top of page
Search

It is estimated that 1 in 7 birthing people will develop postpartum depression (PPD). While recognizing and treating PPD is important in perinatal mental health care, it isn’t the only diagnosis that needs to be addressed. There are many conditions that may affect people during and around pregnancy including depression, anxiety disorders, and psychosis. In recent years, discussions around PPD have become more common, but major barriers still exist for pregnant people seeking mental health care. To address these barriers, we must reduce the stigma, adequately train providers, and make mental health care more accessible.

ree

On the patient side, it’s important to address and mitigate the stigma that exists around mental health, specifically during pregnancy. The common narrative in our culture holds that pregnancy should be the best time of a person’s life. As a result, anyone struggling may feel as if they are alone, which often prevents them from seeking help. For those being medically treated for psychiatric conditions prior to pregnancy, there are often social pressures to stop these medications for the sake of their future child. The American Medial Association recognizes this as a significant ethical and clinical dilemma, but that dilemma spreads into social spheres as well. Many expecting parents and those around them overestimate the teratenogenic risk associated with medical treatment of psychiatric disorders. Unclear social beliefs and advice can lead to people feeling even more isolated during the conception process and pregnancy itself.

From the provider perspective, there needs to be more education on treating mental health conditions during pregnancy. As of 2022, there were only 15 perinatal psychiatry fellowships in the US to provide formal training for psychiatrists looking to specialize in this patient population. That said, having a baseline understanding of recognizing and treating mental health conditions during pregnancy is needed for all providers caring for pregnant people. We often talk about the fetal risks of exposure to psychiatric medications, but research shows that this risk ought to be balanced with the risks of exposure to untreated psychiatric conditions themselves. Those who abruptly halt treatment are less likely to receive proper prenatal care, more likely to use tobacco and alcohol, and are at higher risk for causing harm to themselves and their child. With the stigma that already exists around psychiatric medications during pregnancy, it is even more important for providers to stay informed of current treatment recommendations and provide this information to their patients.

As we work to decrease the stigma and enhance provider education, it is also important to make sure that mental health care is accessible. This may look like increasing the number of providers, mitigating cost barriers, or making sure that care environments are affirming to all patients. It is currently estimated that roughly 160 million Americans live in mental health professional shortage areas. Psychiatry as a field is expected to have shortages of between 14,000 and 30,000 psychiatrists by 2025, and these shortages spread into other mental health professions as well. Financially, many people cannot afford to pay for mental health care out-of-pocket, and even those with insurance coverage may have difficulty finding providers that take their insurance. As always, the language that we use is important. Replacing phrases like “pregnant women” and “moms” with “pregnant people” and “parents” can go a long way toward making these spaces more affirming for anyone seeking care. Culturally competent care is especially important in mental health. Recent endeavors like the Perinatal Mental Health Alliance for People of Color have worked to address these issues by increasing patients’ access to care and supporting providers of color looking to expand their knowledge of perinatal mental health. Though this program and others like it have worked to close the gap between pregnant people and providers of color, there is more to be done to ensure that all patients can receive culturally appropriate and affirming care.

With 1 in 5 pregnant people likely to need mental health support during the course of their pregnancy, mental health conditions represent the most common complication of pregnancy. The medical community has an ethical duty to provide care to these individuals, but it doesn’t start or end there. We, in the general public, have a responsibility to decrease the stigma around mental health, specifically during pregnancy.

Talk to the people around you, listen to them, and help them find support if you can. The conversation starts with us and can start today.


If you or someone you know is in crisis, please see the resources below:

Edited by: Elissa Gorman

Graphic Designed by: Olivia Fu

 
 
 

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling on the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2020, Stanford University found that half of medical schools provided either no training on abortions or only a single lecture.1 Since the ruling has resulted in further restrictions on abortion procedures among many states, fewer medical students and residents have access to comprehensive education on the procedure.

OB/GYNs provide the most abortions in the U.S., followed by family medicine physicians.1 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that all obstetrics and gynecology residency programs include opt-in/opt-out abortion training and include education on abortions in all medical school curricula.2 Beyond simply recommendations, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the entity that accredits Graduate Medical Education programs, requires that all OB/GYN training programs offer their residents access to abortion training.3 This means that many programs must send their residents out of state borders to receive the necessary training in their professions.


ree

For OB/GYN residents and medical students seeking out that specialty, having geographic restrictions in their access to education could lead to limited opportunities of what programs they could pursue later if they are unable to access abortion training.4 For example, a medical student applying to residency programs must now also consider which residency programs have the ability to further their educational experience in terms of abortion procedures. Some residency programs in states where there are harsher restrictions on abortions may even favor students that have opted out of abortion training or education at their school.4 According to a paper published by the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, nearly 44% of OB/GYN residents are in states which are likely or certain to ban abortions altogether.5

Not only do these state restrictions have wide impacts on the educational opportunities of medical students and residents, but it is also likely to diminish the career opportunities available for OB/GYNs in states with abortion restrictions. Since abortions, whether through pharmaceutical drugs or a procedural or surgical method, are such an integral part of the profession, many residents are not even seeking employment in states with such restrictions.5

While there are requirements for OB/GYN programs to provide access to abortion training, there is no such requirement for family medicine specialists. Not only is it important for the top two specialties that provide abortions to patients to have comprehensive education on the procedure, but it is also necessary for primary care physicians to be knowledgeable about the procedure even if they do not administer it. Since patients oftentimes will see a primary care doctor as their first contact in the case of pregnancy, it is highly likely that their window of options for family planning starts with that physician.5 If their primary care doctor is uninformed about how an abortion is done, what the implications of the procedure are, and in general, is unable to relay essential and factual information to their patient in an objective and empathetic manner, the consequences could be catastrophic for the patient. Even if fewer physicians are able to administer an abortion, education on the procedure is still essential to caring for the lives of patients regardless of the geographic and political status of a government.


Edited by: Kelly Ma

Graphic Designed by: Eugene Cho


References

  1. Tanner, L. (2022, April 19). Medical students seeking abortion training face nationwide restrictions. PBS. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/medical-students-seeking-abortion-training-face-nationwide-restrictions

  2. Increasing access to abortion. ACOG. (2020, December). Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2020/12/increasing-access-to-abortion#:~:text=ACOG%20recommends%20that%20funding%20for,on%20training%20programs%20and%20funding.

  3. Heisler, E. J. (2022, September 7). Abortion training for medical students and residents. CRS Reports. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12002

  4. Weiner, S., & Writer, S. S. (2022, June 24). How the repeal of Roe v. Wade will affect training in abortion and Reproductive Health. AAMC. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-repeal-roe-v-wade-will-affect-training-abortion-and-reproductive-health

  5. Pollard, J. (2022, October 19). Abortion access looms over medical residency applications. APNEWS. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-business-education-family-medicine-3fbeef4338fbdcaf48f4f133055c9f78



 
 
 
  • Morgan Robinson
  • Feb 28, 2023
  • 3 min read

In the past decade, the numbers of international adoptions have skyrocketed with over 1,700 matches in the U.S. in 2021 [1]. With this influx of overseas adoption, there has been more research into the management of the system and its overlooked flaws. Adoption itself is complex, but adding an international barrier makes the potential drawbacks even more extreme, and new research has called the ethical aspects of the system into question. Some of these issues include unsanctioned agencies that acquire children through unethical processes, economic concerns, and a frightening lack of candor throughout the process.

ree

As international adoptions became more popular, especially when China instituted the One Child Policy from 1980-2016, more and more “agencies” began to pop up in the Google search engine for adoptions [2]. The problem is many were not legit and the average person who was looking for a child did not have the resources or knowledge to choose the right agency. There are various reasons a person chooses to adopt, but a common one is the lack of ability to conceive a biological child. These people have usually attempted to conceive naturally and are committed to getting a child through adoption, perhaps even desperate. It can be difficult to take the time to find a legitimate agency, especially when the one you look at for a first glance seems to offer all the help you need. In reality, some of these websites are a front for stealing money with the “initial deposit” or could be an unethical group that pays women to give up their children for an adoption.

This problem is further exemplified with the increase in costs for international adoptions. While it is sensible to have some sort of payment for such a process, the North American Council on Adoptable Children explains why certain amounts of money may be too high and how these transactions can turn children into more of a commodity for sale rather than a human being looking for a home [3]. This also limits who can apply for adoptions because of such a financial barrier. Families who have been waiting for years are surpassed by someone who has been waiting a month because they have more financial means and to get ahead.

Furthermore, there is a stigma with most of these agencies regarding religion. It is common to find an adoption agency, even a vetted one, has certain religious requirements to meet in order to be considered. The process can be competitive and families may feel the need to exaggerate or make up their beliefs to get the child they so badly want. I myself tried to go through the process of international adoption as a part of a class research project last year and found terrible difficulty in understanding the process. First of all, how do you decide which agency to use? I struggled to find one without religious connections and ended up researching one called the Bethany Christian Services. The site's mission is to demonstrate “the love and compassion of Jesus Christ by protecting children, empowering youth, and strengthening families through quality social services” [4]. While this is a strong message, it prompts only parents of certain religions to feel accepted in that service. What about those who do not identify? They have way less options and avenues to find help.

So how can one combat these issues? Adoption itself is a wonderful idea and there should be opportunities for children overseas to find homes regardless of where they come from. The main change should start in vetting agencies and providing lists through the government of proven safe options. There are lists like this for adoption within the U.S. but it should expand globally. There should also be more information for potential adoption parents who go into the process somewhat blind. They could attend seminars or complete online interactive lectures on how to go through the process correctly. There should also be a resource for asking questions. While this is not feasible immediately, there is definitely a drive for change with international adoptions to make the process more transparent.


Edited by: Kelly Ma

Graphic Designed by: Natalie Chou


References

 
 
 

DMEJ

   Duke Medical Ethics Journal   

bottom of page