----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nikki Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:16 PM
Subject: [LACTNET] awesome statement, Rachel Myr!


>" Reminded me of that fake arm you could buy to make your baby think you
> were there with him, when actually you were probably having it off with 
> your
> state-of-the-art electric breastpump that can CRY."
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> How many human processes can technology be used for?
(..)
> While there is a husband, a wife,
> two teen-aged children, an uncle, a grandmother and a baby (sitting on the
> floor holding its own bottle) as a group in the drawing, each person has 
> an
> individual electronic device that is claiming all their attention: video
> camera, cell phone, telephone, iPod, television.  People are eating while
> texting, watching, talking or listening to their electronic devices. 
> There
> is not one particle of human connection in the whole scene.
(...)
> How do we bridge the gap when machines run the show?  This starts in
> pregnancy and is excacerbated in labor and carries on in life as new 
> mothers
> imprint more on machines than on their babies.

**Hi Nikki and others,

Many people say nowadays that the WHO-code is outdated and ought to be 
revised and then allow advertising for bottles and such.
Rachel regularly calls herself 'oldfashioned' or 'grumpy' when she worries 
about things like the ones Nikki described above, with all the gadgets for 
babies, but I somehow feel the same and think the WHO-code should not be 
revised to make it *weaker*, but to make it *stronger* and to enlarge the 
product scope to items that are not in there right now! Gonneke posed a 
question earlier this week that, as far as I'm concerned, wasn't as 
extensively dealt with as could have been, considering all the issues she 
raised.
The WHO-code is meant to prohibit marketing of items that have the potential 
to undermine breastfeeding, even if sometimes they may be necessary 
(bottles, teats, formula). More and more articles flood the market that have 
that potential and are not even necessary or useful! What role do we play, 
as lactation professionals, with regard to standing up against this rubbish? 
Should we?
Can we function according to our official documents (CoE, SoP, Clinical 
Competencies) if the organisation we are in, doesn't really understand the 
importance of the Code? Can BFHI-assessors work for that organisation if the 
BFHI-body spreads posters with advertising of Code-violators...? Can lc's 
work for a breastfeeding organisation if that organisation allows 
Code-violators to advertise in their periodical? How far away do we need to 
be from the violations to make our work Code-compliant?
I was interviewed a couple of weeks or even months ago. I received a copy of 
the magazine last week and low and behold... formula-1-ad on the back cover! 
I hate to be in a magazine that does this? I complained and the midwives 
organisation had already complained as well. Response...? "It slipped 
through", but now I'm in there... Like I said: how far away do we have to be 
to be Code-compliant?
Some say Code-issues are simple and clear-cut; I disagree; often we are in 
grey area's and marketing being so pervasive, it sometimes seems to be 
impossible to stay away from it... :-(
I really hope to see more opinions on these difficult issues here, as I am 
struggling to find my own way through and could really do with thoughts from 
dedicated others... ;-)

Warmly,

Marianne Vanderveen IBCLC, Netherlands

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome