RESUMEN
Resnik and Pugh recently explored the ethical implications of routinely integrating environmental concerns into clinical decision-making. While we share their concern for the holistic well-being of patients, our response offers a different clinical and bioethical stance on green informed consent and patient autonomy. Contrary to the authors' lack of data to support their concerns about provider and patient willingness to engage in climate-related conversations, we provide evidence supporting their sustainability engagement and stress the importance of a proactive, anticipatory approach in healthcare to align with evolving societal values. If climate change is perceived as a politicised issue, though it is not inherently so, healthcare providers are professionally trained to address sensitive subjects and have a duty to inform patients about potential health risks. Recognising the environmental crisis as a health crisis underscores the direct connection between environmental hazards and patients' well-being. Our perspective advocates for integrating individual considerations, societal responsibilities and systemic changes to promote environmentally sustainable healthcare.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The healthcare sector is responsible for 4%-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Considering the broad range of care that obstetricians and gynaecologists provide, mitigation strategies within this specialty could result in significant reductions of the environmental footprint across the whole healthcare industry. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to identify for what services, procedures and products within obstetric and gynaecological care the environmental impact has been studied, to assess the magnitude of such impact and to identify mitigation strategies to diminish it. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy combined terms related to environmental impact, sustainability, climate change or carbon footprint, with the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles reporting on the environmental impact of any service, procedure or product within the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were included. Included outcomes covered midpoint impact categories, CO2 emissions, waste generation and energy consumption. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Scopus, and a grey literature search was performed on Google Scholar and two websites of gynaecological associations. MAIN RESULTS: The scope of the investigated studies encompassed vaginal births, obstetric and gynaecological surgical procedures, menstrual products, vaginal specula and transportation to gynaecological oncologic consultations. Among the highest yielding mitigation strategies were displacing disposable with reusable materials and minimising content of surgical custom packs. The lowest yielding mitigation strategy was waste optimisation, including recycling. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights opportunities for obstetricians and gynaecologists to decrease their environmental footprint in many ways. More high-quality studies are needed to investigate the environmental impact of other aspects of women's and reproductive health care.
