Wrote Hacking Healthcare, former hospital system administrator, blah, blah... I think the comparison to thalidomide is click bait. Thalidomide was such a probl

Wrote Hacking Healthcare, former hospital system administrator, blah, blah... I think the comparison to thalidomide is click bait. Thalidomide was such a problem because it was used to treat symptoms of pregnancy, not some other unrelated condition. In this situation all(?) of the first line pharmaceutical treatments for managing epileptic seizures pose at least some developmental risk to unborn children. On the other hand unmanaged epileptic seizures also pose a risk to the parent and child. This was a situation of gross negligence on the part of the institutions involved in regulation AND the direct providers offering care. A classic "somebody else's problem" field. Institutions failed to identify the actual scale of the risks involved in a way that properly educated providers and providers chose an inappropriate framework with which to manage and communicate the risks to patients who could or did become pregnant. The drug involved here is not really the problem, it is an effective drug at managing epileptic seizures. A reasonable approach that was not employed would be to properly identify the drugs serious dangers to developing children in those who may become pregnant to providers. As a regulator you need to hit them over the head with it. From a course of treatment standpoint selection of alternative drugs for patients who would like to become pregnant that have slightly less risk to undeveloped children need to be prioritized. Providers need to make sure that proper supplementation happens (folic acid, etc). The risk is meaningfully reduced and the patient would better understand what can happen. This type of comprehensive and nuanced course of treatment is something that is just very very difficult for healthcare, in the US anyway, to achieve.