The IAPM New York 2024 declaration on professional responsibility and abortion.

The International Academy of Perinatal Medicine (IAPM) firmly supports abortion as a fundamental reproductive right, as declared at their annual meeting on June 28, 2024, in New York City. This stance, grounded in professional responsibility, respects both autonomy and beneficence-based obligations to pregnant patients and fetal patients. The IAPM asserts that access to safe, legal abortion services is essential for gender equality, public health, and social justice. Their declaration aligns with international human rights standards, advocating for abortion legalization up to fetal viability and beyond in cases of maternal health risks or severe fetal anomalies. This comprehensive approach underscores the critical role of healthcare professionals in providing compassionate reproductive healthcare, aiming to reduce maternal mortality and improve public health outcomes globally.

Why do women choose home births.

In recent years, the US has seen a significant rise in the rate of planned home births, with a 60 % increase from 2016 to 2023, reaching a total of 46,918. This trend positions the US as the leading developed country in terms of home birth prevalence. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) suggests stringent criteria for selecting candidates for home births, but these guidelines have not been adopted by home birth midwives leading to poor outcomes including increased rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality. This paper explores the motivations behind choosing home births in the US despite the known risks. Studies highlight factors such as the desire for a more natural birth experience, previous negative hospital experiences, and the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceptions of hospital safety. We provide new insights into why women choose home births by incorporating insights from Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman's theories on decision-making, suggesting that cognitive biases may significantly influence these decisions. Kahneman's work provides a framework for understanding how biases and heuristics can lead to the underestimation of risks and overemphasis on personal birth experiences. We also provide recommendations ("nudges according to Richard Thaler") to help ensure women have access to clear, balanced information about home births. The development of this publication was assisted by OpenAI's ChatGPT-4, which facilitated the synthesis of literature, interpretation of data, and manuscript drafting. This collaboration underscores the potential of integrating advanced computational tools in academic research, enhancing the efficiency and depth of our analyses.

The importance of professional responsibility and fetal viability in the management of abortion.

In June 2022, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision ended the constitutional right to the professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. The removal of the constitutional right to abortion has significantly altered the practice of obstetricians and gynecologists across the US. It potentially increases risks to pregnant patients, leads to profound changes in how physicians can provide care, especially in states with strict bans or gestational limits to abortion, and has introduced personal challenges, including moral distress and injury as well as legal risks for patients and clinicians alike. The professional responsibility model is based on the ethical concept of medicine as a profession and has been influential in shaping medical ethics in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. It provides the framework for the importance of ethical and professional conduct in obstetrics and gynecology. Viability marks a stage where the fetus is a patient with a claim to access to medical care. By allowing unrestricted abortions past this stage without adequate justifications, such as those concerning the life and health of the pregnant individual, or in instances of serious fetal anomalies, the states may not be upholding the equitable ethical consideration owed to the fetus as a patient. Using the professional responsibility model, we emphasize the need for nuanced, evidence-based policies that allow abortion management prior to viability without restrictions and allow abortion after viability to protect the pregnant patient's life and health, as well as permitting abortion for serious fetal anomalies.

Obstetric violence is a misnomer.

The term "obstetric violence" has been used in the legislative language of several countries to protect mothers from abuse during pregnancy. Subsequently, it has been expanded to include a spectrum of obstetric procedures, such as induction of labor, episiotomy, and cesarean delivery, and has surfaced in the peer-reviewed literature. The term "obstetric violence" can be seen as quite strong and emotionally charged, which may lead to misunderstandings or misconceptions. It might be interpreted as implying a deliberate act of violence by healthcare providers when mistreatment can sometimes result from systemic issues, lack of training, or misunderstandings rather than intentional violence. "Obstetric mistreatment" is a more comprehensive term that can encompass a broader range of behaviors and actions. "Violence" generally refers to the intentional use of physical force to cause harm, injury, or damage to another person (eg, physical assault, domestic violence, street fights, or acts of terrorism), whereas "mistreatment" is a more general term and refers to the abuse, harm, or control exerted over another person (such as nonconsensual medical procedures, verbal abuse, disrespect, discrimination and stigmatization, or neglect, to name a few examples). There may be cases where unprofessional personnel may commit mistreatment and violence against pregnant patients, but as obstetrics is dedicated to the health and well-being of pregnant and fetal patients, mistreatment of obstetric patients should never be an intended component of professional obstetric care. It is necessary to move beyond the term "obstetric violence" in discourse and acknowledge and address the structural dimensions of abusive reproductive practices. Similarly, we do not use the term "psychiatric violence" for appropriately used professional procedures in psychiatry, such as electroshock therapy, or use the term "neurosurgical violence" when drilling a burr hole. There is an ongoing need to raise awareness about the potential mistreatment of obstetric patients within the context of abuse against women in general. Using the term "mistreatment in healthcare" instead of the more limited term "obstetric violence" is more appropriate and applies to all specialties when there is unprofessional abuse and mistreatment, such as biased care, neglect, emotional abuse (verbal), or physical abuse, including performing procedures that are unnecessary, unindicated, or without informed patient consent. Healthcare providers must promote unbiased, respectful, and patient-centered professional care; provide an ethical framework for all healthcare personnel; and work toward systemic change to prevent any mistreatment or abuse in our specialty.

Comprehensive appraisal of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies conceived via in vitro fertilization in the USA (2016-2021).

OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in singleton gestations conceived via in vitro fertilization (IVF) to those conceived spontaneously. METHODS: Retrospective, population-based cohort using the CDC Natality Live Birth database (2016-2021). All singleton births were stratified into two groups: those conceived via IVF, and those conceived spontaneously. The incidence of several adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes was compared between the two groups using Pearson's chi-square test with Bonferroni adjustments. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust outcomes for potential confounders. RESULTS: Singleton live births conceived by IVF comprised 0.86 % of the cohort (179,987 of 20,930,668). Baseline characteristics varied significantly between the groups. After adjusting for confounding variables, pregnancies conceived via IVF were associated with an increased risk of several adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes compared to those conceived spontaneously. The maternal adverse outcomes with the highest risk in IVF pregnancies included maternal transfusion, unplanned hysterectomy, and maternal intensive care unit admission. Increased rates of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, preterm birth (delivery <37 weeks of gestation), and cesarean delivery were also noted. The highest risk neonatal adverse outcomes associated with IVF included immediate and prolonged ventilation, neonatal seizures, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions, among others. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this large contemporary United States cohort, the risk of several adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes is increased in singleton pregnancies conceived via IVF compared to those conceived spontaneously. Obstetricians should be conscious of these associations while caring for and counseling pregnancies conceived via IVF.

Addressing challenges related to the professional practice of abortion post-Roe.

The landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. In June 2022, the Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision brought an end to the established professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. Rights-based reductionism and zealotry threaten the professional practice of abortion. Rights-based reductionism is generally the view that moral or ethical issues can be reduced exclusively to matters of rights. In relation to abortion, there are 2 opposing forms of rights-based reductionism, namely fetal rights reductionism, which emphasizes the rights for the fetus while disregarding the rights and autonomy of the pregnant patient, and pregnant patient rights reductionism, which supports unlimited abortion without regards for the fetus. The 2 positions are irreconcilable. This article provides historical examples of the destructive nature of zealotry, which is characterized by extreme devotion to one's beliefs and an intolerant stance to opposing viewpoints, and of the importance of enlightenment to limit zealotry. This article then explores the professional responsibility model as a clinically ethically sound approach to overcome the clashing forms of rights-based reductionism and zealotry and to address the professional practice of abortion. The professional responsibility model refers to the ethical and professional obligations that obstetricians and other healthcare providers have toward pregnant patients, fetuses, and the society at large. It provides a more balanced and nuanced approach to the abortion debate, avoiding the pitfalls of reductionism and zealotry, and allows both the rights of the woman and the obligations to pregnant and fetal patients to be considered alongside broader ethical, medical, and societal implications. Constructive and respectful dialogue is crucial in addressing diverse perspectives and finding common ground. Embracing the professional responsibility model enables professionals to manage abortion responsibly, thereby prioritizing patients' interests and navigating between absolutist viewpoints to find balanced ethical solutions.

Risk factors associated with third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations in singleton vaginal deliveries: a comprehensive United States population analysis 2016-2020.

OBJECTIVES: Perineal lacerations are a common complication of vaginal birth, affecting approximately 85 % of patients. Third-and fourth-degree perineal lacerations (3/4PL) remain a significant cause of physical and emotional distress. We aimed to perform an extensive assessment of potential risk factors for 3/4PL based on a comprehensive and current US population database. METHODS: Retrospective population-based cohort analysis based on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Natality Live Birth online database between 2016-2020. Baseline characteristics were compared between women with 3/4PL and without 3/4PL by using Pearson's Chi-squared test with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Bonferroni correction was used to account for multiple comparisons. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between a variety of potential risk factors and the risk of 3/4P. RESULTS: Asians/Pacific Islanders had the highest risk of 3/4PL (2.6 %, aOR 1.74). Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia were associated with increased risk of 3/4PL (aOR 1.28 and 1.34, respectively), as were both pre-gestational and gestational diabetes (aOR 1.28 and 1.46, respectively). Chorioamnionitis was associated almost double the risk (aOR 1.86). Birth weight was a major risk factor (aOR 7.42 for greater than 4,000 g), as was nulliparity (aOR 9.89). CONCLUSIONS: We identified several maternal, fetal, and pregnancy conditions that are associated with an increased risk for 3/4PL. As expected, nulliparity and increased birth weight were associated with the highest risk. Moreover, pregestational and gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, Asian/Pacific Islander race, and chorioamnionitis were identified as novel risk factors.

The impact of birth settings on pregnancy outcomes in the United States.

In the United States, 98.3% of patients give birth in hospitals, 1.1% give birth at home, and 0.5% give birth in freestanding birth centers. This review investigated the impact of birth settings on birth outcomes in the United States. Presently, there are insufficient data to evaluate levels of maternal mortality and severe morbidity according to place of birth. Out-of-hospital births are associated with fewer interventions such as episiotomies, epidural anesthesia, operative deliveries, and cesarean deliveries. When compared with hospital births, there are increased rates of avoidable adverse perinatal outcomes in out-of-hospital births in the United States, both for those with and without risk factors. In one recent study, the neonatal mortality rates were significantly elevated for all planned home births: 13.66 per 10,000 live births (242/177,156; odds ratio, 4.19; 95% confidence interval, 3.62-4.84; P<.0001) vs 3.27 per 10,000 live births for in-hospital Certified Nurse-Midwife-attended births (745/2,280,044; odds ratio, 1). These differences increased further when patients were stratified by recognized risk factors such as breech presentation, multiple gestations, nulliparity, advanced maternal age, and postterm pregnancy. Causes of the increased perinatal morbidity and mortality include deliveries of patients with increased risks, absence of standardized criteria to exclude high-risk deliveries, and that most midwives attending out-of-hospital births in the United States do not meet the gold standard for midwifery regulation, the International Confederation of Midwives' Global Standards for Midwifery Education. As part of the informed consent process, pregnant patients interested in out-of-hospital births should be informed of its increased perinatal risks. Hospital births should be supported for all patients, especially those with increased risks.

Anger: an underappreciated destructive force in healthcare.

Anger is an emotional state that occurs when unexpected things happen to or around oneself and is "an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage." It is defined as "a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism," an emotion characterized by tension and hostility arising from frustration, real or imagined injury by another, or perceived injustice. It can manifest itself in behaviors designed to remove the object of the anger (e.g., determined action) or behaviors designed merely to express the emotion. For the Roman philosopher Seneca anger is not an uncontrollable, impulsive, or instinctive reaction. It is, rather, the cognitive assent that such initial reactions to the offending action or words are in fact unjustified. It is, rather, the cognitive assent that such initial reactions to the offending action or words are in fact unjustified. It seems that the year 2022 was a year when many Americans were plainly angry. "Why is everyone so angry?" the New York Times asked in the article "The Year We Lost It." We believe that Seneca is correct in that anger is unacceptable. Anger is a negative emotion that must be controlled, and Seneca provides us with the tools to avoid and destroy anger. Health care professionals will be more effective, content, and happier if they learn more about Seneca's writings about anger and implement his wisdom on anger from over 2000 years ago.