Hi Jan (and others),
I am reading the ILCA by-laws, now that I received the link. Tenet 2.2
says:
2.2 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. In realization of these purposes the following
fundamental principles shall be observed:
1. As an organization, ILCA *AND ITS AFFILIATES* (emphasis MV) will not
endorse any literature or products, or accept direct funding from industries
producing or marketing products that do not comply with the International
Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent WHA resolutions.
2. Directors of ILCA, its staff and its affiliates will not accept funding
from interests producing or marketing products that do not comply with the
International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent
WHA resolutions.
3. Directors of ILCA, its staff and its affiliates will not endorse in their
official capacity any literature or product.
I'm very curious what ILCA can and will do with affiliates that don't meet
their obligations. Does that have consequences...? I hope someone (Liz...?)
can clear this up.
The WHO-code is so important. There are so many that don't stick with it and
have no rules to follow, other than: "Find the boundaries and cross them and
see if you can get away with it."
If those who *do* set rules, don't enforce them, but remain toothless... we
will not get anywhere... :-(
It may be relatively easy to reprimand individual IBCLC's for violating the
CoE (by not acting WHO Code-compliant), but I think it will be much more
effective and set a much clearer example if organisations are aware that
policy decisions have consequences. I don't know if ILCA has any financial
interest in keeping its affiliates within the ILCA ranks, but I sure hope
that this does not influence their decisions with regard to affiliates who
don't abide by the ILCA regulations. Isn't that exactly what the Code is
about, severing ties despite financial consequences...?
The JAMA-article in the November 2009 JHL is quite clear about it:
professional medical associations best stay far away from so much commercial
influence. Liz explains that ILCA has an A-grade and is aspiring for A+.
Wonderful goal; I hope it will also go for less visible situations like with
affiliates, as Jan describes below.
Jan, interesting that you mention the Lansinoh/Pigeon-stuff again; I touched
that issue in my 'Letter to the Editor', also in JHL Nov. 2009. Liz, you
didn't address that part of my letter in your response on page 400/401. Is
there a clear statement on this? Are subsidiaries from code-violators,
code-violators themselves or are they not...? Any wisdom on that to share
with us...? ;-)
Warm regards,
Marianne Vanderveen IBCLC, Netherlands
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Cornfoot" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:17 PM
Subject: [LACTNET] ILCA and Code Violators
Re: Looking for ILCA By-Laws
Liz has said
(ILCA as an organization doesn't accepting funding from Code violators; ILCA
Direcors and staff do not accept funding from Code violators).
but ILCA affiliates do.
Currently, the NZ Lactation Consultants Asscn have Medela as a conference
sponsor - and Lansinoh, owned by Pigeon, as an exhibitor.
Jan Cornfoot
Breastfeeding Advocate
***********************************************
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
|
