There were several comments made in the last Lactnet digest which I need to
address.
One: the S of P which was just posted yesterday is on the home page under
"Latest News." It's the first paragraph. Here's the URL:
_http://www.iblce.org/documents/IBCLC_Scope_of_Practice_9-2006.pdf_
(http://www.iblce.org/documents/IBCLC_Scope_of_Practice_9-2006.pdf)
Secondly, the statement about RN IBCLCs vs non-RN IBCLCs really troubled me:
<<know that is easy for me to say because I have the credibility of an RN
license in addition to my IBCLC. I can make suggestions and recommendations to
doctors and midwives and ask for therapies that those of you who are non-RN
IBCLC's cannot. I can take a verbal order, call in a prescription and I know
that I probably
generally have more access to alternatives than some other non-IBCLC's do>>
With the exception of "taking a verbal order and calling in a prescription"
which you may do ONLY if one is an employee of the hospital and or physician,
BTW, not if one is in private practice, I am concerned that it is thought
that only a licensed health care professional such as an RN should be able to
talk to doctors and midwives and suggest alternatives -- and that non-RN
IBCLCs should not/cannot.
I've been an RN a lot longer than I have been an IBCLC, and believe me, if a
non-RN IBCLC was not allowed to "recommend an alternative therapies or
contradict the (erroneous) advice of physician/midwives" because they are not an
RN, I'd give my IBCLC up in a heartbeat in solidarity with my non-RN
colleagues. I will say unequivocally that for the most part, it is the NON-RN IBCLCs
who have taken us farther in the profession than the RN IBCLCs (which the
exception of Jean Cotterman , Jan Riordan, Marsha Walker, Amy Spangler -- and a
few others). But I think of women like JoAnne Scott, Kathleen Auerbach,
Barbara Wilson-Clay, Diane Weisinger, Lisa Marasco, Diana West, Nancy
Mohrbacher, Judi Lauwers, Linda Smith -- oh, my goodness! -- many, many others who are
truly the WISE women of our profession -- none of them RNs -- and to think
they don't have the same credibility to a physican/midwive or suggest
alternatives because they are not RNs? If it were left up to us RNs, this profession
would -- words fail me.
In the same post, this statement is made: <<You can make all the
recommendations to a parent that you wish. That is not outside anayone's scope of
practice>>
The S of P specifically states that recommending the use of alternative
therapies is *outside* the s of p of the IBCLC.
Breastfeeding is NOT allopathic, western medicine. To quote the first line
of the scope of practice which the rest of the scope proceeds to trash: "the
role incorporates provision of HOLISTIC, evidence based lactation
support...."
Holistic involves more than allopathic western medicine. It incorporates
the use of alternative therapies as appropriate for each individual mother and
baby. But while the IBCLC is provide holistic care they are then prohibited
from recommending some of the very therapies that would be considered
holistic.
Pam -- the bottom of the S of P states that "These activities (outside the S
of P of the IBCLC) may fall within the scope of another certification or
licensure the IBCLC holds and under which she or he provides these services. In
such situations the IBCLC must be clear under which certification or
licensure he or she is carrying out a procedure."
You can e-mail those at the IBLCE: [log in to unmask]
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) , [log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])
(she is the current president), and [log in to unmask]
(mailto:[log in to unmask]) (president of ILCA).
Jan Barger, RN, MA, IBCLC (for now)
***********************************************
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
|
