I agree 100% Tina - what a worry. We have resisted the tatoos, and at this point only use footprints as a memory for mothers and fathers of stillborn infants. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Newborn footprints
> In a message dated 30/10/01 8:09:59 PM AUS Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << I haven't been able to find much published on the subject of newborn > foorprinting for security purposes on our midwifery database. Apart from a > couple of anecdotal items from the mid 90s, the only article evaluating its > use > is: > > Butz AM, Oski FA, Repke J et al. Newborn identification: compliance with AAP > guidelines for perinatal care. Clinical Pediatrics, vol 32, no 2, Feb 1993, > pp > 111-113. > > Kathy Levine > Infornation Officer > MIDIRS > 9 Elmdale Road > Bristol BS8 1SL > England >> > > Hi all, > > I have a question with regards to this baby ID thing. I suppose I'm > questioning the need for such 'routine' and stringent 'labelling' of babies > in the days of babes 'rooming in' with their mothers where there is a high > expectation that mother and babe will stay together and not be separated. I > would have thought that this practice was more relevant in the days of > routine separation of mother and babe - with babies kept in nurseries and > only brought to their mothers for feeds. > > Please excuse my naivety with regards to institutional procedures and > protocols, but why do babies need such comprehensive ID procedures if they > are with their mothers ?? Is ALL this 'routine' labelling really a necessity > ?? I'm not advocating that babes not be 'labelled' at all - I understand the > need for some form of identification linking a particular babe with its > mother, however, I suppose I'm questioning the process that some listers here > have outlined in their protocols of babe ID as two and even three and four > separate procedures - leg bands, arm bands and just in case we'll do > footprints and other body labelling (tattoos) as well - ah to be sure, to be > sure !!!. If babes are removed from their mothers, eg: Admitted to special > care nurseries etc.. etc.. I don't think anyone questions the need for > routine ID (perhaps even by footprinting) - But do ALL babes routinely need > to be subjected to this practice ?? > > Who is all this labelling practice protecting ?? > > I think its important also that we look carefully at what potential messages > this practice may send to parents, in addition to the purported anecdotal > 'acceptance' by parents of this procedure. If staff wanted to label my babe > in this way - leg bands, arm bands AND footprints and temporary tattoos - I > think I would start to wonder about the safety of my babe and their potential > to get 'lost' !! Does it also not send a message to mothers that we don't > trust them to be able to 'know' their own babies ?? > > Yours in Birth, > Tina Pettigrew. > > > -- > This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. > Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe. -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit <http://www.acegraphics.com.au> to subscribe or unsubscribe.
