Dear Tina (and ozmidders) - thanks again for your "fresh" thoughts on
practice. You make some very good points, many of which have been mentioned
amongst midwives over the years but like so many routines/rituals are
perpetuated (often because of long standing hospital policies). I do
believe ID is required in some form while in hospital for legal and
practical reasons mentioned in other responses. The footprints could be an
optional extra at parent's choice... they are a cute idea, I think. Keep
up the great work Tina. Best wishes, Lois
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 7:24 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.
