(no subject)

[squeefulfish]

I'm a member of the INO. Yes, yes, there's no mention of midwives in the name, but they're the closest we have to a union that even thinks about midwives. And thanks to pre-registration student midwives poking people in the ribs occasionally they've started mentioning midwifery as a separate profession lately. But anyway, it's useful on occasion. (See how good I've been about not mentioning the work to rule much? Look, I'm a good girl! Sarah sighs over the acceptance of the offer though, stupid democracy. Oh, and I realise some people were inconvenienced by the work to rule, but that's does tend to happen in industrial action.) Besides, thanks to the 1959 and subsequent Nurse's Acts midwife=nurse. Bother.

The INO has an occasionally useful publication which it distributes to members monthly. Every single issue has at least one full page ad giving the benefits of breastfeeding, complete with picture of happy healthy baby. Hurrah! The last issue that arrived also had three ads for SMA. A formula food. Now:
"Advertising of infant formulae shall be restricted to publications specialising in baby care and scientific publications."
(S.I. No. 459/1994 — European Communities (Infant Formulae) Regulations, 1994.)

Which is fair enough, but the imagery used in these ads is something I object to. These ads are meant to only contain scientific information about the product, pictures of happy healthy sleeping formula fed babies are counter-productive to the promotion of breastfeeding. For more reasons than I can list, breast is best. We know this. Yet ads that in any way promote formula, in a publication aimed at the very people who will probably be in some way influential on a woman's decision about feeding her baby, can hardly be in keeping with a philosophy that "supports breastfeeding." The INO claims to support breastfeeding. Not promote, support. Yet the same publication has contained editorials and articles promoting smoking cessation. Maybe I'm being too picky in the use of words there, but it's a rather significant difference to me.

Yes, I've mailed the publishers about this. No reply as of yet.

I'm quite glad the exams are over and I can get back to reading about stuff that's important, just not necessarily exam-related.

Was recently in Chapters and picked up a bunch of midwifery reference books from the 40s and 50s. The history of midwifery fascinates me as much as current evidence based practice. Amazing how standard practice changes so much in so little time. Particularly in relation to management of labour, positions during labour and birth (get off your back! Walk, climb stairs, gravity is your friend!), routine administration of oxytocic drugs to expel the placenta faster or speed up cervical dilatation and especially routine shaving and enemas. That said, about 10 years ago there was a consultant who insisted all his private clients be shaved and given enemas. Urg. Probably all had to give birth on their backs too, so he could see what was going on. Which is the reason for women giving birth on their backs in the first place, so docs could see. No, really.

And I'm shutting up again now. For the time being.