Dear friends,
  I'm very sorry to say, but I find this childish and naive: <<it had really not occurred to anyone that the SoP might be read as literally as it is written (people are funny, huh?) and it had not occurred to anyone that there might be prima facie contradictions between code of Ethics, clinical standards and the SoP>> (not meaning Nina to be naive, but the people writing the SoP, mind you!). I expect the board members to be reasonably well thinking and intelligent people. They should know that official documents are meant to be precise and taken literally. What good would it do to make up documents and then presume people will not take it literally? And how not-literally exactly should we read it? In what cases will ''do not'' actually mean ''feel free to''. Even more this is the case for a document that is to be read, understood and lived by people for whom is a first, but also for those for whom it is the second or third language.
  I think this ''clarification makes'' me even more mad than the original document. 
  BTW: I, too, did compile and send a letter to IBLCE with my commends, questions and worries in this matter.
   
  Warmly,
   
  Gonneke, IBCLC, LLLL in southern Netherlands

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

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