[ozmidwifery] Re co-sleeping

[Pinky McKay]

Thanks Lesley,
It is so good to see tow major infant health organisations working together 
like this instead of scaremongering or denying that co-sleeping happens.
Pinky

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Lesley 
  Kuliukas 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 2:54 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] solids for 
  11mth old
  
  
  


  
  
  
  
  
  

  UNICEF releases new guidance on bed sharing for breastfeeding 
mothers-05/09/2003UNICEF 
UK's Baby Friendly Initiative, with the support of the Foundation for 
the Study of Infant Deaths (FSID), has launched a new information 
leaflet for breastfeeding mothers who are thinking of sharing a bed with 
their babies. This is the first time that the two organisations have 
released joint information.The UNICEF leaflet 'Sharing a bed 
with your baby' provides parents with accurate and helpful information 
about sleeping safely with their babies. It recognises that mothers who 
sleep with their babies find breastfeeding easier but also offers 
guidance on avoiding accidents and gives clear warnings against unsafe 
bed sharing. Parents are cautioned against sharing a bed with their baby 
if they smoke, have drunk alcohol, taken drugs or medication that makes 
them sleepy, or are extremely tired, as bed sharing under those 
conditions increases the risk of cot death. Parents are also informed of 
the dangers of sleeping with their babies on sofas. But the leaflet 
supports breastfeeding mothers who don't fall into these risk categories 
to use safe bed-sharing as a way of providing the enormous health 
benefits of breastfeeding."This leaflet should be extremely 
useful for both health professionals and parents," said Andrew Radford, 
Programme Director of UNICEF UK's Baby Friendly Initiative. "We know 
that many parents take their babies into bed with them for at least part 
of the night and that this can be a very positive experience, 
particularly if they're breastfeeding. However, we want to make sure 
that it's also a safe experience. By issuing a joint leaflet, UNICEF and 
FSID are giving clear and unambiguous information about both the 
benefits of bed sharing and the times when it is not safe" he 
added.Accessible via www.babyfriendly.org.uk/parents, more than 
half a million copies of the leaflet will be given free-of-charge each 
year to new mothers via the Baby Welcome sample packs distributed in 
hospitals.Commenting on the launch, FSID Director Joyce Epstein 
said, "We support the UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative's efforts to 
promote safe bed sharing and we are delighted to be working with 
them."For more information or to arrange an interview with 
Andrew Radford at UNICEF UK's Baby Friendly Initiative please 
contact:Jo Fletcher in the UNICEF UK Press Office on: 020 7312 7677 
or email [EMAIL PROTECTED]Notes to Editor:The Baby 
Friendly Initiative is a global programme of UNICEF and the World Health 
Organisation which works with the health services to improve practice so 
that parents are enabled and supported to make informed choices about 
how they feed and care for their babies. Health care facilities which 
adopt practices to support successful breastfeeding receive the 
prestigious UNICEF/WHO Baby Friendly award. In the UK, the Baby Friendly 
Initiative is commissioned by various parts of the health service to 
provide advice, support, training, networking, assessment and 
accreditation.There are currently 49 fully accredited Baby 
Friendly health care facilities in the UK and another 75 which have been 
awarded the Certificate of Commitment, the first stage towards becoming 
Baby Friendly.Breastfeeding and healthBabies who are not 
breastfed are more likely to suffer several severe illnesses, including 
gasto-enteritis, respiratory, urinary tract and ear infections. In 
childhood they are also at greater risk of asthma, eczema, and diabetes, 
while as adults they are more likely to suffer high blood pressure, 
obesity and other cardiovascular risk factors.Mothers who breastfeed 
for longest are least likely to suffer from breast and ovarian cancer 
and osteoporosis in later life.Full details can be found on the 
UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative 
website:www.babyfriendly.org.ukThe Foundation for the Study 
of Infant Deaths is one of the UK's leading baby charities working to 
prevent sudden infant deaths and promote baby health. FSID funds 
research, promotes health advice to parents and profess

Re: [ozmidwifery] LC

[Joy Cocks]

Hi Jo,
Yes, there is a bit more involved to become an IBCLC.  From memory (I
qualified in 1995) I think, as a nurse/midwife I had to have 2500 hours of
one-on-one helping women to breastfeed - couldn't count my own breastfeeding
experience or friends that I'd helped in an informal capacity.  There was
also a number of hours of formal education required (can't remember just how
many).
In my workplace (which is small), being an IBCLC doesn't seem to count for
too much - the midwife manager had the overall say in our breastfeeding
policies and procedures and also gave the staff education!  Midwifery staff
are told that they should be able to manage b/f problems and not to call me
in (I work night duty) unless it is through the midwifery manager.  I do the
best I can when I am on duty and, hopefully, if I am there for some of the
early breastfeeds can at least give women the right information and get them
off to a good start.  Frustrating at times!!
All the best in your endeavours.
Joy

Joy Cocks RN (Div 1) RM CBE IBCLC
BRIGHT Vic 3741
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "JoFromOz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 14:18 PM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] LC


> Dear List...
>
> I am , as most of you know, a new midwife in a public/private hospital,
> struggling with the 'rules'.
>
> Lately there has been a fair bit of disagreement between midwifery support
> of breastfeeding and doctor (paed RMO) need to have babies not lose more
> than 10% birthweight (to the point of calculating 7.76% weight loss).
>
> I am beginning to think that if I held the title of "Lactation Consultant"
> rather than Junior Midwife, then my views (facts) would come across with
> more credibility.  So, I am thinking of becoming an LC...
>
> Any comments? Tips? Advice?
>
> What is involved?
>
> Thanks,
> Jo
>
> --
> Babies are Born... Pizzas are delivered.
>
>
> --
> This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
> Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.
>


--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery]induction/augmentation following SROM

[Andrea Robertson]

Hello Edwina,

The Cochrane Library has two meta analyses of SROM preterm and SROM at term 
and their management. Using the Cochrane is free to anyone in Australia 
(and the UK) for OZ users, go to this website and log on as an "anonymous 
user". Then you just use the search options

http://www.nicsl.com.au/cochrane/index.asp

regards,

Andrea





At 06:46 PM 5/09/2003, Vance & Edwina wrote:
Dear Listers,

Can anyone refer me to any research arguing against inducing women who 
have not gone into labour within hours of SROM.  I looked after a lady 
today who had SROM at 0755 but had not experienced any contractions.  At 
0830 the doctor decided (without either of us having as yet reviewed the 
lady - she was still at home) that if she was not in labour by lunchtime 
then she would need induction.  I was polite but obvious in my disapproval 
and the doctor acknowledged my disapproval but stated that we had to give 
the woman the option.

I gave the woman the option but added that any interference with nature 
increased the risks of further intervention.  I told the woman not to make 
a decision yet but to think about it and then sent her home!  When the 
doctor asked about her I told her that I thought she would establish 
better at home where she would be more relaxed (I didn't say "and away 
from prying hands" but I thought it!!!).  The doctor extended her time 
limit to 1400 (generous eh?).  The woman returned in established labour at 
1345!

It is really hard as in our unit the women have been seeing the same 
doctor throughout pregnancy and so have developed a trust in them.  We 
(midwives) are strangers that don't always agree with their trusted 
GP!  Because of this the doctors often get their way (not necessarily the 
woman centered way).  If I can circulate some literature recommending at 
least 24 hours after SROM before interfering perhaps I may change some 
ideas.  It is only one particular doctor and she says she doesn't want the 
women labouring on too long as they will get tired and won't be able to 
push.  I think she (the doctor) wants to be sure of sleep that night!

Any ideas?  Cheers,  Edwina


-
Andrea Robertson
Birth International * ACE Graphics * Associates in Childbirth Education
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: www.birthinternational.com
--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.

Re: [ozmidwifery] solids for 11mth old

[Lesley Kuliukas]

  
  






  
UNICEF releases new guidance on bed sharing for breastfeeding 
  mothers-05/09/2003UNICEF 
  UK's Baby Friendly Initiative, with the support of the Foundation for the 
  Study of Infant Deaths (FSID), has launched a new information leaflet for 
  breastfeeding mothers who are thinking of sharing a bed with their babies. 
  This is the first time that the two organisations have released joint 
  information.The UNICEF leaflet 'Sharing a bed with your baby' 
  provides parents with accurate and helpful information about sleeping 
  safely with their babies. It recognises that mothers who sleep with their 
  babies find breastfeeding easier but also offers guidance on avoiding 
  accidents and gives clear warnings against unsafe bed sharing. Parents are 
  cautioned against sharing a bed with their baby if they smoke, have drunk 
  alcohol, taken drugs or medication that makes them sleepy, or are 
  extremely tired, as bed sharing under those conditions increases the risk 
  of cot death. Parents are also informed of the dangers of sleeping with 
  their babies on sofas. But the leaflet supports breastfeeding mothers who 
  don't fall into these risk categories to use safe bed-sharing as a way of 
  providing the enormous health benefits of breastfeeding."This 
  leaflet should be extremely useful for both health professionals and 
  parents," said Andrew Radford, Programme Director of UNICEF UK's Baby 
  Friendly Initiative. "We know that many parents take their babies into bed 
  with them for at least part of the night and that this can be a very 
  positive experience, particularly if they're breastfeeding. However, we 
  want to make sure that it's also a safe experience. By issuing a joint 
  leaflet, UNICEF and FSID are giving clear and unambiguous information 
  about both the benefits of bed sharing and the times when it is not safe" 
  he added.Accessible via www.babyfriendly.org.uk/parents, more than 
  half a million copies of the leaflet will be given free-of-charge each 
  year to new mothers via the Baby Welcome sample packs distributed in 
  hospitals.Commenting on the launch, FSID Director Joyce Epstein 
  said, "We support the UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative's efforts to promote 
  safe bed sharing and we are delighted to be working with them."For 
  more information or to arrange an interview with Andrew Radford at UNICEF 
  UK's Baby Friendly Initiative please contact:Jo Fletcher in the UNICEF 
  UK Press Office on: 020 7312 7677 or email 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Notes to Editor:The Baby Friendly 
  Initiative is a global programme of UNICEF and the World Health 
  Organisation which works with the health services to improve practice so 
  that parents are enabled and supported to make informed choices about how 
  they feed and care for their babies. Health care facilities which adopt 
  practices to support successful breastfeeding receive the prestigious 
  UNICEF/WHO Baby Friendly award. In the UK, the Baby Friendly Initiative is 
  commissioned by various parts of the health service to provide advice, 
  support, training, networking, assessment and accreditation.There 
  are currently 49 fully accredited Baby Friendly health care facilities in 
  the UK and another 75 which have been awarded the Certificate of 
  Commitment, the first stage towards becoming Baby 
  Friendly.Breastfeeding and healthBabies who are not breastfed 
  are more likely to suffer several severe illnesses, including 
  gasto-enteritis, respiratory, urinary tract and ear infections. In 
  childhood they are also at greater risk of asthma, eczema, and diabetes, 
  while as adults they are more likely to suffer high blood pressure, 
  obesity and other cardiovascular risk factors.Mothers who breastfeed 
  for longest are least likely to suffer from breast and ovarian cancer and 
  osteoporosis in later life.Full details can be found on the UNICEF 
  Baby Friendly Initiative website:www.babyfriendly.org.ukThe 
  Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths is one of the UK's leading baby 
  charities working to prevent sudden infant deaths and promote baby health. 
  FSID funds research, promotes health advice to parents and professionals 
  and supports bereaved families. More information on FSID and the health 
  advice to protect babies from cot deaths and accidents can be seen at 
  www.sids.org.uk/fsid or via the Helpline on 0870 787 
  0554.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Pinky McKay 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:32 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] solids for 
  11mth old
  
  Hi Rhonda, 
   
  Yep - there is a difference isnt there - I reckon I couldnt have stopped 
  my boys

RE: [ozmidwifery] Re: induction/augmentation following SROM

[Wayne and Caroline McCullough]

Title: Message



Hi 
Edwina,
 
The 
book by Henci Goer "The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth" has excellent 
research-based info on induction/augmentation and SROM. It was my bible when 
dealing with my obstetrician. It also explains the rationale behind why doctors 
prefer to augment (the Irish school of Birth Management) and limit labours to a 
certain time frame. Personally, I find this practice disgusting! It just adds 
more pressure to perform when women need to be inside themselves and not worried 
about pleasing someone else.
 
Hope 
this helps.
 
Cheers,
 
Cas 
McCullough
 
www.casmccullough.com

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance & 
  EdwinaSent: Friday, 5 September 2003 6:46 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ozmidwifery] Re: 
  induction/augmentation following SROM
  Dear Listers,
   
  Can anyone refer me to any research arguing 
  against inducing women who have not gone into labour within hours of 
  SROM.  I looked after a lady today who had SROM at 0755 but had not 
  experienced any contractions.  At 0830 the doctor decided (without either 
  of us having as yet reviewed the lady - she was still at home) that if she was 
  not in labour by lunchtime then she would need induction.  I was polite 
  but obvious in my disapproval and the doctor acknowledged my disapproval but 
  stated that we had to give the woman the option.  
   
  I gave the woman the option but added that any 
  interference with nature increased the risks of further intervention.  I 
  told the woman not to make a decision yet but to think about it and then sent 
  her home!  When the doctor asked about her I told her that I thought she 
  would establish better at home where she would be more relaxed (I didn't say 
  "and away from prying hands" but I thought it!!!).  The doctor extended 
  her time limit to 1400 (generous eh?).  The woman returned in established 
  labour at 1345!
   
  It is really hard as in our unit the women have 
  been seeing the same doctor throughout pregnancy and so have developed a trust 
  in them.  We (midwives) are strangers that don't always agree with their 
  trusted GP!  Because of this the doctors often get their way (not 
  necessarily the woman centered way).  If I can circulate some literature 
  recommending at least 24 hours after SROM before interfering perhaps I may 
  change some ideas.  It is only one particular doctor and she says she 
  doesn't want the women labouring on too long as they will get tired and won't 
  be able to push.  I think she (the doctor) wants to be sure of sleep that 
  night!
   
  Any ideas?  Cheers,  
Edwina

[ozmidwifery] Re: induction/augmentation following SROM

[Vance & Edwina]

Dear Listers,
 
Can anyone refer me to any research arguing against 
inducing women who have not gone into labour within hours of SROM.  I 
looked after a lady today who had SROM at 0755 but had not experienced any 
contractions.  At 0830 the doctor decided (without either of us having as 
yet reviewed the lady - she was still at home) that if she was not in labour by 
lunchtime then she would need induction.  I was polite but obvious in my 
disapproval and the doctor acknowledged my disapproval but stated that we had to 
give the woman the option.  
 
I gave the woman the option but added that any 
interference with nature increased the risks of further intervention.  I 
told the woman not to make a decision yet but to think about it and then sent 
her home!  When the doctor asked about her I told her that I thought she 
would establish better at home where she would be more relaxed (I didn't say 
"and away from prying hands" but I thought it!!!).  The doctor extended her 
time limit to 1400 (generous eh?).  The woman returned in established 
labour at 1345!
 
It is really hard as in our unit the women have 
been seeing the same doctor throughout pregnancy and so have developed a trust 
in them.  We (midwives) are strangers that don't always agree with their 
trusted GP!  Because of this the doctors often get their way (not 
necessarily the woman centered way).  If I can circulate some literature 
recommending at least 24 hours after SROM before interfering perhaps I may 
change some ideas.  It is only one particular doctor and she says she 
doesn't want the women labouring on too long as they will get tired and won't be 
able to push.  I think she (the doctor) wants to be sure of sleep that 
night!
 
Any ideas?  Cheers,  
Edwina

Re: [ozmidwifery] LC

[Lois J Wattis]

Go for it Jo!  Lots of good reasons to be an LC, and yes, you WILL have
greater 'bargaining power' in these scenario's.  There are requirements
about practical breastfeeding (instructional) experience, which will take
time for you to attain even working as a midwife, which can delay your IBLC
credential.  You CAN be doing the study and exam in the meantime.   Best
wishes, Lois

- Original Message -
From: "JoFromOz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 12:18 PM
Subject: [ozmidwifery] LC


Dear List...

I am , as most of you know, a new midwife in a public/private hospital,
struggling with the 'rules'.

Lately there has been a fair bit of disagreement between midwifery support
of breastfeeding and doctor (paed RMO) need to have babies not lose more
than 10% birthweight (to the point of calculating 7.76% weight loss).

I am beginning to think that if I held the title of "Lactation Consultant"
rather than Junior Midwife, then my views (facts) would come across with
more credibility.  So, I am thinking of becoming an LC...

Any comments? Tips? Advice?

What is involved?

Thanks,
Jo

--
Babies are Born... Pizzas are delivered.


--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.


--
This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics.
Visit  to subscribe or unsubscribe.