First published in 1892, “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman depicts a postpartum woman whose husband, a physician, prescribes a rest cure for her so-called “nervous depression,” confining her to a nursery. The narrator’s increasing fixation on the room’s titular wallpaper reflects her descent into psychosis, culminating in her belief that a woman is trapped behind the wallpaper—and, ultimately, that she herself is that woman. 

What if the short story were told from the man’s point of view? Obsession—the micro-budget horror film that has quickly become one of the year’s biggest box-office successes—feels, in some ways, like an answer to that question. 

Directed by Curry Barker, Obsession follows Bear (played by Michael Johnston), who acquires a supernatural toy that grants his wish for his co-worker and childhood friend, Nikki (Inde Navarrette), to love him more than anyone else in the world. Nikki’s mind and body are thereby effectively hijacked, echoing the woman’s loss of agency in “The Yellow Wallpaper.” Unlike Gilman’s short story, however, Obsession places us in the perspective of the controlling figure, forcing us to confront not only the horror of victimization but that of possessive desire itself. 

Bear is initially presented sympathetically: as a lonely, shy, awkward music store employee with an unrequited crush. We might relate to his desperation for connection; after all, he seems as gentle as, well, a teddy bear. While bears are also predators, the character does not see himself as a villain—and because we spend time inside his mindset, neither do we. Even as Nikki begins to behave erratically, we believe that Bear deserves a chance at romance and that he can control the situation. More troubling, we believe that he can control Nikki. 

Unlike “The Yellow Wallpaper,” in which we inhabit the woman’s mental breakdown, Obsession mostly foregrounds Bear’s fear and guilt, obscuring Nikki’s pain and suffering—at first. Hoping to alter his wish, he calls the toy’s customer support line and hears Nikki screaming in agony on the other end. He returns home to find her frozen in place, covered in excrement and vomit; later, she mutilates her own face with a broken bottle. Eventually, while she sleeps, the voice of her former self briefly resurfaces and begs him to kill her. But Bear refuses, asking, “What’s so bad about being with me?” His desire to be loved has become inseparable from his willingness to erase Nikki’s freedom. (Her surname, “Freeman,” feels heavy-handed.) The realization that we have centered Bear’s distress over the damage he has inflicted is powerfully uncomfortable.  

Gilman’s short story concludes with the protagonist rubbing against the wallpaper and declaring, “I’ve got out at last… in spite of you,” causing her husband to faint as she continues circling the room, liberated through madness. By the end of Obsession, Bear is similarly inert, but Nikki is lucid and seemingly still trapped—that is, left to grapple with the carnage unleashed by the obsessive version of herself that Bear created. 

Medicine is no longer the locus of patriarchal control it was when Gilman wrote “The Yellow Wallpaper,” but it still carries traces of gendered authority. Barker’s Obsession critiques the insidious logic of modern “nice guy” entitlement; believing he deserves Nikki’s love, Bear prescribes not a rest cure but a “love cure” that reveals how ordinary longing and self-pity can become coercive.  

By aligning our sympathies with the perpetrator before exposing the full cost of his desire, the film tests our complicity and highlights the peril of love that demands possession. 

Web image from Capstone Pictures.

In 2019, a prominent obstetrician/gynaecologist in Toronto was found guilty of administering intravaginal medications to his obstetrics patients for the purposes of inducing labour without consent. He was subsequently dismissed from his position at the hospital and his career ended. The story was covered in detail in an exposé published in Toronto Life magazine. 

The details of the case are lurid. In the modern age, most obstetricians do group call. Gone are the days when an expectant mother would have both her prenatal care and delivery done by the same physician. Newborn babies are wont to arrive in the world at any given moment, and the traditional obstetrician who drops everything they are doing to attend these deliveries, often in the middle of the night and often with a full day of office work the next day, is all but extinct. Obstetricians now share call duties with a team of physicians. Now, when you sign up with a certain obstetrician, there’s no guarantee that that specific doctor will be the one to deliver your baby, only that someone from their group will be doing the delivery. 

In Ontario, obstetricians are paid more for delivering babies on weekends than they are on weekdays. It’s a nice little reward for doctors who usually work long and unpredictable hours. But in this one hospital, the obstetrics department began to notice that one of their staff had a propensity for babies being delivered predominantly on weekends and evenings and began tracking the matter. 

In time, they discovered that this doctor was inserting tablets of misoprostol into the vaginas of late term pregnant patients in order to induce labour on specific days that were to his advantage, often when the date in question was a weekend. Misoprostol has the ability to induce contractions and is often used in medical abortions. It is not considered to be a medication safe to use in pregnant women to induce labour on command. Needless to say, the patients did not give informed consent for the procedure, nor were they offered the option to decline.The doctor in question was a prominent member of Toronto’s Chinese Canadian community. He had a reputation for being a doctor to the rich and chic. Famous Hong Kong celebrities flew to Canada to have their babies delivered by him and my own patients flocked to him in droves. 

In Toronto, getting a referral to a community obstetrician of choice to deliver your baby is like trying to get your child into an elite private school–no doubt, these actions are often being done by the same parents, just a few years apart. Obstetricians have a set number of expectant mothers they can carry for any given month and once that quota is exceeded, they can’t accept any more patients. In those years when I first started working as a family physician, Chinese immigrant women in my community knew to race to our office as soon as they suspected they were pregnant, so as to get into the front of this doctor’s queue. They were then told by the obstetrician’s office that they were expected to pay a three-hundred-dollar administrative fee in order to guarantee this doctor would be present for the delivery, which they gladly paid.^⁠1 

At the time, it seemed reasonable. Three hundred dollars and your doctor would buck the modern trends of group call and shared team duties and promise to come in on his night off to personally deliver your baby. It all seemed legitimate and altruistic, a call back to a simpler time. If only. 

When the story broke, there was the expected furor in the local medical community. Certainly, the salacious nature of the case, the prominence of the doctor in question, the #MeToo movement which was also taking place around this time, gave the story its pull. 

In the local Chinese community, the story had buzz as well. Toronto, with its large Chinese-speaking population, has several Chinese daily newspapers and the story made headlines in the local Chinese newspapers and filtered its way through all of us. It felt like everyone’s mother had heard of this doctor; he was that well-known. 

As I spoke to patients and friends and colleagues, I discovered so many people around me had had their children delivered by this doctor in the preceding decades. As they reflected on their obstetrics journeys, the stories were all the same. Yes, it was true, many of their babies had happened to arrive on a weekend. Yes, the labour started soon after an assessment, right on schedule and with what had seemed like fortuitous timing at the time. Now, in retrospect, it all seemed fishy and possibly sinister. 

But one thing that I noticed was that this doctor’s actions were met with largely a collective sigh of indifference by the Chinese Canadian community. The lack of outrage most people had towards the story felt odd. Remember, this story was occurring near the height of the #MeToo movement. The idea of a doctor administering intravaginal medications without consent should have, in the West, been seen on the level of battery. At the very least, I expected people to think of it as a violation of a woman’s body. But in the Chinese community, amongst the population that knew this doctor the best, the reaction was muted. Most of his patients that I encountered shrugged off the story. When the subject came up, they were quick to point out to me that he was an outstanding doctor who had helped many people and were disappointed to hear that the doctor was no longer practising. 

In China, women’s reproductive rights is an issue with a thorny history, especially over the last several decades, most of which I was oblivious to until I started working with my own patients. 

The most blatant and obvious reproductive rights issue is China’s One-Child Policy, which ran from 1979 to 2015. During these years, families in China were limited to having only one child, except in special circumstances. The One-Child Policy was formulated in response to the Chinese government’s fear of overpopulation. 

In my naive understanding of China, I was taught the official narrative, that people who had more than one child were subject to higher rates of taxation, and it was the punitive toll of this taxation that kept parents in line. 

But the truth was more complex. What were people’s expectations about birth control? What happened when people didn’t agree with the government’s policy? What happened to people who had an extra child on purpose? What happened if they had a child accidentally?  

When I started working, I soon noticed that all middle-aged women from mainland China had intrauterine contraceptive devices implanted in their uterus. Mostly, they had had these devices placed after delivering a baby years earlier. In many cases, these IUCDs had been present in these patients’ uterus for so long that many of them often forgot to mention it to me, only informing me about the presence of these devices sometimes when they were in their late fifties or early sixties, long after the device had ceased to perform any useful function. Often times, we’d discover that these devices were present during a routine ultrasound, and the patient would remember that yes, they had been wearing an IUCD for so long that they had simply forgotten about it–it had simply become a part of them. This wasn’t an entirely benign situation. The longer an IUCD remained in, the greater the chance it would slowly embed into the tissue of the uterus. Albeit rarely, there are case reports of it rupturing the uterus of women after decades being left in. 

Even after I realized that so many of my patients were wearing IUCDs, I still didn’t fully understand what this meant. I had in my mind envisioned the Western model of women’s reproductive care, that the mother had informed her obstetrician in China at some point after the delivery that she would have an IUCD inserted because yes, she was certain she didn’t want to have another child for a few years. I envisioned a long conversation where a medical professional gave the patient a series of options about contraceptive care. Did the patient want an IUCD? Or maybe to try the birth control pill? Or did the patient want to use natural family planning methods? It was only gradually that it dawned on me, that these were conversations we only had in the West, not conversations women had in China. They weren’t given the option of having an IUCD inserted. They were simply told what to do, or had it done unto them. 

But my women patients didn’t seem bothered by this. They never expressed outrage at having an IUCD. It was again, the collective shrug of indifference. It wasn’t that different than being told that they had to pay taxes. Or have a mandatory retirement age. It was just another curious aspect of life in modern China.  

I couldn’t envision what it meant for a society to exist where a government somewhere could decree that all women would be forced to have a copper intrauterine device placed in their uterus upon having a baby, whether they liked it or not, and that it would remain in place indefinitely. It seemed even more preposterous that almost all the decisions said government made were made by men–the Chinese Communist Party is well known for being almost exclusively male at its highest levels. 

The actual IUCDs that the patients wear bear mentioning also. In North America, IUCD devices like the Copper-T, or Mirena, are little metal or plastic objects that are inserted into the uterus, with a trailing piece of string that dangles out of the uterus. The device itself prevents either ovulation or implantation of the embryo, depending on the IUCD in question. The little piece of string is designed to allow the device to be removed easily in a doctor’s office, where a doctor can tug on the string with a pair of forceps and remove the device. 

In China, the IUCD device is inserted without a string, making it deliberately more difficult for people to remove, even with proper medical equipment. 

As a result, many of my patients, after decades of wearing the IUCD, found that the device could not be easily removed. Canadian-trained gynaecologists, used to the simplicity of tugging on a piece of string and changing the IUCD every four or five years as per the manufacturer’s instructions, couldn’t always remove the Chinese IUCDs. Sometimes, it was because the Canadian-trained gynaecologists didn’t have the practice grabbing IUCD’s without the string. At other times, it was because the device had been put in place so long ago that it had shifted position and could no longer easily be removed. Some of my patients had to go under general anesthesia to have the device removed. Others got on airplanes and flew back to China to get the device removed there by the experts. All of this, I gradually realized, was part of the long-term consequences driven by China’s One-Child Policy. 

For a more detailed discussion of the One-Child Policy, see Barbara Demick’s Daughters of the Bamboo Grove. Demick, an L.A. Times journalist, chronicles her two-decade odyssey to help reunite an American-raised Chinese adoptee named Esther with her birth family in China. Esther was abducted as a two-year-old and then trafficked to an orphanage during China’s international adoption industry heyday in the early 1990s. As it turns out, she has a twin sister, Shuangjie, who stayed with her birth family and the story provides a fascinating case study of the entire issue of women’s reproductive rights and the issue of international adoption. 

In the book, Demick lays out China’s One-Child Policy and its ramifications on the grassroots level, where neighbourhoods were policed by local government family planning offices. These units were akin to local mafioso-like organizations, gangs of thugs who were given carte blanche by the local governments to cajole, threaten, and beat people into towing the party line. And, to top it off, they weren’t above kidnapping the children who violated the government’s restrictions on family planning. 

When it comes to the One-Child Policy, there is a tendency for us as Westerners to discuss it as tomfoolery–a straightforward story of failed macro-economic policy, that the One-Child Policy was short-sighted and hastened China’s likely imminent economic decline. And while this narrative may be accurate, it only scratches the surface. The reality of what happened to people on a personal level is much more complicated. 

As Demick describes it, in the nineties, the One-Child Policy essentially created the market conditions for international adoption and the trafficking of kidnapped children. It isn’t a huge leap of logic to understand that the One-Child Policy begets well-meaning people from the West wanting to adopt babies from China and being willing to pay good money to do so. Once money is involved, human traffickers realize that if they can get good money for babies, then all they need to do is to get more and more babies. Now, cue the kidnappings and forced baby abductions and we get to where we were. It’s a frightening cycle, which only illustrates yet again how economic policy can trickle down to the level of the individual in thousand-fold ways. 

There’s another aspect to Chinese family planning worth pointing out here, which is the desire to have more male children. The Chinese culture is by no means alone in this. Historically, many groups around the world prized boys over girls. In China, the reasons for this have long been established. Traditionally, Chinese culture has long placed an emphasis on families having male heirs. According to Chinese culture, family lineages pass through sons, and daughters are raised but then handed over to other families when they marry, unable to continue lineages of their own. At its most basic level, this meant that your son could look after you in your old age but your daughter couldn’t. 

Growing up as an immigrant in Canada, I accepted that the preference for boys over girls was probably one of those older, primitive world views that Chinese people held in the past, but, like binding women’s feet, surely not something anyone still believed in modern times. After all, I had grown up in a North America where women voted, moms were entering the work force en masse, and dual-income households were becoming more and more the norm. I took it for granted that modern people everywhere would value boys and girls equally. 

And while I had read in books about the gender imbalance in China, about how the One-Child Policy had created a nation with a surplus of boys over girls, I took it as just another example of primitive, traditional Chinese thinking, something from the old world, not something that I would have to deal with directly as a doctor in Canada. 

So imagine my surprise, when in my early years of practice, patients started approaching me, forcing me to confront some of these gender issues head on. 

One patient, an older woman who was already the mother of multiple girls, discovered that she was pregnant again. At the eighteen-to-twenty-week ultrasound, to her disappointment, she discovered that she was having a girl, again. A few weeks later, despondent, she came to my office, asking for a referral for an abortion. She explained to me that she wasn’t primitive or old-fashioned. Indeed, she wasn’t against having girls per say. But she already had so many that it seemed fair that she really didn’t want another one. 

By this point in the pregnancy, she was already precariously close to the twenty-four-week cutoff for late term abortions. In Canada, abortions past twenty-four weeks aren’t allowed. Would it be possible for me to change her estimated date of confinement to so that she could squeeze in just within the 24 week window?^⁠2 I refused to do this, and she ended up returning to the clinic multiple times in the next several weeks, each time suggesting that, telling us in fact, that she had remembered her last menstrual period date wrong. And that if we used her revised calculation, her current pregnancy actually fit in the twenty-four-week window. Needless to say, I did not acquiesce and eventually this patient drifted out of my practice. I never did find out what happened to her and her family of girls. 

Fortunately, not all the stories are so odd. Some patients from China have told me that they were pleasantly surprised to discover that in Canada, at the eighteen-week ultrasound, doctors could reveal the gender of their future children to them if they wished. Finally, they could prepare for the upcoming birth of their child knowing what colour to paint the child’s bedroom and what colour clothes to buy in advance. In China, I was told, this information was kept strictly confidential because the government was afraid that people would go looking for abortions if they found they were pregnant with a girl. 

Of course, now the situation in China is flipped. After decades of the One-Child Policy, China suddenly finds itself facing an economic slowdown, the prospect of an aging population and a more educated working class that wants no part of having more children. More and more young people in China are choosing not to even marry, not to mention start families. 

In a twist of dramatic irony, those same family planning units that harassed women for decades into having less children, have suddenly been tasked with the job of encouraging increased reproductive rates. 

What will the Chinese government do when it’s time to raise its low birth rate? What will it do when it realizes it can’t convince its citizens to get pregnant more readily by offering tax incentives? After all I’ve seen and experienced, it’s something I don’t even want to think about but could be just around the corner. 

I’ve long struggled to understand this concept of just how powerful the Chinese government is and how much impact it is able to have on its citizenry. Because my grandparents fled China after the Civil War in 1949 and my parents grew up in Taiwan under martial law, I’ve always had a bird’s-eye view of how Chinese politics can affect the lives of everyday people. I have an aunt who I’ve never met because she didn’t make it out of China in 1949 and became separated from our family–she wouldn’t see my father, her brother, for almost forty years. In recent years, I’ve read countless books about government reforms in China. I saw how China handled Covid-19 in the news. I’ve visited China and seen the gleaming new buildings and multi-lane superhighways humming with electric vehicles. But none of it has spoken to me as loudly as this collective shrug of indifference that I’ve encountered from my patients when it comes to women’s reproductive rights. 

Sometimes, I wonder what the psychic toll of a person doing something they don’t really want to do might be. What if they’re forced to get a tattoo that they don’t want? Or forced to cut their hair in a certain way? 

What if they’re forced into a marriage they don’t want? Or forced to have a baby they don’t want? Or forced to give the baby away against their will? 

They don’t even have the option of agreeing to any of these things. What if these actions are just done to them whether they like it or not? 

But then what about this: what is the psychic toll if they’re to wear an IUCD for the next thirty years, whether they would like to or not? 

What’s the toll if they’re given intravaginal misoprostol so that their baby can be born on an auspicious day? 

What’s the toll if they’re given intravaginal misoprostol so that an obstetrician can deliver the baby on a day convenient for him? 

If all of these decisions are simply made for a person by an aggressive husband, we’d call it abuse and everyone would be screaming bloody murder. But if these decisions are decreed by an even higher authority, an all-powerful political party or an all-seeing authoritarian government, then what? Would everyone just accept it as just another cultural fact of life, like using chopsticks instead of a fork? It seems like they would. 

To hear further discussion about Barbara Demick’s Daughters of the Bamboo Grove, have a listen to my discussion about it on Apollo On Call, the podcast of medhum.org. 

1. In Canada, health care is publicly funded but doctors can charge fees for services not covered by the public health care system. This can take the form of administrative fees as well as fees for certain medical and surgical procedures that the government health insurance doesn’t cover. 
2. The estimated date of confinement is the projected due date for a pregnant mother. It can be calculated as 40 weeks from the date of the pregnant woman’s last menstrual period, or estimated using prenatal ultrasounds. 

Web Image by Medhum.org and Fred Moon 

Additional Chapters from A Chinese City Doctor’s Notebook

When Your Body Isn’t Yours 

01.12.26 808

From Tigers to Otaku

09.16.25 1687

The Happiest Couple

07.28.25 1423

The Things We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Dying 

05.13.25 2005

In Dangerous Medicine: the Story behind Human Experiments with Hepatitis, Sidney A. Halpern tells the story of America’s decades-long investment in hepatitis inoculation experiments, of which the infamous Willowbrook study was only the final and perhaps most egregious example. The experiments began in 1943 in response to an epidemic of “serum” hepatitis among military draftees who had received yellow fever vaccine. The initial idea was to characterize the infectious agent that caused the disease and to examine its clinical features under controlled conditions. In later years, studies involved testing various preventive measures, both for serum (B) and infectious (A) hepatitis.  

During World War II, the Armed Forces Epidemiology Board (AFEB) initiated a series of inoculation studies among conscientious objectors, prisoners, and mental patients. Most of the subjects were conscientious objectors who volunteered, despite having a wide variety of service options. “Virtually all the men serving as hepatitis subjects spoke of a desire to engage in meaningful and consequential humanitarian service.” (p. 63) Investigators told the volunteers, “It is our judgment that the possibility of permanent or even protracted or severe impairment of liver function following participation in the jaundice experiment is very slight.” (p. 48) At that time, of course, long-term consequences of hepatitis B infection—chronic infection, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma—were unknown. However, many of the subjects did develop clinical disease and at least one subject developed fulminant liver failure and died.  

After the war, hepatitis researchers relied almost exclusively on institutionalized subjects. For example, Joseph Stokes Jr. of the AFEB “not only drew subjects from a mental hospital and multiple institutions for children, but he also enlisted inmates from five state correctional facilities… in New Jersey.” (p. 101) Stokes claimed the research was “beneficial for both the facility and its residents.” (p. 96) Later, researchers at Johns Hopkins, Yale, and the NIH conducted studies at other institutions. For prisoners, participation offered multiple benefits, including the possibility of early release. Among the objectives of studies during the 1950s were attempts to eradicate the infectious agent by sterilizing the infected serum, which were unsuccessful. During these studies, four subjects died of fulminant hepatitis, two at McNeil Island Penitentiary in Washington and two at Lewisburg Penitentiary in Pennsylvania.  

Willowbrook was one of two long-term hepatitis inoculation programs begun in 1956. At the time, Willowbrook State Hospital on Staten Island had one of the largest populations of the cognitively impaired in the USA. It was the overcrowded home to some of the state’s most disabled patients – 39% were non-ambulatory, and 64% unable to feed themselves. A New York University team, later headed by Saul Krugman, professor of pediatrics, established a hepatitis unit which each year admitted approximately forty-eight children between three and ten years of age. Many of the experiments involved injecting subjects with serum containing live infectious (A) or serum (B) hepatitis virus. Major study findings included clearly distinguishing between the natural history and characteristics of hepatitis A and B, and discovering that gamma globulin was an effective means of preventing clinical illness in hepatitis A. 

This decades-long sequence of inoculation studies occurred despite post-war developments in research ethics. The Nuremberg Code was promulgated in 1947, followed in 1964 by the Helsinki Declaration. These documents established principles designed to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects, including respect for individuals, voluntary participation, informed consent, risk/benefit analysis, confidentiality, and scientific integrity. However, at least in the United States, hepatitis investigators, among others (e.g. Tuskegee syphilis study), ignored or evaded these principles.

Except for wartime experiments on conscientious objectors, hepatitis inoculation studies violated almost every ethical principle set forth in the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declaration. The vast majority were conducted in closed institutions among subjects who either lacked the ability to consent, or whose participation was not necessarily voluntary (i.e. prisoners). Where consent was obtained (e.g., from a prisoner or surrogate), the investigators provided incomplete or false information (e.g. stating that risk was minimal), despite several deaths from fulminant liver failure. Yet, Joseph Stokes claimed that virus inoculation could “in our opinion be of benefit to the individual himself.” (p. 98) In addition, coercive tactics were used (e.g., quicker admission to an institution, or earlier release from prison).  

Dangerous Medicine highlights unethical practices in American hepatitis research throughout the mid-20^th century. While contemporary ethical standards had yet to be established, broad ethical principles articulated by the Nuremberg Code and Helsinki Declaration and reiterated (at least, in part) by the American Medical Association, were ignored. Public outcry in 1972 against Willowbrook, Tuskegee and other unethical research led in 1974 to the establishment of the National Commission for Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research and, subsequently, to the Belmont Report, the Common Rule, Institutional Review Boards, and contemporary standards in human subjects research. Interestingly, as far as Dr. Halperin is aware, no follow-up studies have ever been done to ascertain the long-term health consequences of these hepatitis study subjects.  

Dangerous Medicine tells a sobering story, well-worth reading. And, given the prevalence of academic incentives and multiple conflicts of interest, I’m afraid the story of unethical research is far from over 

1. Beecher HK. The Ethics of Clinical Research. New England Journal of Medicine. 1966; 274: 1354-1360. 

Dangerous Medicine: The Story behind Human Experiments with Hepatitis
Sydney A. Halpern
Yale University Press, 2021
304 pages 

Web image of Hepatitis B from Wiki Commons