I have been looking at a document published in January 2026 by Ariadne Labs, the patient safety center jointly run by Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. It is called the Operating Room Crisis Checklists. It covers 17 emergencies — cardiac arrest, OB hemorrhage, malignant hyperthermia, failed airway, anaphylaxis, fire — and a debriefing protocol. The content is good. The evidence base is solid. The drug doses are correct. The differential diagnoses are thoughtful.

On the cover, in bold orange type, is this instruction:

>> Do not remove book from this room <<

Seven words. And in those seven words, the entire problem with how medicine uses checklists in 2026 is perfectly summarized.

It is a book. It must stay in the room. Someone has to find it, open it to the right page, and read it aloud during a crisis. This is the state of the art from one of the most respected patient safety organizations in the world, published three months ago.

Here is a “Shoulder Delivery Phase Timer”
This checklist is available 24/7. Unmovable. Accessible to everyone. Use it for every vaginal births and it will safe lives. I promise. And at the very least it will improve communications.

Or even better, install a display in each room (I just bout a 50 inch display for under $300).

Every L&D room needs a MOM — a Maternal Obstetric Monitor — a 50-inch display on the wall driven by the smartphone in every clinician's pocket. Pilots have had this for 30 years. Mothers deserve it too.

Where This Started

On October 30, 1935, a Boeing Model 299 lifted off a runway in Dayton, Ohio. It was the most advanced bomber ever built — so capable that a test pilot with thousands of flight hours forgot to release the elevator lock before takeoff. The plane climbed briefly, stalled, and crashed. Two crew members died.

Boeing’s engineers did not blame the pilot. They created a piece of paper. A short list of items to be checked, out loud, before each phase of flight. Not because pilots were incompetent. Because the aircraft had become too complex for any human memory to manage reliably alone.

That piece of paper became the foundation of modern aviation safety. The Boeing B-17 went on to fly 291,000 combat missions in World War II. The checklist was not a sign of failure. It was an acknowledgment of human limits.

How Aviation Evolved

What began as a laminated card grew into a system. By the 1970s, commercial aviation had developed crew resource management — a structured approach where every crew member has a defined role in running checklists. Challenge and response. Every item called, every response spoken aloud, every step logged.

Today, pilots do not hold a laminated card or open a book. They use an Electronic Flight Bag — an iPad running aviation software that tracks checklist completion in real time, records which items were confirmed and when, flags skipped steps, and updates automatically when procedures change. If a hydraulic system fails mid-flight, the abnormal checklist for that exact failure appears on the screen. The pilot does not flip through binders. The right checklist finds the pilot.

In 90 years, aviation went from a handwritten card after a crash to an integrated digital system embedded in every aircraft’s operating environment. The goal never changed: make sure nothing important is forgotten. The delivery mechanism changed completely.

Medicine’s Late Arrival

It took medicine another 70 years to pay serious attention. In 2001, Peter Pronovost at Johns Hopkins developed a five-item checklist for central line insertion in the ICU. The items were not complicated. Wash hands, use full sterile barrier, clean the skin with chlorhexidine, avoid the femoral vein, remove unnecessary catheters. Every physician knew these things. And yet, implementing the checklist reduced central line infection rates in Michigan ICUs by 66 percent over 18 months. More than 1,500 lives saved. [1]

The World Health Organization’s Surgical Safety Checklist followed — 19 items, three phases of surgery. A randomized trial across eight hospitals on four continents showed a 36 percent reduction in major complications and a 47 percent reduction in deaths. [2]

Obstetrics adopted the surgical timeout for cesarean delivery. Labor and delivery units developed hemorrhage bundles and sepsis protocols. The Safe Childbirth Checklist targeted birth attendants in low-resource settings. The evidence was clear. Checklists save lives.

But medicine made the same mistake aviation made in 1935: it stopped at the piece of paper. Or in 2026, the book.

The Book in the Room

Look at what the Ariadne Labs OR Crisis Checklists document is asking operating room teams to do. During a cardiac arrest, someone must find the book, open to checklist 04 or 05 depending on the rhythm, designate a checklist reader, and have that person read each step aloud while the team manages the patient. During OB hemorrhage, checklist 15. During malignant hyperthermia — a rare, rapidly fatal reaction — checklist 13, after calling the MH hotline at 1-800-644-9737, a number that is printed in the book because without the book you would not have it.

The checklist content itself is excellent. The OB hemorrhage checklist correctly identifies the four T’s — tone, trauma, tissue, thrombin. Drug doses are specific and current. The debriefing protocol, using the WATER framework, is thoughtful. Ariadne Labs has done real work here.

But the delivery mechanism is a physical book that must not leave the room. In an emergency, someone must find it. Someone must hold it. Someone must be designated to read it. If the book is in the wrong place, or the team skips the designation step because things are moving fast, the checklist does not happen.

This is not a criticism of Ariadne Labs. This is a description of where medicine is. The book is the standard. Most operating rooms and delivery suites do not have anything better.

The Timeout as Theater

The surgical timeout has the same problem. Someone calls it. The team pauses. Someone reads from a laminated sheet or a whiteboard. Patient name, procedure, site, allergies, anticipated blood loss. The team confirms. Then the surgery begins.

How often is this done correctly? How often are all items actually addressed? How often does a team member raise a concern? Studies suggest: not reliably. A 2012 observational study found that surgical timeouts were completed fully less than 50 percent of the time in real practice, even in institutions reporting high compliance. [3] Nobody logs whether the timeout was done. Nobody knows if an item was skipped. There is no record. The timeout either happened or it did not, and most of the time no one can say which.

A laminated sheet does not create accountability. A dry-erase whiteboard in a labor and delivery room can display a patient’s GBS status and gestational age. It cannot alert the team when blood pressure crosses a critical threshold. It cannot flag that a patient’s hemorrhage risk changed because her labor required oxytocin augmentation. It cannot be read from the nursing station at 2 a.m. It cannot hand off to the incoming night team. It is a static snapshot in a dynamic, high-risk environment. That gap is where errors live.

What Aviation Is Doing Right Now

Commercial aviation carries 4.5 billion passengers per year. The fatal accident rate for large commercial aircraft is approximately 0.07 per million flights. [4] This did not happen because pilots became better people. It happened because the system was redesigned around the assumption that humans make errors, and the system’s job is to catch those errors before they become crashes.

The Electronic Flight Bag does not replace pilot judgment. It handles memory so the pilot can handle thinking. The checklist is embedded in the workflow, time-stamped, logged, and integrated with the aircraft’s actual systems. There is no book that must not leave the room. The right checklist appears on the screen when it is needed, triggered by the situation itself.

Medicine is nowhere near this. Most hospitals do not have systems that automatically escalate when a patient’s early warning score crosses a threshold. Most labor and delivery units do not have integrated digital checklists that record completion and hand off between shifts. Most obstetric teams still rely on memory, verbal communication, a whiteboard, and a book that must stay in the room.

What This Costs

The Joint Commission reviewed 1,000 maternal deaths and found that in the majority of cases, warning signs were either not recognized or not acted upon in time. [5] This is exactly the failure a well-designed checklist system is built to prevent. Hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable maternal death worldwide. California’s Maternal Quality Care Collaborative showed that implementing a structured hemorrhage bundle reduced severe maternal morbidity by 20 percent. [6] That bundle is, at its core, a checklist.

The tools exist. The evidence exists. The gap is the delivery mechanism. A checklist that requires someone to find a book during a hemorrhage is not a safety system. It is a good intention dressed as one.

What 2026 Should Look Like

Electronic health records in most major hospitals already capture the data needed to drive dynamic, context-sensitive checklists. A patient whose hemorrhage risk score crosses a threshold should trigger an automatic display of the hemorrhage readiness checklist on every screen in the room. A second-stage labor duration alert should prompt the provider to document a decision. A sepsis bundle should activate when vital sign criteria are met, not when someone remembers to order it.

The OR Crisis Checklists that Ariadne Labs published in January 2026 should exist as an integrated application in every operating room’s display system, triggered by the documented clinical event, logged when completed, time-stamped for each step, and automatically handed off to the next team. Not a book. Not a laminated card. Not a whiteboard. A system.

This is not futuristic. Aviation has been doing it since the 1990s. The technology exists in medicine. What is missing is the will to accept that a book with a warning not to leave the room is not a safety system — it is 1935 technology with a Harvard logo on the cover.

A better checklist: Always available. To everybody. FREE:

Example: The Shoulder Delivery Phase Timer. Use it. Every Vaginal delivery.

My Take

I have been in delivery rooms for 50 years. I have watched checklists get introduced, celebrated, and quietly ignored when the unit got busy. I have seen timeouts that lasted 15 seconds and documented nothing. I have seen whiteboards with information that was never updated.

The Ariadne Labs OR Crisis Checklists are well-made. The OB hemorrhage checklist, the cardiac arrest checklists, the debriefing protocol — the content is right.

The people who wrote this document care about patient safety.

I do not question that.

What I question is the delivery mechanism. The book. The instruction not to remove it from the room. That instruction exists because if someone takes it out, it will not be there when it is needed. Which tells you exactly how the system works: it depends on a physical object being in the right place at the right moment, held by the right person, in the middle of a crisis.

Pilots figured out that this was not good enough. They kept improving the delivery mechanism until the checklist was part of the aircraft itself. Medicine should do the same. The Boeing engineers in 1935 had the right idea. It has now been 91 years. The book is not the answer.

Today, every pilot on every commercial flight runs checklists on an iPad. Every one of us has a smartphone in our pocket with more computing power than the Apollo mission. And in our operating rooms and delivery suites, we are still telling people not to remove the book from the room."

References

1. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(26):2725-2732.

2. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):491-499.

3. Vats A, Vincent CA, Nagpal K, et al. Practical challenges of introducing WHO surgical checklist: UK pilot experience. BMJ. 2010;340:b5433.

4. International Air Transport Association. Safety Report 2023. Montreal: IATA; 2024.

5. The Joint Commission. Sentinel Event Alert: Preventing maternal death. Issue 44. 2010.

6. Main EK, Goffman D, Scavone BM, et al. National partnership for maternal safety: consensus bundle on obstetric hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(1):155-162.

Imagine reviewing a manuscript in your specialty.

The question matters. The methods appear reasonable. You examine the analysis, challenge the conclusions, and recommend revisions. The authors respond. The paper is accepted.

Buried in its bibliography is a study that does not exist.

The citation looks entirely ordinary. Recognizable journal. Plausible title. Familiar author names. Nothing about its appearance tells you that the evidence it supposedly represents is missing.

Your review may have improved the manuscript substantially. Yet something more basic escaped scrutiny: whether part of its supporting literature was real.

That possibility is now the subject of a troubling research report.

And it leads me to a position that journals need to take seriously: AI assistance must become part of the infrastructure of peer review.

This is my proposed standard, not a claim that every available AI tool has been proved effective.

Subscribe now

In their 2026 arXiv preprint, Phantom References: Hallucinated Citations That Survive Peer Review at Top-Tier Conferences, first author Mark Russinovich and colleagues audited accepted papers from major AI and security conferences. Their definition covered nonexistent works and substantial author mismatches, excluding routine bibliographic discrepancies. Approximately one in twenty NeurIPS and USENIX Security papers in 2025 contained at least two likely hallucinated academic references. Reference-level rates were generally below 1%.1

The authors interpreted this as evidence that peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity. Their verification pipeline combined bibliographic databases with AI-assisted web searching.1

The limitations matter. This is a preprint, not an established estimate for medical journals. The audit does not establish that AI generated each problematic reference, and citation identity checks do not establish whether a real source supports a claim.1

My conclusion is that journals should make systematic verification an explicit part of review.

Expertise cannot substitute for retrieval.

An experienced reviewer may recognize an invented landmark trial immediately. But a plausible reference to an unfamiliar paper presents a different problem.

You cannot establish that a paper exists by knowing a great deal about its subject. You must retrieve it.

You cannot establish that it supports a sentence by recognizing the journal. You must examine what it actually reports.

Share

You cannot establish that its findings apply to the population under discussion by reading its title. You must compare the study with the claim.

A reviewer can perform these checks for individual references. The unrealistic expectation is that every reviewer will perform them exhaustively, for every submission, while also evaluating design, statistics, interpretation, originality, and clinical relevance.

No individual reviewer can serve as an exhaustive verification system for the scientific literature at publishing scale.

Telling reviewers to “be more careful” does not solve that design problem.

Consider a hypothetical manuscript with 80 references. Allow just three minutes to locate and check each one. That is four hours before assessing whether the sources support the statements attached to them. The arithmetic is illustrative, but the workload is real in principle: every additional layer of verification consumes time.

The response should be to build a process that makes those checks routine.

The objection that “AI hallucinates” strengthens the case for verification.

It is a valid objection to treating a chatbot’s answer as evidence.

Ask an AI system whether a citation is real, accept its confident answer, and you may simply add another unsupported assertion to the chain.

A useful verification system must show its work in an inspectable form: the retrieved record, the matching publication, the relevant passage, and any unresolved discrepancy.

The distinction matters. A model’s recollection is not a bibliographic record. Agreement between two models is not independent confirmation. A functioning link does not establish that the linked paper supports the manuscript’s claim.

AI assistance should help retrieve, compare, and flag. Its conclusions must remain open to inspection.

Straightforward checks should use conventional software and authoritative databases wherever possible. AI adds a potential layer of assistance when references are incomplete, wording differs, or a claim needs comparison with source text. Those more interpretive functions require separate validation.

The goal is a documented chain from assertion to evidence.

A real reference can still support a false narrative.

Imagine a manuscript stating that an intervention “prevents complications.”

The reference exists. The authors and journal are correct. The DOI works.

But the cited study measured a laboratory marker rather than complications. Or it enrolled a different population. Or its observational design supports an association while the manuscript asserts a causal effect.

These are hypothetical examples of the questions a review process should ask. Passing a citation-existence check would leave every one of them unresolved.

That is why I would require two distinct layers: bibliographic verification for every reference, followed by source comparison for the claims that carry the paper’s argument.

AI can assist with that comparison by placing the manuscript’s statement beside the relevant source passage and identifying possible discrepancies. The reviewer then assesses whether the discrepancy matters.

A system that presents the evidence for scrutiny is much more useful than one that merely produces another polished review.

Journals should provide the tools and own the process.

My proposed standard would require journals to:

• Check every reference against retrievable bibliographic records.

• Provide reviewers with an AI-assisted evidence audit for the manuscript’s central claims.

• Distinguish confirmed errors from unresolved searches and interpretive concerns.

• Require human assessment before an automated flag influences an editorial decision.

• Validate the system and monitor both missed errors and false accusations.

An unsuccessful search should be labeled “unresolved.” Calling it “fabricated” requires stronger evidence. Authors must have a fair opportunity to supply the source or correct the record.

Confidentiality also belongs in the design. ICMJE requires reviewers to follow journal AI policies or obtain permission, preserve manuscript confidentiality, disclose AI use, and ensure that the resulting content is appropriate and valid.2

Journals should therefore provide approved, secure systems. Reviewers should not have to improvise access to the tools the journal expects them to use.

The responsibility remains human. The assistance should be systematic.

Authors remain responsible for their references and claims. Reviewers remain responsible for their judgments. Editors remain responsible for publication decisions.

Adding AI does not transfer any of those obligations.

It can, however, give those people a more complete set of questions to investigate and a clearer record of what has actually been checked.

The conference audit does not prove that AI-assisted review improves clinical outcomes or catches every false claim. Those outcomes need evaluation. It does expose a verification gap that deserves a concrete response.

My position is that journals must build and evaluate AI-assisted verification as a standard part of review, with human oversight and traceable evidence. They should define its tasks narrowly enough to test its performance and expand its role only when the results justify doing so.

“Peer reviewed” should never be mistaken for “every claim verified.”

But we should be working to close that gap.

AI hallucinations make the need harder to ignore. A fabricated reference can look perfectly scholarly. Human expertise cannot make an unread source real.

Reviewers need tools that help them discover what deserves closer inspection.

Journals must provide them.

References

1. Russinovich M, Siva Kumar RS, Salem A. Phantom references: hallucinated citations that survive peer review at top-tier conferences. arXiv [Preprint]. 2026 Jul 1. arXiv:2607.00738. Full text.

2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Use of AI by reviewers. In: Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals [Internet]. [cited 2026 Sep 8]. Recommendations.

Four weeks? Six weeks? Twelve weeks? One year?

The disagreement exists because postpartum is not one biological clock. It is several different clocks that measure different things.

The traditional obstetric puerperium lasts about six weeks. The World Health Organization defines the postnatal period as the first 42 days after birth. ACOG treats postpartum care as an ongoing process culminating in a comprehensive assessment by 12 weeks. Perinatal mental health programs commonly extend surveillance through the first year.

Each boundary serves a purpose. None establishes the moment at which pregnancy ceases to matter.

Some pregnancy-related changes resolve within days.

Hormone concentrations fall rapidly.

The uterus involutes over several weeks.

Circulating cell-free fetal DNA, contrary to a common misconception, is usually cleared very quickly after delivery.

But fetal cells are different from cell-free fetal DNA. During pregnancy, fetal cells cross the placenta and enter the maternal circulation. Some become established in maternal blood, bone marrow, skin, liver, and other tissues. This phenomenon, fetal microchimerism, has been documented decades after delivery. In a literal cellular sense, pregnancy may leave another human being’s cells within the mother for much of her life.

Pregnancy often leaves lasting anatomical and physiological effects.

The breasts, abdominal wall, pelvic floor, vasculature, metabolism, immune system, and brain often do not return to an exact prepregnancy state.

A woman who had a cesarean will have her scar forever.

A woman who delivered vaginally may have changes there too.

Neuroimaging research has identified pregnancy-associated changes in brain structure that remain detectable years after birth.

Hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, and other complications can also reveal or contribute to long-term cardiovascular and metabolic risk.

Motherhood adds another timeline. Sleep, employment, relationships, responsibility, grief, identity, and social isolation do not reset at six weeks. The psychological transition to motherhood, sometimes called matrescence, cannot be assigned a universal expiration date.

So, in one important sense, postpartum lasts forever.

But that statement requires a crucial qualification.

A lasting biological trace of pregnancy does not mean that every later illness was caused by pregnancy. Fetal microchimerism does not establish the cause of a psychiatric disorder. Persistent pelvic-floor symptoms do not make every subsequent health problem postpartum. Emotional difficulty years later cannot automatically be attributed to childbirth.

Temporal association is not causation.

This distinction becomes especially important in medicine and law. Clinical care should not be withdrawn because a woman has crossed an arbitrary calendar boundary. At the same time, courts should not expand “postpartum” indefinitely without asking a more precise question: What disorder was present, when did its symptoms begin, what evidence connects it to pregnancy or childbirth, and how did it affect the person’s mental state at the relevant time?

“Postpartum” should never substitute for a diagnosis, a causal analysis, or an individualized assessment.

The most accurate answer is therefore not four weeks, twelve weeks, or one year.

Postpartum has multiple meanings:

• As an obstetric care period, it is measured in weeks or months.

• As a period of increased surveillance for maternal morbidity and mental illness, it may extend through the first year and, for selected risks, beyond.

• As a physical, cellular, psychological, and social transformation, some effects may be lifelong.

• As a legal explanation for behavior, it must be demonstrated with evidence, not assumed from the fact that a woman once gave birth.

Pregnancy ends with delivery.

Its consequences do not necessarily end at all.

That is the more difficult truth, and the more scientifically honest one.

References

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Optimizing postpartum care. Committee Opinion No. 736. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e140-e150.

2. Bianchi DW, Zickwolf GK, Weil GJ, Sylvester S, DeMaria MA. Male fetal progenitor cells persist in maternal blood for as long as 27 years postpartum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93:705-708.

3. Lo YMD, Zhang J, Leung TN, Lau , Chang AMZ, Hjelm NM. Rapid clearance of fetal DNA from maternal plasma. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;64:218-224.

4. Hoekzema E, Barba-Müller E, Pozzobon C, et al. Pregnancy leads to long-lasting changes in human brain structure. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20:287-296

A patient came in for her first prenatal visit. Chronic hypertension, obesity, and this was her third pregnancy after two prior preeclampsia diagnoses. Textbook high-risk.

We prescribed 81 mg aspirin daily, just like ACOG recommends. Before 16 weeks, continued until delivery. I checked all the boxes.

Here’s what I didn’t tell her: the dose I prescribed has no proven effect on preventing the type of preeclampsia most likely to harm her and her baby ScienceDirect.

The Dose-Response Curve We’re Ignoring

ACOG’s 2021 Practice Advisory recommends 81 mg aspirin daily for women at high risk of preeclampsia, starting between 12 and 28 weeks ACOG. The recommendation is clear, widely implemented, and based on decades of research showing aspirin prevents preeclampsia.

Share

Except when you look closely at which type of preeclampsia aspirin actually prevents, the 81 mg recommendation falls apart.

Preeclampsia isn’t one disease. Early-onset preeclampsia (delivery before 37 weeks) is a different beast from term preeclampsia. Preterm preeclampsia carries substantially higher risks of maternal and perinatal death and complications New England Journal of Medicine. It’s the cases that end up in the ICU. The babies in the NICU for months.

And 81 mg aspirin doesn’t prevent it.

The Number: When comparing 81 mg to 150 mg aspirin started in the first trimester, the higher dose reduced preterm preeclampsia by 66% (RR 0.34), while 81 mg showed no significant effect ScienceDirect.

That’s not a small difference. That’s the difference between prevention and placebo.

Clinical Pearl: The dose of aspirin we routinely prescribe works for term preeclampsia. It doesn’t work for preterm preeclampsia, which is exactly what kills mothers and babies.

What the Dose-Response Data Actually Show

Read more

Medicine has a communication problem.

We publish thousands of pages of clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and consensus statements every year. We congratulate ourselves on being evidence based. Yet ask clinicians a few months later about the key recommendations, and many struggle to recall them accurately.

The problem is not intelligence.

It is how the human brain works.

We remember stories better than lists. We remember patterns better than paragraphs. Most of all, we remember images better than text.

That is why a single well-designed infographic can have greater educational impact than ten pages of carefully written prose.

See one of mine here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/obmd_httpslnkdinghz-n6y3-share-7490666217049903104-Ul8m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAA7ytecBUkDnkjRIBeYLpS15yH5ODkVGj_U

Medical education has been built around words. Medical learning depends on visuals.

The irony is striking. Radiologists diagnose from images. Obstetricians interpret ultrasound. Pathologists examine slides. Cardiologists read echocardiograms. Every specialty depends on visual pattern recognition. Yet when we teach, we often abandon the very language the brain is best equipped to process.

A dense page of recommendations requires sustained attention, working memory, and repeated reading. A thoughtfully designed infographic immediately reveals relationships, priorities, algorithms, and exceptions. It reduces cognitive load while increasing retention.

This is not about making medicine simplistic.

It is about making complex information understandable.

An effective infographic is not decoration. It is a cognitive tool.

Unfortunately, many medical graphics fail because they try to summarize rather than teach. They are crowded with tiny fonts, unnecessary icons, decorative colors, and enough text to recreate the original paper. These are illustrations, not educational tools.

A great infographic has a different purpose. It answers one clinical question. It guides one decision. It highlights what clinicians are most likely to forget. It is remembered weeks later because it transforms information into a visual mental model.

As artificial intelligence becomes integrated into medicine, this distinction becomes even more important.

Large language models can now summarize almost any paper in seconds. Text is becoming abundant. The scarce resource is no longer information. It is attention and memory.

The future of medical education will not belong to those who produce the most content. It will belong to those who communicate most effectively.

Medical journals, professional societies, hospitals, and educators should stop treating infographics as optional marketing material. They should become an expected part of scientific communication, designed with the same rigor as the manuscript itself.

Because education is not measured by what we publish.

It is measured by what clinicians remember at the bedside.

If you want people to understand, write.

If you want them to remember, show.

I have been watching Malpractice, a British medical drama on ITV. Season 2 centers on the obstetrics and psychiatry departments of an NHS hospital in Leeds/UK, where a psychiatric registrar finds himself caught between two patients on a chaotic night shift and a new mother dies.

What follows is not a courtroom thriller.

It is something more interesting: a dedicated team called the Medical Investigation Unit — the MIU — systematically pulling apart what happened, who knew what, when the moment of no return arrived, and whether the institution itself created the conditions for the outcome. The show is fiction, but the structural question it raises is real. Britain has built, at least on television, a model worth examining. The United States has not built one at all.

Subscribe now

We have malpractice litigation. We have risk management departments whose primary function is legal defense. We have mortality and morbidity conferences that, in most institutions, operate under a culture of self-protection rather than honest inquiry. What we do not have is an independent, structured, blame-free investigation process applied systematically to obstetric adverse outcomes. What we have instead is the NTSB — but only for airplanes.

What the NTSB Is, and Why It Works

The National Transportation Safety Board was established in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson as part of the Department of Transportation Act. It became fully independent in 1975, after Congress concluded that no agency can investigate safely if it is answerable to the same body it is investigating. That independence is the core of the model.

Since 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 153,000 aviation accidents. It has issued more than 15,500 safety recommendations to more than 2,470 recipients. Roughly 82 percent of its closed recommendations have been implemented. Aviation is one of the safest forms of transportation in human history, and a significant part of the reason is that when something goes wrong, a dedicated independent agency finds out exactly why — and tells everyone.

The methodology is specific. When a crash occurs, the NTSB dispatches a “Go Team” — between three and a dozen specialists — to the scene immediately. Each specialist investigates a defined domain: operations, structures, systems, human performance, air traffic control, survival factors. Nobody is asked to assess their own department. Nobody has a financial interest in the outcome. The investigation produces a probable cause determination — not a verdict, not a punishment — and a set of safety recommendations addressed to whoever has the power to make the relevant change.

Three features make the NTSB model work. First, independence: the investigators are not employed by the airline, the manufacturer, or the regulator. Second, scope: the investigation examines the whole system, not just the individual at the center of the event. Third, purpose: the goal is a safety recommendation, not a legal judgment. Fault is documented when relevant, but blame is not the product. Prevention is the product.

Share

What ObGyn Adverse Outcome Review Looks Like in the United States

A woman dies in labor. Or a baby is born with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, with injuries that will define the next several decades of a family’s life. What happens next?

In most American hospitals, the answer runs roughly as follows. Risk management is notified. The chart is reviewed, usually by people with a professional interest in the outcome of any future litigation. A peer review process may occur, protected from legal discovery in most states under peer review statutes. If a malpractice claim is filed, attorneys take over. Settlements are reached, often confidential. The case closes.

What is almost never produced: a structured, independent, systematic analysis of what happened, what the standard of care required at each decision point, whether there was a deviation, and whether that deviation caused the outcome. What is almost never shared: the findings with the team that was involved, the department that shares the same workflows, the institution that uses the same protocols.

The lesson, if there is one, dies with the case. The next team walks into the same system.

The British Model — and Its Limitations

Malpractice is not a documentary. The MIU it depicts moves faster than any real investigation, has access to information that would take months to subpoena in practice, and resolves its cases in five episodes. But the structural argument the show makes is sound: there is value in an entity whose only job is to find out what happened, without being answerable to the hospital, the insurer, the licensing board, or the family’s attorneys.

The United Kingdom does, in fact, have mechanisms that move in this direction. NHS England operates the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, now the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB), an independent body that investigates patient safety incidents with a stated commitment to learning rather than blame. It is not a perfect analogue to the NTSB. It does not have the same independence, the same resources, or the same cultural authority. But the principle is there.

The United States has nothing comparable for medicine. The Joint Commission accredits hospitals and reviews sentinel events, but it is neither independent nor focused on systemic learning. State medical boards investigate licensing matters. Malpractice litigation produces discovery, but it is adversarial by design — structured to assign liability, not to understand causation. None of these is the NTSB.

What We Should Do

I am not naive about the politics of this proposal. The malpractice liability system in the United States creates enormous disincentives for transparency. Hospitals and clinicians resist independent investigation precisely because findings could be used in litigation. Any serious move toward an NTSB-style model for medicine would require federal legislation granting investigation findings the same protection from legal discovery that exists for aviation accident reports.

That protection already exists in aviation. NTSB findings and the cockpit voice recordings that inform them are not admissible in civil litigation. That is not an accident. Congress made a deliberate choice that safety learning was more valuable than litigation ammunition. We have not made that choice for medicine.

The recommendation I would make to ACOG, SMFM, and Congress is this: create an independent obstetric adverse outcome investigation board, modeled on the NTSB. Give it independence from CMS, the Joint Commission, state licensing boards, and the insurance industry. Give its findings the same legal protection from discovery that aviation investigation reports carry. Fund it. Require that every maternal death, every intrapartum fetal demise, every case of birth-related hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy be reported to it. Require that its recommendations be tracked and their implementation publicly reported.

Some countries have moved in this direction. The Netherlands has a maternal mortality review process with independent investigators. The United Kingdom has MBRRACE-UK, the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths, which produces population-level learning that has measurably improved practice. Australia has the Consultative Councils on Obstetric and Paediatric Mortality and Morbidity. The United States, which spends more on maternity care than any country in the world, has no equivalent.

What We Can Do Right Now

Waiting for Congress is not a strategy. What ObGyn departments can do right now, without legislation, is adopt the methodology even without the mandate.

The NTSB does not investigate because it is required to be heroic. It investigates because it has a structured process that it applies consistently, without exception, to every event it covers. That process can be adapted. The four legal elements of a malpractice case — duty, breach, causation, and damage — map cleanly onto a clinical investigation framework. The NTSB’s phase-by-phase approach — establish the facts, review the record, assess each decision against the standard, examine communication, examine system factors, determine causation, generate prevention recommendations — is not proprietary. It is a logic that any department can apply.

I have built a free tool that does exactly that. The ObGyn Adverse Outcome Investigation Checklist at tools.obmd.com walks a review team through all eight phases of a structured investigation, maps each phase to one of the four legal elements, and — when you are ready — lets you ask Claude to analyze the case data you have entered, identify gaps in the investigation, and generate NTSB-style prevention recommendations with specific responsible parties and deadlines.

It will not replace an independent investigation body. But it will replace the silence that currently follows most adverse outcomes in American obstetrics.

My Take

Aviation figured something out sixty years ago that medicine has still not accepted: the goal of investigating a catastrophic event is not to assign blame. It is to prevent the next one. The NTSB is not a court. It does not sentence pilots or ground airlines. It determines probable cause, issues recommendations, and tracks whether they are implemented. Its power comes entirely from the quality of its analysis and the transparency of its findings.

The show I watched on ITV is canceled after two seasons. The MIU will not be coming back. But the question it asked is not going away: who investigates when something goes wrong in medicine, and what is their goal? In the United States right now, the honest answer is: the attorneys do, and their goal is to win.

We can do better.

The NTSB shows us exactly how.

⬇ Try the EXPERIMENTAL tool

ObGyn Adverse Outcome Investigation Checklist — free, interactive, browser-based. tools.obmd.com/ob-case-review

He was competent, thorough, and honest.

We had reviewed the case together in detail.

The clinical picture was clear.

Something had gone wrong, and the pathway by which it went wrong was identifiable.

We both understood what it was.

I turned to him and said: given what we have found, what do you recommend we change to prevent this from happening again?

He looked at me with an expression I have thought about many times since. Not defensive. Not evasive. Genuinely puzzled.

“That is not my responsibility,” he said. “I am not a doctor. It is not my place to make clinical recommendations.”

He was correct on every count.

It was not his responsibility.

He was not a doctor.

It was not his place.

And that, I realized, is one of the central problems with how American medicine handles adverse outcomes. When the case is over, nobody whose job it is to understand what went wrong has a job that includes recommending what should change. The lawyer protects the institution. The risk manager documents the event. The peer reviewer assesses the individual clinician. The M&M conference discusses the case. And then everyone returns to their lane.

Prevention is in nobody’s lane.

Each Person Does Their Job. Nobody Does the One That Matters.

This is worth sitting with. The hospital lawyer in that room was not indifferent to the outcome. He was a professional doing exactly what he had been hired to do: assess liability, manage exposure, protect the institution’s legal position. Recommending clinical practice changes was genuinely outside that mandate. If he had made such recommendations, he would have been operating outside his expertise and potentially creating additional liability for his client.

The risk manager’s job is documentation and compliance. The quality officer’s job is accreditation. The peer reviewer’s job is to assess whether the clinician met the standard of care. The malpractice insurer’s job is to settle or defend. Each of these roles is real, each is occupied by capable people, and none of them has prevention as its primary output.

The NTSB understood this problem sixty years ago. Its founding mandate was not to assign blame, not to manage liability, not to protect any party’s legal position. It was to determine probable cause and issue safety recommendations. Prevention was not a byproduct of the NTSB’s work. It was the only product. Every other output -- the investigation report, the probable cause determination, the factual reconstruction -- exists in service of the safety recommendation.

In the room where I sat with that lawyer, there was no NTSB equivalent. There was no person or body whose only job was to ask: what changes would prevent the next case?

The Lawyer’s Constraint Is a System Design

I want to be precise about what the lawyer’s response revealed, because it is easy to hear it as an excuse and miss what it actually was: an accurate description of how the system is built.

The American hospital response to an adverse outcome is organized around two functions: legal defense and regulatory compliance. Both are legitimate. Both are necessary. Neither is designed to produce prevention. Legal defense is designed to minimize liability. Regulatory compliance (the Joint Commission root cause analysis, the peer review process, the sentinel event report) is designed to satisfy an accreditor. These are different goals from prevention, and optimizing for them does not automatically produce prevention as a side effect.

In fact, optimizing for legal defense actively works against prevention in one specific way: it creates strong incentives not to produce a written document that clearly identifies what went wrong and what should change. Such a document, if not properly protected, becomes discoverable evidence. The instinct of every legal team I have ever worked with is to produce the minimum documentation necessary to satisfy the accreditor while preserving the maximum possible ambiguity about causation.

The NTSB solved this problem legislatively. Under 49 U.S.C. Section 1154(b), no part of an NTSB accident report may be admitted into evidence in a civil lawsuit arising from the accident. Congress made an explicit choice that safety learning was worth more than litigation ammunition. That protection is why NTSB investigators can write exactly what they found without worrying about what plaintiff’s attorneys will do with it.

Medicine has never made that choice. And so the lawyers remain in their lane, the investigators remain in theirs, and the written record of what went wrong remains as vague as possible. Prevention waits.

Who Should Have That Job

The answer the NTSB model provides is: a person or body whose only job is prevention, who is independent of all the parties with a financial interest in the outcome, and whose work product is a safety recommendation addressed to whoever has the power to make the relevant change.

That body does not currently exist in American obstetrics.

What should exist is an Obstetric Patient Safety Investigation Board, independent of ACOG, independent of hospital systems, independent of malpractice insurers, and independent of the Joint Commission, that investigates every maternal death and every case of birth-related brain injury, produces a public report, and issues safety recommendations with named recipients, measurable outcomes, and tracked implementation.

The hospital lawyer would not be asked to sit on that body. Neither would the risk manager or the peer reviewer. Those people would continue doing their jobs.

The investigation board would do a different job: the one nobody is doing now.

Until that body exists at the national level, ObGyn departments can build a local approximation of it. The investigation checklist at tools.obmd.com/ob-case-review walks a review team through the same phases the NTSB uses: establish the facts, review the record, assess each decision against the standard of care, examine communication, examine system factors, determine causation, and generate prevention recommendations addressed to whoever has the authority to make each specific change. The AI analysis that runs on the entered data produces a Safety Recommendation Report in NTSB format: specific actions, named responsible parties, deadlines, and measurable metrics.

That report gives the department chair what I did not have in that room: a document whose explicit purpose is to answer the question the lawyer could not answer.

What Needs to Change at the System Level

The lawyer’s response pointed to three specific system failures that no individual institution can fix alone.

The first is the absence of a mandated prevention function. Every hospital has a legal defense function. Every accredited hospital has a sentinel event reporting function. No hospital is required to have a function whose sole purpose is to produce safety recommendations from adverse outcome investigations and track their implementation. ACOG should require it. The Joint Commission should require it. Until one of them does, it will remain optional, which means most institutions will not have it.

The second is the absence of litigation protection for candid investigation findings. As long as a clearly written investigation report identifying a specific practice gap can be subpoenaed and used against the institution in court, the legal team’s instinct will be to prevent that document from existing. Congress needs to extend to medical adverse outcome investigations the same protection that exists for NTSB aviation reports. Without that protection, candor is professionally irrational.

The third is the absence of a prevention-focused mandate anywhere in the existing system. The lawyer’s job is defense. The risk manager’s job is documentation. The peer reviewer’s job is individual assessment. None of these roles has “prevent the next case” as its primary or even secondary function. That function needs to be explicitly assigned, resourced, and held accountable. Right now, it belongs to everyone in principle and to no one in practice.

Conclusion

I do not blame that lawyer.

He did exactly what he was hired to do, and he was honest with me about what he could and could not contribute.

That honesty was more valuable than a vague promise to “look into it” that would have produced nothing.

What I learned from that conversation is that the gap in American obstetric patient safety is not primarily a gap in competence or in caring.

The clinicians involved in most adverse outcomes are competent.

The lawyers are competent.

The risk managers are competent.

The gap is structural. The system has been designed to do everything except the one thing that would actually reduce the rate of preventable adverse outcomes: assign clear responsibility for prevention to a specific person or body with the independence, the authority, and the mandate to produce it.

The NTSB is not staffed by people who are smarter than hospital lawyers or risk managers or department chairs. It is structured differently. Its investigators have one job. Their findings are protected from litigation. Their recommendations are public and tracked. That structure is what produces results, not the intelligence of the people inside it.

We know how to build this. We have had the model for sixty years. The question is whether American obstetrics is willing to adopt it, or whether we will continue producing adverse outcomes at the current rate while each of the responsible parties continues doing their job and nobody does the one that matters.

The investigation tool

—> ObGyn Adverse Outcome Investigation Checklist -- NTSB methodology, AI-powered Safety Recommendation Report, free. tools.obmd.com/ob-case-review

Understanding the Issue

Claudia Goldin, born in 1946, is an American economic historian at Harvard University whose work reshaped our understanding of gender inequality. In 2023, she became the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics on her own. Her research explores how women’s lives change across generations, how fertility decisions shape careers, and how caregiving responsibilities influence earnings and opportunity. Goldin revealed what many women already knew intuitively. Choice is shaped by structure. Ambition is shaped by constraint. And motherhood, especially early motherhood, often determines what kind of life women can build. Pregnancy and childbirth sit at the heart of these patterns. Goldin does not write about labor units or obstetric risk. She writes about time, incentives, and systems. Yet her work helps clinicians see the broader context in which pregnant women make decisions and experience care.

Subscribe now

1. Pregnancy is shaped by the economics of time, not just biology

Goldin’s most influential insight is that the heart of gender inequality lies not only in discrimination but also in the unequal distribution of time. Women do more unpaid caregiving than men. Women’s careers are more likely to be interrupted. Women face what she calls “greedy jobs,” roles that demand unpredictable hours and penalize flexibility. Pregnancy sits inside this landscape. Many women delay childbearing not because they want to, but because the timing of pregnancy is constrained by education, employment expectations, and economic risk. When clinicians see pregnancy as a purely biological event, they overlook the structural pressures that shape when and how women become mothers. Goldin helps us understand that reproductive choices occur inside economic realities, not outside them.

2. The motherhood penalty begins long before birth

Goldin documented that women’s wages begin to diverge from men’s around the arrival of the first child. She called this the “motherhood penalty.” It affects career trajectories, lifetime earnings, and access to leadership roles. The penalty does not start at the baby’s first breath. It begins when women must navigate prenatal appointments around jobs with limited leave, when they worry about losing hours or being seen as unreliable, and when the cost of pregnancy falls disproportionately on them. Obstetric care often extracts time, energy, and financial resources that women struggle to spare. Goldin urges us to see the cumulative effect of these disruptions. Clinicians cannot change national labor policy, but they can recognize that each appointment, each instruction, and each delay interacts with a woman’s economic stability.

Share

3. Inequality deepens when systems assume a full-time caregiver

Goldin showed that modern workplaces were built on an outdated model of the household, one where one partner worked full time while the other stayed home. Pregnancy care sometimes mirrors this assumption. Women are expected to attend frequent visits, modify schedules, arrange childcare for other children, and comply with recommendations that take time and flexibility. When a woman cannot conform, she may be labeled noncompliant or disengaged. Goldin would argue that the problem is not the woman. It is the system. Obstetrics becomes more humane when clinicians ask, “What requirements are we placing on her, and are they realistic.” Acknowledging these constraints does not lower standards. It increases fairness.

4. Choice is real, but it is not free

Goldin resisted simplistic narratives about women choosing differently from men. She showed that choices are shaped by opportunities, information, and systemic barriers. In obstetrics, women often face decisions framed as individual preferences. Induction or waiting. Epidural or no epidural. VBAC or repeat cesarean. But each decision is shaped by the woman’s job security, her access to support, her insurance coverage, and her economic vulnerability. A woman may opt for induction not because it is medically preferable but because she cannot afford unpredictability. Another may avoid a recommended intervention because leave from work is limited. Goldin teaches clinicians to see the economic scaffolding behind what appear to be personal decisions. Respecting autonomy requires understanding the pressures that shape it.

5. The narrative of “having it all” obscures the cost of doing it all

Goldin’s research dismantled the myth that progress for women is linear. Gains in education and employment do not eliminate the structural tension between paid work and caregiving. Pregnancy often intensifies this tension. Women are told to plan their births around medical advice while simultaneously being expected to remain fully productive at work. They must perform flexibility in systems that do not offer it. Goldin explains why this conflict feels so exhausting. The system expects women to stretch, not the institutions around them. Obstetrics can play a role in easing this burden. When clinicians offer scheduling options, reduce unnecessary visits, and use telehealth strategically, they acknowledge that supporting pregnancy also means supporting women’s economic lives.

6. Better outcomes depend on understanding the life cycle, not just the pregnancy

A central theme in Goldin’s work is that women’s outcomes cannot be understood by looking at single moments. They must be viewed across the life cycle. Pregnancy is one chapter in a long economic story. A traumatic birth may disrupt employment for years. A respectful birth may strengthen a woman’s sense of agency. Postpartum recovery affects return to work, breastfeeding influences time use, and childcare availability determines whether paid employment is possible. Goldin helps clinicians see that obstetric care is never isolated. It intersects with a woman’s future earning potential, mental health, and long-term autonomy. When clinicians recognize this, their counseling becomes more contextual and more compassionate.

7. The ethics of obstetric care include acknowledging the economics of women’s lives

Goldin never studied obstetrics, yet her insights resonate with the ethical responsibilities of the field. Caring for pregnant women means understanding the forces that shape their decisions. It means recognizing the constraints that make certain recommendations difficult. It means naming the structural inequalities that burden women rather than assuming they arise from individual preference. Goldin’s work calls clinicians to humility and awareness. Pregnancy is not only a biological event. It is an economic transition, a social shift, and a restructuring of time. Obstetric care becomes more ethical when it honors these realities and adapts to them. Goldin’s enduring message is that understanding women’s lives requires looking beyond the clinic and into the systems that shape their choices.

Reflection

Claudia Goldin teaches us that pregnancy exists inside an economic landscape that shapes every decision women make. Her insights challenge clinicians to ask whether they see the full reality of the women they care for. When obstetrics acknowledges the pressures of time, work, and inequality, it becomes not only safer but more just. Goldin leaves us with a question. Are we caring for pregnancy alone, or are we caring for the woman who must carry its consequences across her entire life.

Here is everything you need to know, including when to see an eye doctor and how to handle eye makeup when your eyes are at their most sensitive.

The Conversation Nobody Is Having

Think about everything your ObGyn discusses during prenatal care. Weight. Blood pressure. Glucose screening. Genetic testing. Exercise. Diet. Sleep position. Dental visits.

Now think about your eyes.

Nothing.

Your ObGyn almost certainly said nothing about your eyes.

This is a remarkable gap. Pregnancy produces real, measurable changes in your eyes. So do the fertility medications that many women take to get pregnant in the first place. Vision can fluctuate. Eyes dry out. Contact lenses stop fitting. And in rare cases, visual symptoms can be the first sign of a serious complication like preeclampsia.

Yet no one brings it up. Not at the first prenatal visit. Not at any prenatal visit. The topic does not appear on standard prenatal counseling checklists. Most ObGyn residency training covers ocular emergencies (scotomas in preeclampsia, for example) but says almost nothing about the routine eye changes that affect millions of pregnant women every year.

Share

The result is predictable. Women notice their vision is different. They wonder if something is wrong. They Google at 2 a.m. They either worry unnecessarily about something benign, or they ignore a symptom that actually needed attention.

A woman’s focus during pregnancy (so to speak) is somewhere else entirely. That is understandable. But it does not mean her eyes should be forgotten.

It Starts Before Pregnancy: Fertility Medications and Your Eyes

For women undergoing fertility treatment, eye changes can begin before pregnancy even starts.

Subscribe now

Clomiphene citrate (Clomid), the most commonly prescribed fertility medication, has well-documented visual side effects. These include blurred vision, flashing lights, shimmering in the visual field, light sensitivity, and a phenomenon called palinopsia, where afterimages linger longer than normal (4, 5). These effects occur because clomiphene is an estrogen receptor blocker, and estrogen receptors exist in the retina and visual pathways, not just the reproductive system.

Most visual symptoms from clomiphene are mild and resolve when the medication is stopped. But not always. Case reports document patients with visual disturbances persisting years after discontinuing the drug (5). Rare but serious complications include central retinal vein occlusion and optic neuropathy (4, 6).

The prescribing information for clomiphene states clearly that the drug should be discontinued if visual symptoms occur. Yet how many women starting Clomid are told to watch for visual changes? How many know that blurred vision on day three of their Clomid cycle is a recognized side effect and not just fatigue?

Gonadotropin therapy (injectable FSH, used in IVF cycles) has also been associated with ocular changes. IVF treatment increases vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels, and elevated VEGF has been linked in case reports to retinal complications including retinal detachment and choroidal neovascularization (4). These are rare events, but they underscore the point: fertility treatment affects the eyes, and patients deserve to know that before they start.

The bottom line for women trying to conceive: If you are taking clomiphene or undergoing IVF and you notice any visual changes, blurred vision, flashing lights, shimmering, spots, or lingering afterimages, tell your fertility doctor immediately. Do not assume it is stress or fatigue. It may be a medication effect that requires evaluation.

What you are about to read will change how you walk into your next exam room.

Read more

Why Do Pregnant Woman see an Obstetrician?

Pregnant women seek obstetric care for reasons far more fundamental than scheduling tests or documenting vital signs. They come because they have questions that matter, worries that need interpretation, and physical changes that sometimes require expert diagnosis.

Subscribe now

They come for reassurance, for guidance, and for the kind of compassionate presence that helps them navigate uncertainty. They come because pregnancy is both biological and emotional, and they want a clinician who can hold both with skill.

These expectations define the heart of obstetric practice and are exactly what the next generation of AI-supported care must strengthen rather than diminish.

The Perfect Obstetrician is here

Obstetric Intelligence is creating a clinician whose cognitive reach, precision, and availability far exceed anything medicine has previously known.
Artificial intelligence is not merely inventing a better clinical tool. It is creating a new category of obstetrician. This entity is an AI-supported experienced obstetrician created construct working in continuous partnership with an obstetrician, bringing an exponentially expanded knowledge base, deep analytical capacity, perfect compassion, and round-the-clock availability. Never tired. Reads a cardiotocogram (CTG) or an ultrasound quickly and perfectly.

The question is no longer whether AI will reshape obstetric practice. It already has. The essential task is to understand how this partnership will redefine excellence, safety, and responsibility in maternal-fetal medicine.

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers.

Read more

It has no ICD-10 code.

It cannot be diagnosed by ultrasound.

No laboratory test detects it.

Yet it affects countless women after giving birth.

Many leave the hospital believing they have failed.

Not because their baby was harmed.

Not because they made poor decisions.

Not because their clinicians failed them.

But because their birth did not unfold the way they had imagined.

“I ended up with a cesarean.”

“I couldn’t do it without an epidural.”

“My body failed.”

“I wasn’t strong enough.”

“I didn’t get the birth I wanted.”

These are among the most heartbreaking sentences I hear.

Not because they describe bad medicine.

But because they often describe good medicine viewed through the lens of unrealistic expectations.

Subscribe now

How did we create a culture in which a healthy mother with a healthy baby can still leave believing she failed?

That question deserves far more attention than it receives.

Because I do not believe women are failing birth.

I believe birth culture is failing women.

Subscribe to read the full essay

Why do so many women experience guilt after medically appropriate births? Why do epidurals, inductions, and cesarean deliveries become symbols of failure rather than evidence of individualized care? And why has childbirth increasingly become something to achieve instead of something to navigate?

In this essay, I argue that modern birth culture has unintentionally transformed childbirth into a performance with winners and losers. It is time to change that narrative.

Read more

It appears in childbirth education, birth plans, social media, books, and even scientific publications. The story is familiar.

An epidural leads to oxytocin.

Oxytocin leads to fetal heart rate abnormalities.

Fetal heart rate abnormalities lead to cesarean delivery.

The conclusion seems obvious.

If the first intervention had never occurred, the cesarean would never have happened.

It is a compelling narrative.

It is also a causal claim.

And causal claims require evidence.

What if we have been asking the wrong question?

What if many so-called cascades of intervention are not caused by the intervention at all?

What if they are instead the consequence of a labor that was already becoming increasingly abnormal?

What if the interventions are simply the visible markers of clinicians recognizing new risks as labor unfolds?

That possibility changes how we interpret research.

It changes how we counsel pregnant patients.

And it changes how we think about one of the most frequently repeated concepts in maternity care.

This article argues that many “cascades of intervention” are better understood as cascades of risk recognition.

Subscribe to read the full article

The remainder of this essay explores why sequence is so often mistaken for causation, how confounding by indication shapes obstetric decision making, why observational studies can reinforce misleading narratives, and why distinguishing intervention from risk recognition matters for evidence-based counseling and patient safety.

Read more

Dario Amodei runs Anthropic, one of the largest artificial intelligence companies in the world. On Stripe’s “A Cheeky Pint” podcast, in conversation with John Collison, he repeated something Nobel Prize winning biologists had told him. They said they would only see the top 1 percent of doctors. For the other 99 percent, a large language model gives bett…

Read more

“Reproductive freedom” has become one of the most repeated phrases in American medicine.

The major medical groups use it constantly.

When they do say ‘reproductive freedom’, they almost always mean one thing: abortion.

ACOG says abortion is essential health care and that it is committed to protecting and increasing access to it.

The American Medical Association says much the same.

The phrase appears on banners, in press releases, and in the title of a federal bill. Strip away the packaging and the message is direct: a woman should be able to end a pregnancy without the government standing in her way.

I do not write to argue about abortion. I write to argue about the word “freedom,” because the people using it have made it far too small.

I say that reproductive freedom means that every woman independent of her race, religion, or insurance status should be allowed to see the doctor of her choice.

Freedom to make a choice means nothing if you cannot reach a doctor to carry it out.

A right you cannot use is not a right. It is a slogan.

And for millions of American women, the door to ordinary obstetric and gynecologic care is harder to open than the speeches admit.

Start with who pays. Medicaid covers about 4 in 10 births in the United States. For Black mothers the share is far higher, around 64 to 65 percent. For Hispanic mothers it is close to 59 percent. For white mothers it is about 28 percent.

Roughly 1 in 4 Black women of any age relies on Medicaid for her health coverage. If you want to talk about reproductive freedom for Black women, you are, whether you say so or not, talking about Medicaid.

Here is the part the slogans skip. Having Medicaid is not the same as having a doctor. A doctor must agree to see you. And neither ACOG nor the AMA says that doctors have to. Or that they should. They are mum about it. Silence.

The AMA Code of Medical Ethics is explicit. A physician is, except in an emergency, free to choose whom to serve. The Code says doctors are not ethically required to accept every patient who asks. The duty to treat without regard to payment is framed as a shared, voluntary, professional ideal, not a rule any individual doctor must follow. ACOG, for its part, publishes statement after statement demanding that lawmakers, hospitals, and insurers expand access. I have read them closely. They ask everyone else to act. They do not tell their own members that each of them must take Medicaid patients.

That silence is the whole game.

So what happens in the real world? On paper, ob-gyns accept Medicaid at higher rates than most specialties. But “accepts Medicaid” is a stated policy, not a delivered service, and the gap between the two is where access quietly dies. A practice can say yes and still cap how many Medicaid patients it takes each month, close its Medicaid panel while keeping the private one open, push those patients into a single crowded clinic session, or simply offer them a later date. National survey data show that even among doctors with open appointments, a meaningful share decline Medicaid patients outright. One widely cited survey found about a quarter of primary care practices were not accepting new Medicaid patients at all. A separate physician survey in large cities found only about 55 percent of ob-gyns accepting Medicaid, and that number measures willingness to bill the program, not a guaranteed appointment.

Researchers have tested this directly by posing as patients and calling offices. The picture is uneven, and I will report it honestly. For routine general ob-gyn visits, a 2024 nationwide study found Medicaid callers waited only about 5 percent longer than privately insured callers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The bigger barrier there is not the wait. It is whether the office takes the insurance at all. But for subspecialty care, the gap is stark. A 2023 national study of ob-gyn subspecialists found Medicaid patients waited 44 percent longer for a new appointment, and the difference was highly significant. When a woman needs a gynecologic oncologist for a cancer, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist for a high-risk pregnancy, or a urogynecologist for a prolapse, her insurance card changes how long she waits and sometimes whether she is seen at all. No law requires any private insurer or Medicaid plan to keep a gynecologic oncologist in network.

The standard answer is that these women can go to a community health center or a hospital clinic. Many can, and the people who work in those clinics are often excellent. But notice the language we have settled on. We call them “safety-net” clinics. The word quietly tells the patient that this is the place you land when you fall, the catch beneath the trapeze, the option of last resort. It frames public-insurance care as a step below the care everyone else gets, a separate and lesser track. I think the term itself is a misnomer that does real harm. A clinic that delivers good medicine is not a net under a fall. It is medicine. When we label it a safety net, we have already conceded that Medicaid patients are routed to a different door, and we have made that routing sound like generosity instead of segregation by payment.

This is the contradiction at the center of the reproductive freedom campaign. The same organizations that say abortion access is a right do not say that ordinary obstetric and gynecologic care is one their members must provide regardless of insurance. They will fight a state legislature over a gestational limit. They will not tell a private practice in a wealthy suburb that it has to open its schedule to the Medicaid patient across town. The first fight is public and political. The second would cost their members money. Guess which one stays unspoken.

What it means for patients is simple and hard. If you carry Medicaid, your “freedom” depends on finding a physician who will actually see you, in a timely way, for the full range of care you might need, from contraception to a complicated delivery to a cancer. That freedom is real for some women and theoretical for others, and which group you land in has a great deal to do with your zip code, your insurer, and your race. A right that strong for the privately insured and thin for the publicly insured is not equal freedom. It is freedom rationed by payment.

My take is direct. Reproductive freedom that begins and ends at abortion is too narrow to deserve the name. Real reproductive freedom is the ability of any woman to obtain the full range of reproductive health care, including the care that keeps her alive during pregnancy and the care that catches her cancer early, no matter how she is insured. Until ACOG and the AMA are willing to say plainly that accepting Medicaid is a professional obligation and not an act of charity, their support for patients is partial. They are defending the choice while leaving the door to the exam room half closed. I have spent fifty years inside this system. I have watched the speeches get bolder and the schedules stay the same. The women covered by Medicaid, who are disproportionately Black, are owed more than a slogan. They are owed an appointment.

If a professional society means what it says about reproductive freedom, the test is not how loudly it opposes a law. The test is whether it will ask its own members to take the patient who pays the least. Watch for who says it out loud.

Share this with a colleague who uses the phrase “reproductive freedom” without asking who actually has it. The data should travel. ObGyn Intelligence is free; a paid subscription keeps it independent.

References

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Abortion policy. Statement of policy. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2025.

2. American Medical Association. Abortion: preserving access to reproductive health services. D-5.999. Chicago, IL: AMA; 2025.

3. American Medical Association. Prospective patients. Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.1.2. Chicago, IL: AMA. Accessed June 23, 2026.

4. American Medical Association. Physician exercise of conscience. Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 1.1.7. Chicago, IL: AMA. Accessed June 23, 2026.

5. Osterman MJK, Martin JA. Primary source of payment for the delivery: United States, 2021. NCHS Data Brief No. 468. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2023.

6. March of Dimes. Medicaid coverage by race/ethnicity: United States, 2021-2023 average. PeriStats. Accessed June 23, 2026.

7. Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission. Physician acceptance of new Medicaid patients: findings from the National Electronic Health Records Survey. Washington, DC: MACPAC; 2021.

8. Holgash K, Heberlein M. Physician acceptance of new Medicaid patients: what matters and what doesn’t. Health Affairs Forefront. April 10, 2019.

9. Kyllo HM, Bresnitz W, Bickner M, Matous MA, Mulenga NM, O’Brien EA, et al. Access to general obstetrics and gynecology care among Medicaid beneficiaries and the privately insured: a nationwide mystery caller study in the USA. Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2024;76(5):444-451.

10. Corbisiero MF, Tolbert B, Sanches M, Shelden N, Hachicha Y, Dao H, et al. Medicaid coverage and access to obstetrics and gynecology subspecialists: findings from a national mystery caller study in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;228(6):722.e1-722.e9.

11. Knisely AT, Michael JE, Eskander RN, et al. Insurance-mediated disparities in gynecologic oncology care. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139(2):305-312.

Subscribe now

The phenomenon commonly called pregnancy brain, the forgetfulness and mental fog that women report during and after pregnancy, has long been dismissed as subjective or exaggerated. A 2025 systematic review in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth examined 31 studies covering 1,596 pregnant women and 1,450 non-pregnant controls and found that pregnancy modestly affects verbal memory and attention, with effects persisting postnatally. The key word is modestly. Effect sizes were small, with a Cohen’s d below 0.1 in most analyses. The subjective experience, reported by roughly 80% of pregnant and postpartum women, is real. The cognitive impairment, when measured objectively, is far smaller than women are told to expect.

What the dismissal misses is what is actually happening inside the brain, and why it matters clinically.

The Brain Is Not Declining. It Is Reorganizing.

In 2017, Hoekzema and colleagues published a landmark study in Nature Neuroscience. They scanned the brains of first-time mothers before conception and after delivery, alongside nulliparous controls. Pregnancy produced substantial, highly consistent reductions in gray matter volume, primarily in regions that support social cognition, emotional processing, and theory of mind. These changes were so reliable that the algorithm could correctly classify, in every case, whether a woman had been pregnant. The changes persisted for at least two years postpartum and correlated with stronger maternal attachment to the infant.

In 2024, Pritschet and colleagues at the University of California published the most detailed longitudinal map of the pregnant brain yet produced, in Nature Neuroscience. Using 26 MRI scans of one first-time mother, from three weeks before conception through two years postpartum, they found that gray matter volume decreased across roughly 80% of brain regions, with an average reduction of about 4%, while white matter microstructural integrity increased by approximately 10%, peaking in the second trimester before returning to pre-pregnancy levels by birth. The authors called it a choreographed change. The researchers found that very few brain regions were untouched by the transition to motherhood.

The analogy both research groups independently reached is puberty. During adolescence, selective gray matter pruning is not a sign of cognitive regression. It is a sign of neural refinement, circuits becoming more efficient, more specialized, better suited for the demands ahead. The same remodeling appears to be happening during pregnancy, targeted at the social and emotional processing systems a mother will rely on most.

This matters clinically because it reframes the conversation entirely. Women are not losing cognitive capacity. They are undergoing a neurological renovation. The construction noise is real. The finished structure may be superior.

What Drives the Fog Women Actually Feel

If objective impairment is small, why does the subjective experience feel significant to so many women? Three factors stand out in the evidence.

First, sleep disruption. Approximately half of pregnant women report clinically poor sleep quality, and sleep deprivation is a reliable driver of subjective cognitive complaints and measurable working memory deficits in any population, pregnant or not. Animal studies have shown that maternal sleep deprivation during pregnancy suppresses hippocampal long-term potentiation, the cellular mechanism underlying memory formation. Sleep is not a lifestyle variable in pregnancy. It is a neurobiological intervention.

Second, anxiety amplification. Pregnancy increases the brain’s response to negative and threatening stimuli, a finding documented by EEG studies. Women who score higher on perinatal anxiety report more subjective cognitive complaints, independent of objective performance. The brain is appropriately heightened in vigilance. That heightening comes at an attentional cost that women perceive as brain fog.

Third, the gap between expectation and reality. Women are told they will be cognitively impaired during pregnancy. That expectation, planted early, may influence how they interpret normal cognitive variability. The Younis 2025 review explicitly notes the discrepancy between subjective reports and objective findings, describing it as one of the most consistent patterns in the literature.

What You Can Do About It: The Evidence

This is where the evidence thins and the supplement industry fills the vacuum. Here is what is actually supported.

DHA matters, primarily for the fetal brain. Docosahexaenoic acid is the dominant structural omega-3 fatty acid in neural membranes and accumulates rapidly in the fetal brain during the third trimester. A 2021 systematic review in the Journal of Nutrition covering 15 RCTs found that 5 of 8 trials supplementing DHA during pregnancy showed improvements in infant or child cognitive development measures of 6% to 11%. The evidence for effects on maternal cognition is thinner, but the case for supplementation is strong on fetal grounds alone. Most prenatal vitamins contain 200 mg of DHA. The evidence base used doses up to 2,200 mg per day.

Choline is the most underprescribed nutrient in prenatal care. More than 90% of pregnant women consume less than the recommended daily intake. Choline is critical for neural tube closure, hippocampal development, and epigenetic regulation of fetal brain gene expression. Animal models consistently show that maternal choline supplementation improves offspring cognitive outcomes. Human RCT data are still emerging, with a Cornell trial currently studying 930 mg per day versus 480 mg per day supplementation and offspring cognition at adolescence. The adequate intake for choline in pregnancy is set at 450 mg per day, a figure based on data from adult men, not pregnant women. Current evidence, reviewed in a 2025 study in Nutrients, supports supplementation above standard prenatal levels for most pregnant women. Most prenatal vitamins contain little or no choline.

Share

Aerobic exercise increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor, the protein most directly responsible for hippocampal neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity. Animal studies show that maternal exercise during pregnancy increases BDNF and hippocampal cell numbers in offspring. Exercise during pregnancy is safe in the absence of obstetric contraindications and has the strongest overall evidence base for cognitive and mental health benefits of any behavioral intervention in this population.

Sleep protection is not optional. If the primary driver of subjective cognitive fog in pregnancy is sleep disruption, then addressing sleep hygiene, screening for obstructive sleep apnea in high-risk pregnancies, and treating restless leg syndrome with iron supplementation when ferritin is below 30 micrograms per liter should be standard practice. They are not.

Conclusion

The pregnant brain is not a diminished brain. It is a brain in the middle of a transformation that rivals the only other period in human life when neural architecture changes this dramatically: adolescence. The research is in its early stages because, as the Pritschet team noted in 2024, the biomedical sciences have historically ignored women’s health. We do not yet have the data to predict which women will struggle most, or to fully optimize support. What we do have is enough to act on. More DHA. Adequate choline. Regular aerobic exercise. Protected sleep. Simple, low-risk, underprescribed. If clinicians spent half the time on these four interventions that the supplement industry spends marketing cognitive elixirs to aging adults, the neurobiology of pregnancy would look very different.

Every pregnant woman deserves to know that what she is experiencing is not a loss of herself. It is a renovation.

If this reframe matters to you, subscribe to ObGyn Intelligence as a paying supporter for the evidence your care should be built on.

Subscribe now

References

1. Younis J, Bleibel M, El Masri J, Ismail A, Abou-Abbas L. Exploring the influence of pregnancy on cognitive function in women: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25(1):88. doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07181-3. PMID: 39885454

2. Hoekzema E, Barba-Muller E, Pozzobon C, Picado M, Lucco F, Garcia-Garcia D, et al. Pregnancy leads to long-lasting changes in human brain structure. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20(2):287-296. doi:10.1038/nn.4458. PMID: 27991897

3. Pritschet L, Taylor CM, Cossio D, Faskowitz J, Santander T, Handwerker DA, et al. Neuroanatomical changes observed over the course of a human pregnancy. Nat Neurosci. 2024. doi:10.1038/s41593-024-01741-0

4. Keser I, Thorsell KI, Kamp Dalgaard M, et al. Omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements consumed during pregnancy and lactation and child neurodevelopment: a systematic review. J Nutr. 2021;151(12):3483-3494. doi:10.1093/jn/nxab238 [VERIFY PMID]

5. Spoelstra SK, Eijsink JJH, Hoenders HJR, Knegtering H. Maternal choline supplementation during pregnancy to promote mental health in offspring. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2023;17(7):643-651. doi:10.1111/eip.13426. PMID: 37038050

6. Jaiswal A, Dewani D, Reddy LS, Patel A. Choline supplementation in pregnancy: current evidence and implications. Cureus. 2023;15(11):e48538. doi:10.7759/cureus.48538

7. Mujica-Coopman MF, Paules EM. The role of prenatal choline and its impact on neurodevelopmental disorders. Front Nutr. 2024;11:1463983. doi:10.3389/fnut.2024.1463983

8. Raz S. Pregnancy and the pregnant brain: behavioral and neural adaptations to promote fetal development and maternal well-being. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2024. doi:10.1007/s00737-024-01545-y [VERIFY PMID]

Summary

A post on r/BabyBumps asked one deceptively simple question:

What was your absolute first sign of pregnancy?

Over 1,400 comments poured in.

The answers ranged from the expected -- sore breasts, missed period, nausea -- to the surprising: vivid dreams, rage, elevated resting heart rate, a sudden hatred of coffee, and one woman who knew because the mosquitoes found her irresistible.

What emerged was a rich, informal symptom catalog that no textbook quite captures. Most women noticed something before they ever missed a period, often between 3 and 5 weeks of gestation.

Many described a quality of familiar symptoms that felt distinctly different this time -- breast tenderness more intense, fatigue deeper than any they had known, emotions untethered from their usual baseline. A significant minority reported no symptoms at all until a positive test confirmed what their body had not bothered to announce.

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers.

Read more

• Empathy is the ability to recognize, understand, or feel another person’s emotional state. In medicine, empathy means appreciating that a patient is frightened, confused, grieving, angry, or uncertain. It is mainly about understanding another person’s experience.

• Compassion goes one step further. Compassion is the recognition of another person’s suffering combined with a desire to respond in a helpful way. In medicine, compassion is not only feeling or understanding. It is action: explaining clearly, slowing down, answering the real question, reducing fear when possible, and staying present when suffering cannot be removed.

That distinction matters. A clinician may have empathy but still fail the patient if nothing in the encounter communicates concern or helps relieve distress. Patients cannot directly inspect whether a physician “feels” empathy. They experience compassion through behavior: words, tone, clarity, patience, respect, and follow-through.

That is why compassion is the better standard. Empathy may remain internal. Compassion must become visible. It is the ethical bridge between caring about a patient and caring for a patient.

Subscribe now

An alien arrives on Earth and walks into a clinic. The waiting room is full. The phones are blinking. The electronic health record has opened nine windows and closed none. A nurse is looking for a consent form. A patient is crying quietly in room three. A physician is standing in the hallway with a sandwich in one hand and 47 unread portal messages in the other. The alien watches carefully. It has been told that human doctors have compassion. This seems important. The physician certainly does, because the alien’s scanner detects fatigue, caffeine exposure, and the early signs of moral exhaustion.

The alien then visits another room. There is no physician. There is a computer screen. A patient has typed: “I am scared about this test result. Does this mean something is wrong with my baby?” The computer answers slowly, clearly, and calmly. It says the fear is understandable. It explains that the result needs interpretation in context. It tells the patient what questions to ask. It avoids panic. It does not say, “As already discussed.” It does not say, “Please refer to the portal.” It does not say, “Normal variant,” when the patient does not know what variant means. The alien scans the computer for compassion. It finds none. Then it scans the patient. The patient is breathing more slowly.

The alien becomes confused.

On Earth, it reports, many humans believe compassion is located inside the clinician. This is partly true. Good clinicians often feel real concern. They remember the patient’s story. They worry after leaving the room. They carry difficult cases home. They know that a normal ultrasound can still follow weeks of fear, and that a technically correct answer can still fail a frightened patient.

But patients do not experience compassion by inspecting a physician’s private moral life. They experience compassion through behavior: words, tone, time, clarity, attention, and whether their suffering is treated as real.

That is why the claim “AI does not have a heart” is true but incomplete. It is like saying an elevator does not have legs. Correct, but not the right test of whether it can move someone between floors.

Share

AI does not have human compassion. It does not sit awake after a bad outcome. It does not feel grief. It does not know the sound of fetal bradycardia in a delivery room or the silence after a devastating diagnosis. It does not carry moral responsibility. It does not love, regret, hope, or fear. If “heart” means inner human feeling, AI does not have one.

But if patients experience compassion through communication that is calm, clear, respectful, and responsive, then the question becomes more complicated. A machine without feelings can generate language that sounds more compassionate than a physician who has not slept, has seven minutes left, and is being asked by the hospital to click seventeen boxes before lunch.

That should not make us sentimental about AI. It should make us honest about medicine.

The problem is not that AI is morally superior to clinicians. It is not. The problem is that modern clinical systems often make compassionate communication difficult. They reward speed, documentation, throughput, billing, and defensive phrasing. They convert the physician into a high-speed biological interface between the patient, the electronic record, the insurer, the legal department, and the scheduling template. Then, when the physician sounds tired, the system calls it a professionalism problem.

The alien finds this especially strange. On its planet, when a system crushes a worker and the worker becomes less gentle, they investigate the system. On Earth, they add a wellness module.

The ethical point is simple. Compassion is not merely an emotion. In clinical care, compassion is also a professional act. It must be expressed. It must be understandable. It must be received. A physician may feel compassion, but if the patient hears only impatience, jargon, or indifference, the moral intention has failed at the point of care.

AI can help with that failure. It can draft clearer explanations. It can translate technical language into plain language. It can help clinicians prepare for difficult counseling. It can generate patient instructions that do not sound like they were written by a billing committee. It can remind a busy physician to acknowledge fear before explaining risk. It can help convert a correct answer into a humane answer.

But AI cannot be allowed to become the moral actor. The physician remains responsible. The physician must check the content, correct the errors, protect confidentiality, recognize clinical nuance, and decide what should be said. AI may help shape the language of care. It cannot own the duty of care.

The harried physician in the hallway does not need a lecture about compassion. She already has it. The patient does not need proof that the physician has compassion. She needs the physician, or the physician’s team, to communicate in a way that makes compassion visible.

That is where AI may be useful.

Not as a substitute for compassion. Not as a fake doctor. Not as a moral agent wearing a digital white coat.

As a tool that may help clinicians communicate the concern they actually have, but often cannot express well under the pressure of modern practice.

The alien writes its final report:

The humans keep asking whether AI has a heart. This is the wrong first question. The better question is whether their health care system still gives physicians enough time, language, and support to show compassion.

And below that, in smaller print, it adds:

If a machine without compassion can sometimes sound more compassionate than a doctor who truly cares, the machine is not the only thing that needs examination.

Summary

A young person posted to Reddit r/Confused with a missed period, a Clearblue digital pregnancy test showing “Not Pregnant,” and a lot of anxiety.

They asked: how often can a pregnancy test be wrong?

The post drew 74 comments in 9 days, most of them from other Reddit users sharing personal experience, opinion, and a smattering of real information. The original poster revealed they were too young to purchase a test themselves, had it bought by a trusted aunt, and was afraid of family finding out.

The thread exposed a consistent pattern: patients seeking basic reproductive health information in an online community instead of from a clinician. Most of the advice was directionally correct but imprecise, with active disagreement over whether test timing should be counted from sex or ovulation -- a distinction that actually matters clinically.

The bottom line the community kept circling but never clearly stating: false positives are rare; false negatives are not.

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers.

Read more

The message: “Defending reproductive health care means defending access to mifepristone.”

Your first question, entirely reasonable, entirely innocent: what is reproductive health care?

Here is what the term actually covers.

Reproductive health care is the full range of medical services related to the human reproductive system. Prenatal care. Labor and delivery. Postpartum recovery. Contraception. Fertility treatment. Miscarriage management. Ectopic pregnancy treatment. Abortion. Cervical and ovarian cancer screening. STI testing and treatment. Menopause management. Pelvic floor disorders.

It is most of what an obstetrician-gynecologist does across a patient’s entire life.

So your second question, still innocent, still reasonable: does all of that depend on one specific medication? Mifepristone?

The answer is no.

Subscribe now

The alien has just found the problem.

Prenatal care does not depend on mifepristone. Fertility treatment does not depend on mifepristone. Cervical cancer screening does not depend on mifepristone. Mifepristone is used for medical abortion and miscarriage management. It is one drug within a very large category.

You identified that in about 90 seconds.

American organized medicine has avoided it for 25 years.

ACOG uses the phrase. ACOG does not define it.

Search ACOG’s website. You will find “reproductive health care” in hundreds of statements, position papers, and press releases. You will not find a formal clinical definition with boundaries.

ACOG’s stated position is that abortion is an essential component of comprehensive medical care and that patients need access to the full spectrum of reproductive health care options. The “full spectrum” is invoked constantly. It is never mapped.

A professional organization that sets evidence standards for an entire specialty should be able to define its own operating terms.

Why this matters beyond semantics.

When “reproductive health care” is used as a rhetorical container rather than a clinical category, it does two things simultaneously.

Subscribe now

It signals, appropriately, that the term covers far more than any single procedure or medication.

And it allows any single element within that undefined category to carry the full moral and political weight of the entire category.

Every patient who has ever received prenatal care, an IUD, or a Pap smear is implicitly recruited into the defense of one specific drug. That may be effective advocacy. It is not precise medicine.

The mifepristone case stands on its own evidence.

Mifepristone has a well-established safety record. The FDA approved it in 2000. Decades of post-marketing data confirm that profile. The case for protecting access is strong.

Make that case. Lead with the safety data. Lead with what happens to patients when access is restricted.

The evidence is strong enough to stand without an undefined umbrella term doing the heavy lifting.

While we are talking about access: where is the Digital Day of Action for equal access to an OB-GYN?

Here is the alien’s third question, still innocent, still devastating: if ACOG can mobilize a national day of action to protect one medication, why has there been no Digital Day of Action to ensure that every woman in America, regardless of insurance status or race, has equal access to an obstetrician-gynecologist?

The data are not ambiguous.

The numbers.

OB-GYNs accept new Medicaid patients at a rate of 81.7%. They accept new privately insured patients at 98.9%. That 17-point gap represents millions of women who cannot get an appointment at the same practice a commercially insured woman can call tomorrow.

Medicaid covers more than 4 in 10 births in the United States. It covers 65% of all births to Black mothers. It covers 30% of Black reproductive-age women and 26% of Hispanic reproductive-age women, compared to 20% of reproductive-age women overall.

The arithmetic is straightforward. Insurance discrimination in OB-GYN access is racial discrimination in OB-GYN access. The two cannot be separated.

Where Medicaid patients actually go.

Private OB-GYN practices accept Medicaid at 77%. Community health centers accept Medicaid at 90%. As a result, nearly half of Medicaid patients receive OB-GYN care at community health centers, while only about one in four patients at private practices is on Medicaid.

The system has sorted women into a two-tier architecture: privately insured women see private physicians; Medicaid patients go to clinics. ACOG members built that architecture. Approximately one-third of ACOG members have made changes to their practices specifically to limit or eliminate Medicaid patients.

This is not an accusation. It is what the survey data show.

The consequences are not hypothetical.

Black women die from pregnancy-related causes at more than 3 times the rate of white women. Severe maternal morbidity is 2.1 times higher for Black women than for white women. These gaps do not exist in a vacuum. They exist in a system where the women at highest risk are the most likely to be denied access to a private OB-GYN practice.

Defending reproductive health care, if that phrase means anything, means defending equal access to the full category of care it supposedly describes. For every woman. At every practice. Regardless of what card she hands to the front desk.

The question ACOG has not answered.

Why does a Digital Day of Action exist for one medication used primarily by insured patients who can access a physician, but not for the structural barrier that prevents the most vulnerable women from accessing any obstetrician at all?

Mifepristone access and equal Medicaid access are not competing issues. Both matter. Both deserve mobilization.

The alien noticed the asymmetry immediately.

What I am asking for is consistency.

Define reproductive health care. Then defend all of it. For all women.

That is what evidence-based advocacy looks like.

The alien figured out both problems in about 90 seconds. We can do better.

#ObGynIntelligence #ReproductiveHealth #HealthEquity #Medicaid #MaternalHealth #ACOG #WomensHealth

She was 34, first pregnancy, no complications. The birth went smoothly by every metric in her chart. Apgar scores 9 and 9. Three hours of pushing, but vaginal delivery. Baby healthy. Mother discharged in good condition.

Six weeks later she sat in my office and told me she could not sleep, could not be touched, and had nightmares about the delivery every …

Read more