LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Alicia Dermer <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 May 1997 12:25:06 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<v01510105630b6e1b3327@[198.69.25.202]>
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (16 lines)
Ruthy:  I looked at the statement.  It could have stressed more about the
pedi's responsibility to be better versed in matters of lactation, and I
was somewhat dismayed by the wording applied to situations they felt
warranted formula use: When bf is "not practical or desired." (Just what
do they mean by "practical" anyway?).  I brought this up at our New Jersey
Breastfeeding Task Force meeting, and it was pointed out to me that this
was a policy statement from the Ambulatory Care Committee and that the one
we're all waiting for, from the Breastfeeding Committee, which is touted
as being extremely supportive in its wording (I'm reserving judgment till
I actually see it), is due out this summer.  I still believe, however,
that even though this was not specifically a bf committee, that it still
perpetuates the overall impression of giving lip service to bf promotion.
If the AAP is truly supportive of bf, IMHO, this should be reflected in
the statements of all their committees.  For what it's worth, I intend to
send a letter to that effect.  Alicia.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2