

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The coalition of public interest and patient safety groups that have
spearheaded the www.WakeUpDoctor.org
campaign issued a "report card" in response to today's proposal by the
Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to
restructure medical residency programs, published in The New England
Journal of Medicine.
Since February, the Wake Up Doctor campaign has been instrumental in
raising awareness about the dangers posed by medical residents working
shifts as long as 30 hours, frequently with limited support or
supervision, leaving them exhausted and prone to mistakes. The
coalition, which includes Public Citizen, Mothers Against Medical Error
and other patient advocates, based their grades on the landmark 2008
report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Resident Duty Hours:
Enhancing Sleep, Supervision and Safety. The IOM report made a thorough
review of issues related to residency and listed 10 recommendations for
change, including an increase in supervision of junior residents and a
significant reduction in work hours.
Although ACGME, the group responsible for training physicians in the
United States, demonstrated some progress in reconciling its regulations
with the mounting body of scientific evidence linking acute and chronic
sleep deprivation with preventable medical errors, the coalition judged
that the proposal fails compared to the more comprehensive
recommendations of the IOM report.
*
Common Sense Limits on Resident Duty Hours
Grade: F
The IOM report called for a reduction in resident duty hours from 30
consecutive-hour shifts to continuous shifts lasting no longer than 16
hours. The ACGME's proposal implements that change only for medical
residents in their first year (interns). This change would therefore
only apply to 22 percent of total residents in hospitals throughout the
country. Most medical residents could continue to be scheduled for a
maximum of 24 consecutive hours, a duration rejected by the IOM in late
2008. Ample evidence has shown that marathon shifts in excess of 16
hours can have a detrimental effect on a physician's abilities and
judgment.
Additionally, the IOM made a number of recommendations ranging from
the minimum time off between scheduled duty periods, the maximum number
of consecutive nights a resident may work night duty, adjustments to the
minimum amount of time off per week, and an immediate, urgent
requirement for hospitals to provide safe transportation home for
fatigued residents. Nearly all of these recommendations are left out of
the ACGME's proposal.
"Although it's a positive step for the ACGME to make any
acknowledgement of the evidence linking resident fatigue and medical
error, its proposed solution misses the mark," said Dr. Alex Blum, one
of the authors of the recent study, "US Public Opinion Regarding
Proposed Limits on Resident Physician Work Hours," which was published
in BMC Medicine. "Physicians do not cease to be human beings when they
complete their first year of residency, nor does an additional year of
training make them impervious to the physiological effects of sleep
deprivation. Patients both deserve and expect to be treated by a
well-rested physician. The ACGME's proposal on work hours won't come
close to making that a reality."
Adequate Direct, Onsite Supervision
Grade: B
The IOM report called for first-year residents not to be "on duty
without having immediate access to a residency program-approved
supervisory physician in-house" (Summary, p.13). The ACGME adopts this
measure, but only somewhat vaguely addresses the IOM report's
recommendation for measurable standards of supervision for each level of
residency.
"The ACGME has taken an important step in regard to supervision of
first-year residents and to setting specific standards for different
levels of supervision," said Helen Haskell, founder and president of
Mothers Against Medical Error. "I think the acid test will be in the
details. We need to be sure that residents of all levels have sufficient
backup and reasonable limits on their workloads."
Structured, Institutionalized Handover Processes
Grade: C
The IOM report called for medical residents to be trained to
communicate clearly and accurately when handing over patients after
residents' shifts end, a process known as "handovers" or "signouts." The
ACGME proposal includes this provision, as well as requiring a system
to quickly and accurately communicate to staff and patients the roles
and patient responsibilities of both residents and attending physicians
at any given time.
However, the IOM report also called for dedicated, protected and
overlapping time for patient care teams to conduct these transitions.
The ACGME proposal does not include this solution to reduce errors
related to handovers and improve team communication among providers.
"Without question, the environment in which handovers take place must
be closely monitored to prevent errors and potential harm for our
patients," said Dr. Farbod Raiszadeh, president of the Committee of
Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, the nation's largest union for
housestaff. "However, I can say from experience that part of that
environment is how long the outgoing resident has been working in the
hospital and how fatigued they are at the time of transition. Handovers
are safer, more thorough and less prone to error when they occur in hour
16 than in hour 30 of a shift."
Increased Oversight of Residency Programs
Grade: F
Although the ACGME plans to dramatically increase the number of site
visits, its oversight proposal falls far short of the IOM's standard.
The IOM report called for rigorous oversight on the part of the ACGME,
including unannounced visits to teaching hospitals, strengthened
complaint procedures and confidential, protected reporting of hours by
residents and teaching hospitals - none of which is directly addressed
by the ACGME's proposal. Additionally, the IOM report called for
independent monitoring by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
and the Joint Commission - a recommendation that is also absent from
the ACGME proposal, thus leaving the major control in the hands of the
non-governmental ACGME instead of increasing the role of the government
in oversight.
"The improvements in the new ACGME guidelines are largely swamped by
the failure to cover the majority of medical residents with the
protection of not having to work more than 16 hours continuously," said
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group.
"This is the second revision of ACGME requirements in the last seven
years and the organization still does not get it right."
*
The coalition will continue to educate the public concerning the
areas where the ACGME proposal fails to meet the standards set by the
2008 IOM report.
To learn more about the issue of resident work hours, supervision and
safety, and to sign the campaign's letter to the ACGME in support of
the IOM recommendations, visit www.WakeUpDoctor.org.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000The US military has publicly confirmed using "a variety of advanced AI tools" in the Iran assault to "help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds."
A group of more than 120 Democrats in the US House on Thursday pressed Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth on whether American forces used artificial intelligence in the deadly bombing of an elementary school in southern Iran.
"What is the role of artificial intelligence, if any, in selecting targets, assessing intelligence, and making legal determinations during Operation Epic Fury?" the Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), asked in a letter to Hegseth. "If AI is used, is it subject to human review and at what point? Was artificial intelligence, including the use of the Maven Smart System, used to identify the Shajareh Tayyebeh school as a target? If so, did a human verify the accuracy of this target?"
The letter to Hegseth was sent a day after The New York Times reported that Pentagon investigators preliminarily concluded that US forces were responsible for the bombing of the girls' school in Minab, Iran—a strike that killed at least 175 people, mostly children.
The Democratic lawmakers cited the Times' reporting in their letter, writing that they "are particularly disturbed" by the school bombing, which President Donald Trump initially—and without a shred of evidence—tried to pin on Iran before later saying he didn't "know enough about it" to assign blame.
According to the Times, the school strike "was the result of a targeting mistake by the US military, which was conducting strikes on an adjacent Iranian base of which the school building was formerly a part."
The US military has confirmed using AI tools in its illegal war on Iran, which is being carried out in partnership with Israeli forces that have used artificial intelligence extensively in their genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
“Our war fighters are leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools," Brad Cooper, the head of the US Central Command, said in a video message released Wednesday. "These systems help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds so our leaders can cut through the noise and make smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react."
NBC News reported earlier this week that the US military is "using AI systems from data analytics company Palantir to identify potential targets in the ongoing attacks."
"The use of Palantir’s software, which relies in part on Anthropic’s Claude AI systems, comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aims to put artificial intelligence at the heart of America’s combat operations," the outlet noted.
During his tenure as head of the Pentagon, Hegseth has worked to dismantle initiatives aimed at reducing civilian killings, scoffed at "stupid rules of engagement," and touted "maximum lethality" as a top priority for the US military.
In their letter on Thursday, the House Democrats wrote that mass civilian deaths in the US-Israeli war on Iran are "alarming yet unsurprising" given Hegseth and Trump's open contempt for legal constraints on American forces.
"The US and Israel have reportedly struck or impacted numerous civilian sites—including schools, hospitals, gymnasiums, public gathering spaces, and a UNESCO heritage site," the lawmakers wrote. "Civilians and civilian infrastructure may under no circumstances be the object of attack and must at all times be respected and protected by all parties."
"This is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US," said one plaintiff. "Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights."
A federal appellate court on Thursday upheld a historic verdict against CACI Premier Technology, a military contractor found liable for its role in the torture of three prisoners at Abu Ghraib during the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s.
The three plaintiffs—middle school principal Suhail Al Shimari, fruit vendor Asa'ad Zuba'e, and journalist Salah Al-Ejaili—are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and two law firms. CCR noted Thursday that Al Shimari v. CACI was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute and "is the only lawsuit brought by Abu Ghraib torture victims to make it to trial."
These three survivors of Abu Ghraib—where US captors subjected prisoners to broken bones, death threats, electric shocks, extreme temperatures, sexual abuse, and more torture—finally got their day in court in April 2024. The following November, a federal jury in Virginia ordered CACI to pay each plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.
"This victory isn't only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation," Al-Ejaili said after the verdict. "This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse."
CACI unsuccessfully sought a new trial at the US District Court for the District of Virginia, then turned to the 4th Circuit, which heard arguments last September.
"We affirm the jury’s verdict in full," wrote Senior Judge Henry Floyd, joined by Judge Stephanie Thacker—both appointees of former President Barack Obama. Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy, who argued the appeal, said Thursday that "we are gratified yet again that the 4th Circuit rejected CACI's cynical arguments for impunity for its responsibility for the torture of our clients, which the jury confirmed in a historic judgment last year. Our courageous clients have waited so long for recognition and justice, and we are happy for them that this judgment affirmed their entitlement to it."
Al-Ejaili also celebrated the development, declaring that "this is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US."
"This will cause a positive difference in the future. Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights," the plaintiff added. "Thank you to the US legal system and thank you to everyone who had anything to do with this win."
The appellate court's decision notably comes as the Trump administration and Israel have launched another war in the Middle East: a joint assault of Iran, alongside Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Evidence of war crimes—including attacks on schools, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure—has quickly mounted, fueling global demands for a diplomatic resolution.
The BBC has long been accused of centering Israel and dismissing the humanity of Palestinians in its coverage of Gaza.
British journalist Owen Jones on Thursday celebrated a UK High Court judge's ruling in his favor in a libel lawsuit that a BBC editor brought against him—and said that should the editor choose to move forward with his case despite the decision, he was looking forward "to defending my article in court."
The High Court ruled that Jones was expressing an opinion when he wrote an article for Drop Site News in December 2024 titled "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza," in which he spoke to BBC staffers about Middle East online editor Raffi Berg's influence over the news outlet's coverage of Israel and Palestine.
The court also said Jones had expressed his opinion and that of his sources based on concrete examples of Berg's editorial role and journalism.
Jones' article described staffers' allegations that "internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside" as Berg "sets the tone" for the outlet's online coverage of Israel's onslaught in the exclave, where more than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023 in what's been called a genocide by top Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.
It noted that the BBC failed to report on Amnesty International's finding that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and displayed an on-screen chyron reading, "Israel rejects 'fabricated' claims of genocide.'"
"Journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website," wrote Jones. "Several allege that Berg 'micromanages' this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality."
The BBC has long been criticized for centering Israel and "dehumanizing" Palestinians, as more than 1,000 artists said in a letter last year when they condemned the network for refusing to air a documentary about the impact of Israel's attacks on children in Gaza, on the grounds that it featured the child of the exclave's deputy minister of agriculture—suggesting "that Palestinians holding administrative roles are inherently complicit in violence."
The article also pointed to Berg's own history of pro-Israel coverage, including a 2002 story "that presented young [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers as courageous defenders of their country while failing to mention the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land or the widespread allegations of crimes" documented by human rights groups and the US government.
Berg also presented Israeli settlers in the West Bank as "victims seeking 'a better quality of life' and did not mention the fact that the settlements have been repeatedly deemed illegal," and wrote about the Mossad "in glowing terms" in a book he wrote with extensive cooperation from the Israeli intelligence agency.
He also posted a photo on social media showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a copy of Berg's book on his bookshelf, Jones reported.
Berg's lawyer said last year that Jones' reporting attacked Berg's "professional reputation as a journalist and editor," and led to death threats.
In order for his case against Jones to proceed, Berg would now need to prove in court that "Jones did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed in his reporting, or demonstrate that the opinion is not one an honest person could hold on the basis of any fact that existed at the time of its publication," Middle East Eye reported.
"I am proud to stand by my journalism," said Jones Thursday.