Here's my suggestion. My former training as an Administrative Assistant
to a former Ambassador says: address the highest power at the
company/organization, give 3 clear and concise examples proving your
point, and offer an alternative solution. So here are my 2 cents: Let's
all sign, or individually send, the below letter or one similar to it.
I will admit that I am not always on Lacnet as my current case load is 3
flights above overwhelming, but you can email me privately...

 

Sarah Munoz, IBCLC

[log in to unmask]

 

Dear IBCLE; 

 

I am (We the undersigned are) concerned about your recent publication of
the IBCLC Scope of Practice. There are a couple of sentences under the
parameters of what an IBCLC cannot do that are directly opposed to daily
common practice. 

 

The first point is an item that reads: "Contradicting or ignoring the
advice of a client's health care provider."   This statement is in
direct conflict with our mandate to provide evidence based information
to a breastfeeding mother. 

 

There are many instances in our daily practice in which an IBCLC is
called to correct and or contradict the information given by a health
care provider.  Some examples include:

 

*         Provider believes the frequent loose stools of a healthy
breastfed infant to be diarrhea

*         Provider believes the mother should wean because after one
year her milk is no longer capable of providing any health or
nutritional benefits to the baby.

*         Provider believes a medication to be incompatible with
breastfeeding (prescribed or otherwise) and has not taken the time to
confirm this information.

 

I could go on of course, but I believe these three items prove the
point.   I understand IBLCE's concern that there may be IBCLC's in the
community that may abuse this privilege; however, we also have means of
reprimanding such individuals.  I believe a more appropriate wording
could be used to establish these parameters, such as: "Contradicting or
ignoring the advice of a client's health care provider unless it is in
direct conflict with evidence based information about breastfeeding."

 

I don't think IBLCE needs to be reminded of the amount of blatant
misinformation about breastfeeding that runs rampant in the medical
community.  As unfortunate as this is, it is even more unfortunate to
clip the wings of those with the only knowledge based authority to
correct it. 

 

The second point of concern is "prescribing or recommending the use of
alternative therapies".  In the first place it seems to be in conflict
with the previous paragraph that says we are to provide evidence based
information on alternative therapies. In the second place, "alternative
therapies" are not clearly defined and so bring into question part of
our daily practices.  Again some examples...

 

*         does this mean we cannot recommend the use of cabbage leaves
for an engorged mother

*         what about offering information about chiropractors or massage
therapies

*         can we no longer tell a mother to look at her diet to solve
reflux? 

 

It seems clear that "alternative therapies" needs to be defined within
global scopes.  I believe each country has its own definition of what
constitutes "alternative therapies". This item should be completely
removed from the list of things outside our scope. 

 

Thank you for your time and consideration, 

 

 


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

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