Abstract
The practice of obstetrics continues to be influenced by concerns of medical-legal liability. Whereas assessments of clinical practice are commonly judged against society and community standards, issues of injury causation often are analyzed by a more complex scientific integration of anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology. Misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive; junk science refers to scientific theories that are flawed, unreliable, or lacking in credibility. In the course of obstetric litigation, both clinical and scientific misinformation and junk science theories may be expounded in an attempt to bolster a case argument. These theories, though flawed, in their appeal to juries may have adverse consequences on clinicians and health care institutions and may unfortunately alter future clinical practice. Herein are presented several examples of misinformation and junk science theories that have been used to falsely attribute harm to the clinician. Together, medical societies and courts should aim to restrict the use of junk science.