Boob politics.... Mia Freedman article. A must-read.

[nickle730]

Panadeine Forte is an S4 restricted drug.

[Phteven]

Panadeine Forte is an S4 restricted drug.

I understand that it is quite a strong drug but it's also something I can get at a chemist and self-administer at home but in a hospital setting 2 people need to watch me take it. Checks and measures need to me more stringent in hospitals because there is so much more scope for error.
I think that 2 people signing for formula in the context of a hospital makes sense. It means that one midwife can't undermine scores of women who want to breastfeed. After DS2 was born there was one midwife who was really pushy about formula I imagine that if she needed an extra signature to hand it out she wouldn't be quite as quick to 'prescribe' it.

I agree that we need more support for women's choices but real support is helping women to have as much information as possible when they make a choice and helping them to stick to a choice because although breastfeeding is natural it's not always easy and policy needs to reflect this. In the long run using ABM is more difficult than breastfeeding but in the short term it's much easier to establish.

The fact that admission to hospital for gastro can be reduced by 53% by breastfeeding is information. Breast is best is not information. It's a slogan.

[Little Chicken]

Checking a drug with two people is different from signing out a drug with two people. Signing out is usually only done with schedule 8 drugs (morphine, pethidine). It is then signed and checked at the bedside again. It is usually only done when every single ampoule that is used needs to be accounted for. Seems a bit OTT for formula.

[sushee]

I thought I might add here that we only have Mia's account of events, not the actual hospital policy. And if that policy were true, nor do we have the reasons as to why that policy was put in place. If you've ever worked for a govt department, you'll know that policies are often developed as a result of an event (or what we like to call 'the burning bridge') or it is to support a particular ethos that is lacking in the area. Or else you wouldn't need a policy to ensure that that ethos was being adhered to.

I think that getting stuck on the idea of needing two signatures for formula smokescreens the issue, which is that historically it's been far far far too common for medical professionals to suggest formula as a way to fix 'feeding' issue. So making it more difficult for them to make that call may well be the catalyst needed for them to think outside the box. Or maybe it won't. But at least it's trying to do something positive for mothers who aren't getting the support they need to keep bfing.

[Little Chicken]

The thing is though, it doesn't make it more difficult, it just creates more of a paper trial. I doubt it is under lock and key like schedule 8's or that every ml needs to be counted. I would actually believe that it was only put in place to get accreditation, and once it is achieved, it won't be quite so strongly adhered to anymore.

[sushee]

The thing is though, it doesn't make it more difficult, it just creates more of a paper trial. I doubt it is under lock and key like schedule 8's or that every ml needs to be counted. I would actually believe that it was only put in place to get accreditation, and once it is achieved, it won't be quite so strongly adhered to anymore.

That's likely I guess. As is the case with most things, people get complacent or apathetic and processes start to fall over. But the intention, nonetheless, is there. Just because it may wane doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, kwim?

[Little Chicken]

But the intention is to make it more difficult to obtain in hospital, probably with the assumption of if it is inconvinient to obtain it won't be used. This may very well work if it was up to he parent to get it. It is not that difficult for a staff member to find another staff member to sign out formula, after all we can always find someone to check your drugs. What I'm getting at is this sort of thing is an OTT reaction. No posters, no free samples works just as well and is all that is needed.

[sushee]

I agree with you, LC. I actually think hospitals would benefit from more pro-BFing involvement that delivers true education and true support instead of reactive policies. But I don't agree that any policy should be dismissed without seeing if there is a benefit in the long run. There is a learning curve, and trial and error involved in any new way of doing things. I guess, from the POV of someone involved with developing policy, sometimes you need to try something to see if it works, and I think that's what's happening here.

[Barb Glare]

Hi,

Even a better article from Tara Moss's blog. Unfortunately Mia made quite a few errors of fact
http://blog.taramoss.com/index.php?itemid=739