Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:51:21 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Thank you Marsha. Seems like you think this is a serious event, and not one
to be dismissed as a non-issue. Your voice has been valued for a long time
in our profession, and I appreciate your comments, as I am sure many of our
readers do.
Kathleen
Kathleen Bruce RN IBCLC
Independent consultant:
Lactation Resources of Vermont, Medela, Inc. Listowner Lactnet listserv
[log in to unmask]
Archives: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/lactnet.html
On 11/1/06 12:35 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I have just finished contributing as an expert witness in a law suit that
> involved discharging a non-feeding breastfed infant from the hospital and the
> resulting unfortunate outcome. One of the first set of documents I was asked
> to
> produce was the (old) LC standards of practice and the LC scope of
> practice. This was scrutinized by the attorney for failure of the LC to
> perform what
> was called for in these documents, part of which related to the LC's failure
> to recommend to the physician that the baby not be discharged. Our duty and
> obligation is to the patient (mother and baby), called fidelity, not to who
> employs us or who we work with. Otherwise a conflict of interest is created
> between the interests of the patient and the competing interests. These new
> standards have bypassed the ethical underpinnings of our profession:
> beneficence
> and veracity (the moral obligation to provide complete and accurate
> information) and non-maleficence (the obligation to avoid physical or mental
> harm to
> the patient). Non-maleficence also includes the obligation of not imposing
> the
> RISKS for harm, which these new Standards if Practice clearly do. This
> ethical dilemma places us in a moral and legal bind right now. It matters
> greatly
> what those standards say and muzzling the LC with restrictive language
> cripples our ability to discharge our obligation to the mothers and babies
> entrusted to our care. It puts us in legal jeopardy as it pits one set of
> documents
> against the other (IBLCE standards vs ILCA standards). The lawyers in the
> above case would have had a field day with this.
>
> How unfortunate that this situation has arisen from within the lactation
> community especially in light of two new articles that validate the importance
> of the IBCLC - the one that Liz just mentioned and the new article in the
> current Journal of Human Lactation by the president of ILCA:
>
> Mannel R, Mannel RS. Staffing for hospital lactation programs:
> recommendations from a tertiary care teaching hospital. J Jum Lact 2006;
> 22:409-417
>
> Let's hope for swift action on this and not a 2 year study of minutia.
>
> Marsha Walker, RN, IBCLC
> Weston, MA
>
>
>
> ***********************************************
>
> 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
***********************************************
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
|
|
|