummies is a no-no as well. At the other end there are the IBCLC
based projects and the lay bf advocating group activities: very much
encouraged ofcourse. Towards the middle come the health care institutions,
parents magazines and manufacturers of babystuff or bf stuff *and* bottles.
Both health care institutions and parents magazines give horrible bf
information (well, some give reasonable info). But they are the main sources
outside friends and relatives where parents do get their information from
and, even more iomportant, they are seen by parents as knowledgeable and
hrustworthy sources (''the dr will know, won't he?''). It' is quite easy to
make parents understand why bf info from a ABM producer might be not as
accurate as could be (to put it mildly), but it is a whole lot more difficult
to break down the trust they have for hcp's and parents magazines. They do
not see the connections with industry as we do.
I think each person who holds her or himself responsible for living the Code
should consider each case as one. HCP's do not deliberatly want to have
parents making the wrong dicicions, they just don't knoo, or in some worse
cases, do not care. The same for companies like J&J and Medela or Ameda. One
should consider wether this organisation does diliberately want to undermine
breastfeeding in order to replace it by AIM or other stuff. HCP's want to
have healthy patiens who make healthy choices. They do not always have the
information or literacy tools to communicate the right information to parents
do to so. We can do that. babystuff and bf stuff producers do ofcourse want
to sell their stuff, but they do not want to make moms choose AIM to put in
it. WHO states that ''mom's own milk given in an other way tha directly frome
the breast'' is the second best feeding option. These manufacturers
aknowledge the fact that mothers do choose to be away from their child and do
thus need other means to provide the milk. We can give them the right basic
bf information and try and change their options from primairily bottle to
other means (although al other means than breast do carry a risk of
confusion). I do not see this as being opposite to the spirit of the Code,
allthought it might be with the wordings.
I'm very much interested in others' points of view.
Warmly greeting,
Gonneke
==================
Gonneke van Veldhuizen =+= IBCLC, LLLL, MOM =+= primairy school teacher
EUROLAC
breastfeeding information centre and lactation consultant practice
http://www.users.skynet.be/eurolac
***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
