Chu, Brhlikova and Pollock's article suggests the WHO rethink its decision to include misoprostol on the Essential Medicines List. Their paper is a sad example of workers in an elite setting advocating policies with the potential to endanger the lives of thousands of vulnerable women in low-resource settings. The self-administration of misoprostol, or use by traditional birth attendants, is the most immediate and practical solution to help the least developed countries move towards achieving Millennium Development Goal 5.1 It is true that in some studies oxytocin performs marginally better than misoprostol,2 but as mentioned by Chu et al., oxytocin administration is not currently feasible in most low-resource settings. Misoprostol presents an opportunity to achieve some semblance of health equity.3 The paper is also methodologically and ethically flawed. It reviews the 172 published papers on the use of misoprostol to control postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in the framework of high-quality obstetric services and it explicitly omits studies that are not randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, RCTs are often impossible to conduct in most low-resource settings where maternal death rates are highest. The paper by Prata et al4. included in the review, in fact, was not an RCT. In the case of misoprostol, an undisputed powerful uterotonic, the most practical RCT would compare misoprostol to a placebo, since the reality in low-resource settings leaves only these two options. Consequently, a RCT would randomly allocate the risk of death to women in the control arm when we know that misoprostol might have the potential to save their lives. Since Chu et al. conducted their review; a RCT in Belgaum India found 400 μg sublingual misoprostol to be more effective than 10 IU intramuscular oxytocin, as measured by blood loss (mean blood loss 192 ± 124 mL with misoprostol and 366 ± 136 mL blood loss with oxytocin).5 These data, together with compelling literature from non-RCTs in low-resource settings, strongly endorse the WHO's decision, which weighed all of the evidence, with considerations of the larger context and implications. A reversal of their decision would only hurt the very women that Chu et al. purport to be helping.