Dear friends,
I'm very sorry to say, but I find this childish and naive:
<<it had really not occurred to anyone that the SoP
might be read as literally as it is written (people are
funny, huh?) and it had not occurred to anyone that there
might be prima facie contradictions between code of Ethics,
clinical standards and the SoP>> (not meaning Nina to
be naive, but the people writing the SoP, mind you!). I
expect the board members to be reasonably well thinking and
intelligent people. They should know that official documents
are meant to be precise and taken literally. What good would
it do to make up documents and then presume people will not
take it literally? And how not-literally exactly should we
read it? In what cases will ''do not'' actually mean ''feel
free to''. Even more this is the case for a document that is
to be read, understood and lived by people for whom is a
first, but also for those for whom it is the second or third
language.
I think this ''clarification makes'' me even more mad than
the original document.
BTW: I, too, did compile and send a letter to IBLCE with
my commends, questions and worries in this matter.
Warmly,
Gonneke, IBCLC, LLLL in southern Netherlands
***********************************************
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 listserv peach.ease.lsoft.com
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
|