Betsy,
I do not see what you are not getting here, Betsy. You keep arguing  
that IBCLCs should certainly question inaccurate information and that  
the onus is on the doctor to prove himself and that most physicians  
welcome such dialogue, etc. That may all be true, but according the  
the SOP it is IRRELEVANT, b/c we are not allowed to do so. According  
to the SOP, we cannot have this dialogue no matter how much you think  
it is reasonable to do so!

Furthermore, I find it odd that you imagine the IBLCE is trying to  
"weed out" as you put it, when they pass almost everyone who takes  
the test. That would be an obvious contradiction, IMO. It would make  
a lot more sense to have a more useful evaluation tool and "weed out"  
before the a candidate ever sits the exam. If that is indeed the  
intent, then only those HCPs who have added IBCLC as another set of  
initials will remain and most of the very best, most competent,  
innovative, forward-thinking and effective IBCLCs will be gone. Now,  
I wonder just who that would serve?

You argue that these SOP protect mothers and babies! Are you serious?  
They protect only inept doctors, b/c as you say, the others will  
maintain their dialogue with us (albeit perhaps in secret in darkened  
hallways). Oh, actually, it has occurred to me that the new SOP also  
protects the AIM companies, although I certainly hope that is just by  
accident and not by design. After all, if only those very few docs  
who are IBCLCs and hospital-based nurse IBCLCs (who can only question  
docs so long as they do so under their RN licenses and not as IBCLCs)  
can practice, breastfeeding rates will plummet. Personally, I am just  
as happy to drop the initials if they carry such a useless  
connotation, although I sure would like my money back for the test I  
just took. Hey, I just realized something--maybe Betsy is right--b/c  
that would be a successful weeding out process, wouldn't it?
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA


> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:38:35 -0400
> From:    "=?windows-1252?Q?Betsy_Riedel,RNC,IBCLC?="  
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: weeding out....................
>
> Does anyone think the IBLCE might be trying to "weed out" so to speak?
>
> Betsy Riedel RNC, IBCLC
>
>              ***********************************************
> Date:    Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:00:31 -0400
> From:    "=?windows-1252?Q?Betsy_Riedel,RNC,IBCLC?="  
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: evidence based informationIf
>
> If each LC is giving evidence based information which happens to=20
> contradict the physician (whose bogus information is wrong and  
> therefor=20=
>
> NOT evidence based) the onus is on the PHYSICIAN to produce  
> evidence to=20=
>
> support his information. What are some of you so afraid of in this  
> case?=20=
>
> The physician has to stand in judgement in this case and I highly  
> doubt=20=
>
> many of them are going to bother taking this as far as you seem to  
> feele=20=
>
> they would:resulting in the pulling of your certification.
>
> This is the same scenario that happens within hospitals and often  
> results=
> =20
> in the physician actually learning something!
>
> Betsy Riedel RNC, IBCLC

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

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