Some papers have me pulling my hair out. How can it be that the medical profession ends up with this statement levelled against them:
Adverse outcomes were probably due to inadequate treatment...
Of course inadequate treatment is likely to result in adverse outcomes. Why would anyone think otherwise? The question is: Why were any of the mothers left with inadequate treatment? I'd put a fat pile of money on it not being because the mothers didn't want adequate treatment, and in at least some cases probably struggled to try to achieve that.
And what a crass statement about highlighting the benefits. Are they not plain enough? Are not the consequences of inadequate treatment plain enough? The highlighting needs to be on how to achieve adequate treatment. On who bears the responsibility for not providing that adequate treatment which is so obviously needed.
Congenital hypothyroidism linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes
“Despite the small number of subjects included in the analysis, our results suggest that the adequate management of hypothyroidism decreases the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes,” the researchers wrote. “These novel findings for patients with [congenital hypothyroidism] highlight the need for more appropriate thyroid disease management, particularly during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, and for vigilant monitoring and adherence to treatment, to decrease the impact of the disease on both mother and child. Future prospective studies focusing on active management to prevent treatment inadequacy during pregnancy should highlight the potential benefits of such management in terms of maternal and fetal outcomes.”