When Health Care Becomes a Target, Patients Pay the Price
WHO has recorded 914 attacks on health care in 2026, killing 911 people and injuring 1,486 across 19 countries and territories. Since 2017, more than 10,400 attacks have been documented, highlighting the growing risks to health workers, patients and essential medical services during conflict.
Health workers can become targets during conflict, putting essential medical services and patients at risk. Representational image. Image credit: Felipe Queiroz/Pexels
Health workers are expected to move towards people in danger. In many conflict zones, that same act of providing care is putting them in danger. The World Health Organization (WHO) recorded 914 attacks on health care in 2026 so far, resulting in 911 deaths and 1,486 injuries across 19 countries and territories. Most of the reported attacks have occurred in Ukraine, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territory and Myanmar.
The figures were released around World Humanitarian Day on August 19, when WHO renewed its call for health workers, patients, medical facilities and ambulances to be protected during conflicts. Since WHO began systematically documenting attacks on health care in December 2017, it has recorded more than 10,400 attacks across 29 countries and territories, resulting in more than 5,700 deaths and 8,500 injuries.
The numbers represent more than attacks on individual doctors or hospitals. When a health centre is bombed, an ambulance is stopped or a health worker is threatened, people who may never have been involved in the conflict can lose access to essential treatment.
What Counts as an Attack on Health Care?
WHO’s surveillance system covers violence, threats, obstruction and other acts that interfere with the availability, access or delivery of health services during emergencies. The attacks can affect health workers, patients, facilities and medical transport. That means the damage is not limited to deaths and injuries.
A damaged hospital may lose operating rooms, beds, medicines or electricity. An ambulance that cannot safely reach a patient can turn a treatable emergency into a fatal one. Health workers may leave areas where they no longer feel safe, leaving communities with fewer doctors and nurses.
War-damaged buildings line a street, illustrating the destruction and disruption that conflict can cause to communities and essential health care services. Representational image. Image credit: Baraa Obied/Pexels
A systematic review of research on attacks on health care in conflict found that these attacks can include bombing, looting, burning, occupation and obstruction of facilities, as well as threats, detention and physical attacks against health workers and patients. The researchers also noted significant gaps in documentation, making the available numbers likely to represent only part of the problem. WHO’s earlier analysis of attacks in fragile and conflict-affected settings similarly found that attacks reduce health-care capacity and interrupt services, affecting vulnerable populations long after the immediate incident.
The Effects Continue After the Attack
The loss of a health worker has consequences beyond the individual. A systematic mapping of 474 studies on health workers in conflict and post-conflict settings found evidence of threats, detention and killings, as well as health-worker displacement. In some conflicts, large numbers of medical professionals have left affected areas, contributing to shortages that persist after the fighting subsides.
This creates a cycle: conflict increases the need for medical care while simultaneously making it harder to provide that care. The consequences can extend to routine services such as maternal care, childhood immunisation and treatment for chronic diseases. A health system weakened by attacks may also be less prepared for disease outbreaks and other emergencies.
India has Its Own Warning Signs
India is not among the countries driving WHO’s current global conflict tally, but the protection of health care is not an abstract issue here. In Manipur, where intercommunal violence began in May 2023, the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition documented eight incidents of violence against or obstruction of health care in 2024. Health facilities were attacked on five occasions. The incidents included a grenade delivered to a hospital and a bomb thrown at a medical university campus. Routine immunisation, maternal health services and treatment for chronic diseases were disrupted.
The Manipur case shows why attacks on health care matter even when the number of incidents is relatively small compared with the world’s largest conflicts. A single attack can affect an entire catchment area when alternative facilities are limited.
Research from Assam provides another perspective. A study of ASHA workers in conflict-affected districts found that they faced difficulties arranging transport and accessing remote health facilities during and after episodes of violence. Their physical safety was also at risk, while displacement and the breakdown of social relationships created additional pressures on their work.
These community health workers are particularly important because they connect people in remote communities with the formal health system. When conflict prevents them from travelling safely, the disruption reaches households far beyond the site of the violence.
Violence in Indian Hospitals is a Different, But Related, Problem
There is an important distinction between attacks on health care in armed conflict and violence against health workers in ordinary health-care settings. They should not be treated as the same phenomenon. India, however, has a significant problem with workplace violence against medical professionals.
A 2026 study published in the National Medical Journal of India, based on 439 doctors’ responses, found that 80.2% had faced or witnessed workplace violence. Verbal abuse was the most common form, followed by physical and sexual violence. Respondents reported effects on their mental health that could last from weeks to a year. Another study involving emergency-department health-care providers in two Indian settings found that 68% reported verbal abuse and 26% physical abuse among the events examined. Patient relatives and other bystanders were reported as the most common perpetrators.
India responded during the COVID-19 pandemic by amending the Epidemic Diseases Act in 2020. The amendment made violence against health-care personnel during an epidemic a cognizable and non-bailable offence, with penalties that can include imprisonment and fines.
But the persistence of violence suggests that legal protection alone does not guarantee safety.
Protection is Part of Health Care
International humanitarian law already provides protections for medical personnel, facilities and transport during armed conflict. UN Security Council Resolution 2286, adopted in 2016, specifically condemned attacks against medical facilities and personnel and called for stronger compliance with international humanitarian law.
A decade later, the problem remains. The Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition’s latest assessment argues that the consequences extend to millions of people who lose access to health care when facilities and workers are attacked. It has called for stronger accountability mechanisms and greater political action to enforce existing protections.
The central issue, therefore, is not simply how many doctors, nurses or patients are killed. It is what happens to everyone who needs care after the health system around them has been damaged. When a hospital becomes a conflict zone, it is a maternity ward that cannot admit a woman, a clinic unable to vaccinate a child, an ambulance that cannot reach an injured person, or a doctor who decides it is no longer safe to stay. Protecting health care is ultimately about protecting the ability of people to receive care when they need it most.
Vaishnavi VS is an Editorial Associate at EdPublica. She holds a Master's degree in Mass Communication from Pondicherry University, India. She writes on education, science, environment, innovation, and public policy.
Puberty, Pregnancy and Menopause Reshape the Female Brain Differently, Study Finds
A new study examines how puberty, pregnancy and menopause are associated with distinct patterns of structural changes in the female brain, highlighting the need for more research into women’s brain health across the lifespan.
A woman looks thoughtful in a portrait used to illustrate research into brain changes across puberty, pregnancy and menopause.Image credit:Pexels
A study comparing brain scans across three major hormonal transitions finds shared patterns of structural change during puberty and pregnancy, while menopause follows a distinct trajectory.
The female brain undergoes different patterns of structural change during puberty, pregnancy and menopause, according to a study published in Nature Communications, highlighting how hormonal transitions may influence brain development and ageing across a woman’s life.
The research compared longitudinal brain imaging data from 1,095 participants. Researchers applied consistent analytical methods across three groups to investigate whether the hormonal transitions trigger similar or distinct changes in grey matter, the brain tissue involved in information processing.
The findings show that girls transitioning through menarche — the first menstrual period — and women going through pregnancy experienced widespread reductions in cortical grey matter volume. However, the patterns differed across brain regions. Women transitioning through menopause, meanwhile, showed no significant reduction in total or cortical grey matter volume during the study period, although women in the stable premenopausal and postmenopausal comparison groups showed declines.
The results suggest that these major hormonal transitions are associated with distinct patterns of brain remodelling rather than a single process affecting the female brain throughout reproductive life.
Puberty and pregnancy share some changes
The research team examined three cohorts: 142 participants in the puberty group, 110 in the pregnancy group and 843 in the menopause group. The researchers compared participants undergoing each transition with control groups to distinguish transition-related changes from ordinary developmental and age-related trajectories.
In the puberty cohort, 34 girls were assessed before and after menarche. Their brain scans showed significant monthly reductions in total and cortical grey matter volume, a pattern not observed in the stable premenarchal and postmenarchal comparison groups.
Similar changes appeared in women who became mothers. Both first-time and second-time mothers showed significant reductions in total and cortical grey matter volume compared with women who had not given birth. The study estimated monthly reductions of approximately 0.12% in total grey matter volume among first-time mothers and 0.11% among second-time mothers.
Despite these similarities, the researchers found that puberty generally involved greater cortical volume reductions than pregnancy. Their regional analysis covered 74 cortical regions and identified both shared and divergent patterns of change.
In 34 regions, the changes associated with puberty and pregnancy did not differ significantly from each other, while both showed greater reductions than the menopausal transition. These areas were concentrated in the prefrontal, parietal and temporal association cortices, which are involved in higher-order functions.
Other regions, particularly those associated with sensorimotor processing, showed a stepwise pattern in which the decline was greatest during puberty, followed by pregnancy and then menopause.
The authors caution that structural changes should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of damage. The study examined brain volume rather than directly measuring cognitive ability or the functional consequences of these changes.
Menopause presents a different pattern
The findings for menopause differed from those for puberty and pregnancy. Women who transitioned from premenopause to postmenopause during the study showed no statistically significant reduction in total or cortical grey matter volume. In contrast, the stable premenopausal and postmenopausal groups showed significant declines over their respective observation periods.
The researchers suggest that this pattern may indicate an attenuation of age-related volume decline during the menopausal transition itself. However, they stress that this interpretation remains preliminary, and the absence of a significant reduction does not establish that the brain undergoes no changes during menopause.
The study also has limitations. The three cohorts were drawn from different datasets and scanned using different MRI systems. Hormone measurements were not available in a harmonised format across all groups, preventing the researchers from directly comparing hormone levels with brain changes throughout the lifespan. Menarche and menopause were also classified using self-reported information rather than detailed clinical staging.
The findings add to a field in which women’s brain health, particularly during reproductive transitions, remains comparatively understudied. The authors call for future research combining repeated brain scans with hormonal, reproductive, psychological and social data.
By examining puberty, pregnancy and menopause within a common analytical framework, the study provides a more detailed picture of how structural brain changes vary across these transitions. It also underscores the need to investigate each stage separately rather than treating the female brain as following one continuous pattern of hormonal change.
Extreme Heat Threatens Pregnancies, Exposing Gaps in Climate Adaptation Plans
Extreme heat is emerging as a growing threat to pregnancy and childbirth. Research from India and an international survey highlight the risks to maternal and newborn health, underscoring the need for stronger healthcare protections and climate adaptation plans.
Rising temperatures are increasing concerns about maternal and newborn health, highlighting the need to protect pregnant women from extreme heat.Image credit:Pexels
Evidence from Tamil Nadu and a new international survey shows how rising temperatures threaten maternal and newborn health, with outdoor workers and rural women facing particular risks.
Extreme heat is emerging as a growing threat to pregnancy and childbirth, but climate adaptation plans risk overlooking the women and newborns most vulnerable to its effects. New international survey findings, alongside research from Tamil Nadu, point to a widening public-health challenge as rising temperatures threaten maternal health and expose inequalities in access to safe healthcare.
At least 73% of maternal healthcare professionals surveyed across five countries reported an increase in heat-related cases or complications affecting pregnant women over the past five years, according to a survey commissioned by global charitable foundation Wellcome. Meanwhile, 76% reported an increase in heat-related complications affecting foetal or newborn health.
The findings were highlighted by Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), at an event organised by Wellcome during the Pre-COP ministerial meeting in Fiji on October 5, ahead of the COP31 climate conference in Türkiye in November.
“Rising temperatures mean rising danger in pregnancy,” Stiell said, pointing to links between extreme heat during pregnancy and premature birth, stillbirth, low birth weight and maternal complications.
The survey covered 1,000 maternal healthcare professionals working in Australia, Brazil, India, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. It found that 81% were concerned that extreme heat would increasingly threaten maternal, foetal and newborn health without further action. Nearly all respondents had cared for a pregnant woman or baby whose health they believed had been affected by extreme heat, while 92% wanted more training and resources to protect pregnant women.
The findings highlight a critical gap in climate preparedness: although heat-health warnings are becoming increasingly important, pregnancy and newborn care are not always adequately incorporated into plans for responding to extreme temperatures.
Evidence from India highlights unequal risks
Research from Tamil Nadu adds to the growing evidence that occupational heat exposure can have serious consequences for pregnancy.
A prospective cohort study published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology examined 800 pregnant women engaged in moderate to heavy physical work in Tamil Nadu. Researchers found that 47.3% experienced high occupational heat exposure. Among heat-exposed women, 29.6% experienced moderate dehydration, while 17.4% recorded an increase in core body temperature.
The study found that women exposed to high occupational heat had 2.4 times the adjusted odds of miscarriage and 2.3 times the adjusted odds of an adverse pregnancy outcome. The latter included outcomes such as miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight and stillbirth.
Children are attending school in temporary learning centres following the devastating floods in Nuwakot, Nepal, where climate change and glacial ice melt have played a significant factor.Image credit: UNICEF/Laxmi Prasad Ngakhusi
The researchers also found that high occupational heat exposure was associated with twice the adjusted odds of an adverse outcome at birth. Although the study establishes an association rather than proving that heat alone caused each outcome, it provides evidence of the risks faced by pregnant women working in hot conditions.
A separate observational cohort study involving 680 pregnant women across six Tamil Nadu districts examined differences between rural and urban populations. Researchers found that 55% of rural participants experienced heat exposure above the study’s permissible limit, compared with 45% of urban participants.
Rural women were also more likely to report heat-strain symptoms, including excessive thirst, fatigue, headaches and dizziness. After accounting for potential confounding factors, heat-exposed rural women had nearly twice the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and three times the risk of adverse birth outcomes compared with the study’s urban comparison group.
The study also found a fourfold higher risk of miscarriage among heat-exposed rural women during the first trimester compared with urban women. The researchers identified socioeconomic disadvantage, limited awareness of heat risks and reduced access to welfare facilities as factors that could contribute to rural women’s greater vulnerability.
Evidence from a separate study of 126,273 pregnancies recorded in India and Pakistan reinforces the concern. Researchers found that higher average maximum temperatures during the second trimester were associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. The relative risk was 1.05 for the study’s five-degree temperature contrast, indicating a 5% relative increase in risk—not a five-percentage-point increase in the absolute risk of premature birth.
Together, these studies suggest that heat exposure is not simply an environmental inconvenience during pregnancy. It can coincide with dehydration, physically demanding work and barriers to healthcare, creating risks that are unevenly distributed across communities.
From warnings to protection
Stiell warned that the effects of extreme heat are not shared equally. Pregnant women who work outdoors, live in poorly ventilated housing, travel long distances to clinics or depend on healthcare facilities without reliable electricity, water or cooling cannot be protected through public advice alone.
“Staying cool” is not a realistic option for families without access to cool spaces, he argued. Without targeted intervention, extreme heat could deepen existing inequalities in maternal healthcare, making a safe pregnancy increasingly dependent on income, geography and access to medical services.
Stiell outlined three priorities for governments: integrating pregnancy and newborn care into climate adaptation and heat-health planning; translating evidence into practical protection through healthcare-worker training, heat alerts and safer facilities; and improving data to identify where risks are growing and which interventions are effective.
For India, the findings have implications for heat-action plans, occupational safety and maternal healthcare. Measures could include heat-risk guidance during antenatal visits, better protection for pregnant outdoor workers, improved ventilation and cooling in maternity facilities, and reliable access to water and electricity during extreme heat.
The UN climate chief also called for adaptation-finance commitments agreed at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, to be delivered and for countries to work towards mobilising $1.3 trillion annually for developing countries.
Health is expected to remain a key priority in preparations for COP31, scheduled for November 9–20, 2026, in Türkiye’s Antalya province, under the Turkish presidency and with Australia leading negotiations.
The emerging evidence makes the policy challenge clear: protecting pregnant women and newborns must become part of climate resilience, rather than an afterthought. As temperatures rise, governments will need to assess climate action not only by emissions targets and financial commitments, but also by whether healthcare systems can protect people during pregnancy and give newborns a safe start to life.
Centre Caps Trade Margins on Non-Scheduled Cancer Drugs at 30%
The Centre has approved a 30% trade-margin cap on non-scheduled cancer medicines, aiming to lower prices and reduce patients’ out-of-pocket treatment costs.
The Centre has approved a 30% cap on trade margins for non-scheduled cancer medicines, aiming to reduce prices and patients’ out-of-pocket treatment costs. Representational image. Image credit: SHVETS production/ Pexels
The Union government has approved a 30% cap on trade margins for non-scheduled cancer medicines, seeking to curb the mark-ups that inflate patients’ pharmacy bills. The Department of Pharmaceuticals estimates that the measure could reduce the maximum retail prices (MRPs) of affected drugs by up to 70% and save patients 2,500 crore rupees annually.
The cap will apply to branded and generic medicines, whether manufactured in India or imported, and whether patented or non-patented. An expert committee under the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) will identify the medicines covered. The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) will then issue the implementation notification.
The government’s estimates are projections. The extent of the price reductions will become clear after the covered medicines and revised prices are notified.
NPPA Finds Mark-ups of Upto 700%
An NPPA analysis found that trade mark-ups on non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines averaged around 170%, with some reaching 700%. Such margins can create a substantial gap between the price at which a medicine enters the distribution chain and the amount charged at the retail counter.
For patients who need costly medicines over multiple treatment cycles, even a modest reduction in the price of each purchase can ease recurring expenses. The effect is particularly relevant to households paying directly for medicines that are not fully covered by insurance or public health schemes.
The 30% limit is intended to restrict the margin added through the relevant stages of distribution and retail. It does not mean that every affected medicine will become 70% cheaper. The reduction will depend on the medicine’s existing price and trade margins.
How India Regulates Medicine Prices
India’s drug-pricing framework distinguishes between scheduled and non-scheduled formulations. The NPPA fixes ceiling prices for scheduled medicines under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, with the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) forming the basis for coverage.
Chemotherapy drugs in vials. India has capped trade margins on non-scheduled cancer medicines at 30% of their maximum retail price (MRP) to reduce treatment costs. Representational image. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
Non-scheduled medicines generally do not have the same routine ceiling-price controls, although manufacturers are restricted from increasing their maximum retail prices by more than 10% over the preceding 12 months. The government can also intervene in the public interest under Paragraph 19 of the DPCO, 2013.
The new decision uses this intervention power to regulate trade margins across a wider range of non-scheduled cancer medicines. Rather than setting a single ceiling price for every drug in the category, it seeks to limit the margin added as medicines pass through the supply chain.
A precedent from 2019
In February 2019, the NPPA imposed a 30% trade-margin cap on 42 selected non-scheduled anti-cancer medicines. The intervention covered 526 brands and was estimated to save patients 984 crore rupees annually. The authority reported that the maximum retail prices of some brands fell by as much as 90%.
That exercise provides a precedent for using trade-margin regulation to lower medicine prices. The latest measure has a broader proposed scope, although its eventual reach will depend on the list finalised by the expert committee.
The earlier figures should not be treated as a forecast for the new intervention. The medicines covered, their existing margins and the price changes required will determine the savings achieved this time.
Production Must be Maintained
The government has said manufacturers will be required to maintain current production levels. The condition addresses a practical concern in price regulation: patients must continue to have access to prescribed medicines after the pricing rules change.
Implementation will require monitoring both prices and availability. A lower listed price offers little relief if a medicine becomes difficult to obtain or patients must turn to a more expensive alternative.
The DGHS expert committee must identify the medicines covered before the NPPA issues its implementation notification. Until then, patients and pharmacists cannot determine the precise price changes for individual products.
The projected 2,500-crore rupees annual saving will depend on the final list, the reductions achieved and how consistently the revised prices are reflected in sales. The cap addresses the retail cost of medicines; hospital charges, surgery, radiation, diagnostic tests and other treatment expenses fall outside this measure.
For patients managing cancer treatment over months or years, the relevant figure will be the revised price of each prescribed medicine, not the maximum reduction projected for the category as a whole.